ADVERTISEMENT.  
THE Author hath thought fit for the Reasons he hath given you, to alter the Method he laid down in his Preface to the First Dialogue, and to propose the Subjects he treats of in this following Method.   

Bibliotheca Politica: OR AN ENQUIRY INTO The Ancient Constitution OF THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT; Both in respect to the just extent of Regal Power, and the Rights and Liberties of the Subject. Wherein all the Chief Arguments, as well against, as for the late Revolution, are impartially Represented, and considered, in Thirteen Dialogues.  
Collected out of the Best Authors, as well Ancient as Modern.  
To which is added an Alphabetical INDEX to the whole Work.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, near the Oxford-Arms where may be had the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, six, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Dialogues, 1694.   

THE QUESTIONS Debated in the Ensuing Dialogues.  
WHETHER Monarchy be jure Divino, Dialogue the First.  
Whether there can be made out from the Natural, or revealed Law of God, any Succession to Crowns by Divine Right? Dialogue the Second.  
Whether Resistances of the SUPREME POWER, by a whole Nation, or People, in cases of the last extremity can be justified by the Law of Nature, or Rules of the Gospel. Dialogue the Third.  
Whether Absolute Non Resistances of the SUPREME POWERS be enjoined by the Doctrine of the Gospel, and was the Ancient Practice of the Primitive Church, and the constant Doctrine of our Regormed Church of England. Dialogue the Fourth.  
Whether the King be the Sole Supreme Legislative Power of the Kingdom; and whether our Great Councils or Parliaments, be a Fundamental Part of the Government, or else proceeded from the Favour and Concessions of former Kings. Dialogue the Fifth.  
Whether the Commons of England, represented by Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses in Parliament, were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. Dialogue the Sixth.  
Whether the Commons of England, represented by Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses in Parliament, were one of the Three Estates in Parliament, before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. Th● Second Par●● Dialogue the Seven●h.  
A Continuation ●f t●e former Discourse, concerning the Antiquity of the Commons in Parliament, wherein the best Authorities for it are proposed and examined. With an Entrance upon the Question of Non Resistance. The Third Part, Dialogue the Eighth.  
Whether by the Ancient Laws, and Constitutions of this Kingdom, as well as by the Statutes of the 13th and 14th of King Charles the II. all Resistance of the King, or of those Commissioned by him, are expressly forbid, upon any pretence whatsoever.  
And also, whether all those who assisted, his present Majesty King William, either before, or after his coming over, are guilty of the breach of this Law. Dialogue the Ninth.  
I. Whether a King of England can ever fall from, or forfeit his Royal Dignity for any breach of an Original Contract, or wilful violation of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom.  
II. Whether King William (commonly styled the Conqueror) did by the Conquest acquire such an absolute unconditioned Right to the Crown of this Realm, for Himself, and his Heirs, as can never be lawfully resisted; or forfeited for any Maladministration, or Tyranny whatever. Dialogue the Tenth.  
I. In what Sense all Civil Power is derived from God, and in what Sense may be also from the People.  
II. Whether His Present Majesty King William, when Prince of Orange, had a just Cause of War against King james the II.  
III. Whether the Proceedings of His Present Majesty, before he was King, as also of the late Convention, in respect of the said King james, is justifiable by the Law of Nations, and the Constitution of our Government. Dialogue the Eleventh.  
I. Whether the Vote of the late Convention, wherein they declared the Throne to be vacant, can be justified from the Ancient Constitution, and Customs of this Kingdom.  
II. Whether the said Convention declaring King William and Queen Mary to be Lawful and Rightful King and Queen of England, may be justified by the said Constitution.  
III. Whether the Act passed in the said Convention after it became a Parliament, whereby Roman Catholic Princes are debarred from succeeding to the Crown, was according to Law. Dialogue the Twelfth.  
I. Whether an Oath of Allegiance may be taken to a King or Queen de facto, or for the time being.  
II. What is the Obligation of such an Oath, whether to an actual defence of their Title against all Persons whatsoever, or else to a bare submission to their Power.  
III. Whether the Bishops who refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties, could be lawfully deprived of their Bishoprics. Dialogue the Thirteenth.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
THE Author writing these Dialogue purely for the discovery of Truth, and for giving a full and impartial account of all the considerable Arguments and Authorities that have been urged on either side, in the Controversies discussed in the foregoing Dialogues; if therefore any Person who having perused them, is dissatisfied with any of the Arguments, Answers, or Authorities there made use of, and supposes he could confute them, or else put better in their stead, if such Persons do not think it worth while to write a Treatise on purpose on this Subject, they may (if they please) send their Animadversions to the Publisher of these Dialogues, who will undertake to communicate them to the Author, who hereby also engages to Publish them fairly, without any Alterations, or Additions; together with his Answers or Replies to them, if the Subject will admit it; the Persons concerned, may follow the Method used in the foregoing Appendix of Additions, but are desired to send in their Animadversions by the beginning of next Michaelmas Term, when (if sent) they shall be Published.   

Bibliotheca Politica: Or A DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE, WHETHER MONARCHY BE JURE DIVINO: Collected out of the most Approved Authors, both Ancient and Modern.  
Dialogue the First.  
LONDON, Printed for Richard Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, near the Oxford-Arms 1694.   

The Epistle Dedicatory.  
To all Impartial and unprejudiced Readers, especially those of our Hopeful and Ingenious Nobility, and Gentry..  
HAving, out of Curiosity, for some years before the late wonderful happy Revolution, as well a● since, for the satisfaction of my own Conscience, carefully perused all Treatises of any value that have been published of late years concerning the Original, and Rights of Civil Government, a● well of Monarchy, a● the other kinds thereof; as also of the Ancient Government, and Fundamental Constitutions of this Kingdom, I have found it necessary in order to my better retaining of what I had read, and making a more certain judgement thereupon, to commit to writing the most considerable Arguments on both sides, as well of those who have Monarchy to be Jure Devino, as of those who only allow it to Government in general; of those who hold an Absolute Subjection, or Passive Obedience (as their Phrase is) as well as of those who hold Resistance in some Cases necessary: of those that maintain our Monarchy to have been limited, by the very constitution itself, & of those that suppose all our rights, and Liberties, 〈◊〉 the very Being of Parliaments themselves, to owe their Original wholly to the gracious Concession, and Favour of our former Kings. Having made some impartial Collections of this Nature, I showed them to some Friends, who told me they thought they might prove of great use for the satisfying of some men's doubts and scruples concerning Lawful Obedience to the Government of their present Majesties, as looking upon it as the best and most ingenious way of Conviction to propose the Arguments fairly on both sides, without interposing my own judgement, but to leave it to the intelligent, and impartial Reader to embrace that side on which he found the most rational and convincing Arguments: This task, tho' troublesome enough, I was prevailed with to undertake, not for Fame's sake, since I do not desire to be known; but merely for the puplick good and happiness of my Country; but being also satisfied that a Subject of this great important deserved more pains than what I had yet bestowed upon it, and to be handled in a more Artificial Method, than the old dry Scholastic way of Objection, and Solution: I therefore thought that it would prove more pleasant, as well as profitable for the Readers (especially those of our young Nobility and Gentry, for whom I principally design this undertaking) to digest all that I had written on these Subjects into so many distinct Dialogues, or Conversations, supposed to be held between two intimate Friends, who, notwithstanding their different Principles and Opinions in Politics, had always maintained a strict and generous correspondency: but I was the more inclined to this way of writing, not only because I have observed that Controversial matters written by way of Dialogue, according to the true Rules thereof, have very well obtained among all intelligent Readers; but also since the Subjects I treat of are of a nice nature, and that the Collections I had made contained strict Inquiries into the Principles, and Ten●●s, in the Writings of divers persons of Reputation for Learning, and Ingenuity; I was sensible how invidicus a T●●k it must be to write on purpose against so many great men, as also how troublesome and ●edious is would prove to myself, as well as the Readers, to pursue and confute the Opinions of any Author page by page, since it must be chiefly imputed to that manner of managing of Controversies, that answers to Books prove so unacceptable to the World. And though I grant that this way of writing hath also its difficulties and objections, as being more diffusive, and so taking up more time both to write and read Discourses Dialogue-wise; where either one or other of the Disputants 〈◊〉 often apt to rove from the Subject; ye● I must also affirm, that this may be in great part prevented by the Writer, who may, if he plea●●● take care to keep close to the Question, and not start afresh, Har●, 〈◊〉 the old one is run down; and a● for the diffusiveness of Dialogues above Polemical Discourses, that is no considerable Objection, since a man may either make, or answer Objections in almost as few words this way as the other. And though it be granted that matter of ●een form in Dialogues the more tedious, yet the Reader, as well as Traveller, will find that the 〈◊〉 of the Road often 〈…〉 for its 〈◊〉 somewhat 〈◊〉. But whether I have truly put 〈◊〉 the Rules of Dialogue in that, 〈◊〉 the ●●suing Discourses I intent to publish on these Subjects, Ti●●st 〈◊〉 to the Readers. judgement; but this much I think I may safely affirm that I have carefuly avoided all bitter, & reflecting language on either side, since I design these Discourses for common places of Ar●gi●●●●nt●● no● forms of 〈◊〉. And I have also declined showing myself a Party, or giving my own opinion in any Question proposed, and therefore I have 〈…〉 either 〈◊〉 my Disputants converting each other to his own Opinion; since I know nothing is more easy in writing of Dialogues, well as Romances, than to make the Knight Efrane always beat the Giant.  
But it is fit I give you some account of this present▪ Discourse, as also of the rest that may follow it. This first Dialogue than 〈◊〉 chiefly on this 〈◊〉. Whether any particular Species of Government is of Divine Right, or Institution ● The next shall be, Whether there can be made out from the natural, or revealed Law of God any Succession to Crowns by Divine Right? The third and fourth, Whether Passive Obedience (as it is called) or an absolute Nonresistance of the Supreme Powers, in any case whatsoever, be enjoyed by the Law of Nature, and the holy Scriptures? As also, Whether this hath always been the Doctrine of our Reformed Church of England? The fifth concerns the Original of Civil Authority, in what sense it is derived from God, and in what form the People, and whether their Consent be always necessary to make any Government to be obeyed for Conscience sake? The sixth shall treat of the Original, and Fundamental Constitution of our English Government, whether it was an absolute or limited Monarchy in its first Institution; and whether the King is, and hath been the sole Legislative Power of the Nation? The seventh, Whether the Parliament, or great Counsel, owe its Original to the mere Grace, and Favour of our Kings, or whether it is not as Ancient as the Constitution itself? The eighth and last, Whether our late Revolution, and the Conventions and present Parliament's Declaration, and Recognition of their present Majesties K. William and Q. Marry, be not Legal, and according to the Ancient Constitution, and Fundamental Government of this Kingdom? and consequently, Whether the Oath of Allegiance may not be taken to them, not only as King and Q. de facto but de jure?  
In all which Discourses I have considered and contracted the best Arguments that I could find made use of by the most considerable both Ancient and Modern Authors, either in Latin, or English, especially the Pamphlets that have been writ on either side since the late Revolution: But as for those in our own Language, whenever any Author speaks so well, and argues so closely, that to put it into other words would make it worse, I have still put the Arguments of either one, or other of the Disputants in his own word, though, because I would not be thought guilty of Plagiary, I have truly quoted the book and page from whence I took it, and I hope no Author will take it ill, if I have made bold sometimes to contract their Arguments, without altering their sense, or words farther, than by putting in or out a word or expression to make the style run the more smoothly, and I desire they would not think I write on purpose to confute them: since I freely declare my design is not to write against any man's Opinions, as they are his, but only freely to examine them, in order to an impartial discovery of the Truth; and since some of them may have been perhaps, too commonly, and favourably received by our ordinary Gentry and Clergy, if therefore any ingenious person will take upon him farther to assert or vindicate any Opinion here questioned either by the one or other of our Disputants, and will clearly, and fairly show me where my Argument might 〈◊〉 been put more home, or any Objection more solidly answered, shall be so far from taking it amiss, that I shall rather give him my thanks for his pains; and do here farther promise to insert all, or at least the substance of his Arguments under their poper Heads, with all due acknowledgements to their Authors, if ever the Discourses will bear a second Impression; only I desire him, whosoever he shall be, so far to imitate the Gentlemen who are supposed to converse in these Dialogues, as to for. bear all rude Reflections, and course Language, otherwise I hope they will give me their pardon if I only take notice of their Reasons, and pass by their Passion.  
Nor would I have any Candid Reader to slight the two first Dialogues, because they treat of Opinions at present out of fashion. viz. The Divine Right of Monarchy and Succession from the Patriarchal Power given by God to Adam, since you may easily remember that it is not many years ago, that our Pulpits and Presses would scarce suffer any other Doctrines either to be Preached or Published, than on these Subjects: It faring with some Political Opinions, as with Fashions, which are never so generally received, and worn, as when they have been in Vogue at Court. Those Divines and Lawyers who were the first Inventors, or new Vampers of them, commonly receiving the greatest Rewards and Prefermets', who (as the Court Tailors did Fashions) could invent such Doctrines, and Opinions, as were most burdensome, and uneasy to all sort of People, except a few Great ones, who were to gain by them; and I desire you also farther to consider, that however odd, or unreasonable these Doctrines may seem to most men, yet certainly they must have, at least, a great appearance of Truth, since they were able to Captivate the Reasons of the Major part of both Houses of Convocation in the beginning of the Reign of King James the First, they then declaring them by several Cannons, made on purpose, the only sure Foundations of all Civil Authority, as also of Obedience thereunto; as plainly appears by that late Treatise which goes under the name of Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book. And though neither the King, nor Parliament, than thought fit to give those Cannons the stamp of Civil Authority, whereby they might become Laws: Yet for all this, it did not hinder divers Learned, and Ingenious men, as well of Clergy, as Laity, from embracing these Opinions, such as were Sir Robert Filmer, and his Vindicatior Mr. B. as also the most Reverend and Learned Bishop Sanderson, with divers others of note, whose Arguments I have made use of, and considered in the two first Dialogues, and that in a way as little reflective as possible; since I know what is due to the memory and fame of such great, and worthy Persons; and therefore I have only made use of the initial Letters of their Names, or Titles of their Books in the Margin, with an Index at the beginning of each Discourse, showing what Book each mark does signify; which Method I have pursued through all the rest of these Discourses; and of what is not so mark●, I desire the Reader to look upon the words, if not the sense, to be my own; since I do not pretend to be an Inventor of new Notions in Politics, and there is no man more sensible than myself of that Old Latin Sentence, Nihil dictum, quod non dictum prius.  
But tho' I have already finished almost all the Discourses, on the Subjects above mentioned, yet am I not very fond of publishing them, after so many several Treatises that have been written thereon; tho' my design be for the saving of the Readers money as well as time, to reduce what is material in all of them into so many 12 d. Books, and therefore I have at present published this first Dialogue, as an Introduction to the rest, that according to the success I find this meets with abroad, I may be more, or less encouraged to proceed● nor ●eed it seem strange to any considering person, that I choose rather to publish one Discourse at a time; since it is but too public a Complaint how scarce a Commodity Money (as well as Paper) is at this time.  
And therefore I have given the Printer leave to publish one of these Discourses in a month, or oftener, as he shall think good, since I am sensible the greatest part of common Reader would rather part with eight or ten shillings at so many several times, than all at once; and have therein endeavoured to imitate the Great Council of the Nation, who have thought fit to divide the present Pole-Tax into four quarterly Payments.  
I have but one thing more to advertise the Reader; viz. That tho' the Title of this Discourse mentions no more than the discussing the Question Divine Right of Monarchy, yet the natural Powers of Fathers, and Masters of Families, and Freemen, are here distinctly treated of, and closely enquired into, as being the first Elements, or Principles of all Civil Powers, as those alone out of which they could be at first regularly made, and into which they are upon the dissolution of Civil Governments again to be resolved.  
To conclude therefore, I hope that the Arguments in this, and all the following Discourses, may prove so plai● and convincing to all careful, and unprejudiced Readers, that they may as easily discover the Truth, as an honest unbyass'd juryman can a● a Trial judge on which side the Right and justice of the Cause inclines, upon the barehearing the Evidence on both sides; nay, even before the Court hath summed it up: Since, I think it may prove more useful, as well as divertive, to hear, or peruse the Arguments, and Reasons, in short, that may be brought o● either side, and thereon to pass a Judgement, than to Read over the tedious and Voluminous De●ds, and Evidences of the Estate in Question; But on which side soever you bring in your Verdict, I heartily wish that God would direct your minds, and guide your judgements to find out and embrace the Truth, which as it was the only End of my writing, so it is now and will be also of publishing this and those other Treatises, I intent on the Subjects I have before mentioned.  
Adieu.   

The Subject of the First Dialogue.  
WHether Hereditary Monarchy be of Divine Right or Institution?  
Authors made use of in this Dialogue, and how denoted in the Margin.  

1. Sir Robert Filmers's. 

1. Observations on Grotius de Belli & Pa●u. R. F. O. G.  
2. Patriarcha F. P.  
3. Anarchy of mixed or limited Monarchy. F. A. M M.  
4. Preface to the Observations on Aristotle F. P. O.  
5. Directions for Obedience to Governors. D. O. G.    
2. Mr. Bohun's 

Preface to Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha. B. P. P.  
His Conclusion to the same. B. C. P.    
3. Patriarcha non Monarcha. P. N. M.  
4. Grotius de jure Belli & Pacis. G. I. B.  
5. Pufendorf de jure Naturae & Gentium. P. I. N.  
6. Two Treatises of Government. T. T. G.  
7. Rushworth's Historical Collections. R. H. C.  
8. Bishop Sanderson's preface to the power of the Prince, etc. B. S. P. P.    

Adertisement.  
I Desire always to be understood, that when I make use of the word People, I do not mean the vulgar or mixed multitude, but in the state of Nature the whole Body of Freemen and women, especially the Fathers and Masters of Families; and in a Civil State, all degrees of men, as well the Nobility and Clergy, as the Common People.   

THE First Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. FREEMAN, a Gentleman, AND Mr. MEANWELL, a Civil Lawyer, Supposed to be immediately upon the late KING Iames' first Departure.  F. 
GOOD Morrow Sir, what! at your Study thus early this Morning.  M. 
That is no wonder, if you were acquainted with my Hours: But pray Sir, may I not likewise ask you what extraordinary occasion brings you out of your Lodgings so much sooner than your ordinary time?  F. 
Why Sir, I'll tell you: Being awake very early this Morning, and not able to sleep for thinking on the great Change, that might happen, let either the King or Prince get the better: and hearing some odd Rumours last Night of the King's Intentions to go away: I was resolved to get up, and go to the Coffee-house, to hear what News; where I had scarc● sat● down, before a Gentleman comes in from Whitehall, and brings us a certain account, that the King withdrew himself this Morning between three and four of the Clock, no Body knows whither, (tho' most believe he is gone after the Queen into France) which I thought would be so surprising (I will not say welcome) to you, that being so near your Lodgings, I thought it would be worth while to step up, and tell you of it, and take your Thoughts of this great (and I hope happy) Change, which so great a Revolution is likely to produce in this Nation.  M. 
I thank you, Sir, for your kindness, tho' it is not half an Hour ago, that one I employ in some Business relating to a Client of mine, came hither, and gave me the same account that you do, tho' it was no great surprise to me, for ever since Sunday that the King sent the Queen and Prince away, I believed that he gave the Game for lost.  F. 
I must confess I was of another Mind, and thought that when he had secured the Queen and Child, he would have had one Brush with the Prince before he could have got to London, and if he had the worst of i●, he could have but gone away at last. But to leap away on this Manner, and to lose Three Kingdoms without ever striking one stroke, it is not, I confess, suitable to that high Character his Admirer have always had of his Courage and Conduct.  M. 
Alas! Good King what would you have him do? Or whom could he rely on? When some of his near Relations, and divers of those whom he had raised almost from nothing had deserted him? How could he then trust an Army of Mercenaries, who being most of them but the Dregs of the People, would, it is likely, rather have delivered him up to the Prince, than have ventured their Lives for him.  F. 
What you have said concerning his Majesty's Relations and Confidents deserting him, makes rather against than for the King's Cause; since it cannot be supposed they would have left a Prince to whom they were so much obliged, to join themselves with his Enemy, from whom they had no reason to expect greater Advantages, than they had already, unless they had been satisfied in their Conscience● that the Protestant Religion Established in these Nations, and also our Civil Rights and Liberties were in imminent danger of being utterly lost and destroyed; and tho' I grant that some of the King's Officers and Soldiers went over to the Prince; yet considering how few they were, that did so, not being (as I am credibly informed) above seven or eight hundred Men at the most; and what great numbers of Men he had left with him, he might methings, have turned out those Officers, he suspected, and put others in their Rooms, who would have Engaged to Live and Die with him, and if this would ●ot have done, he might have sent those Regiments he most suspected back to London: And then reckoning the Scotch and Irish Forces that came lately over, besides the Papists he had in his Army, and those who having more Courage, than Conscience, could never expect 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 those few Troops, have made up as good, if not a better Army than the Princes; and so need not have scampored last Week from Salisbury in that haste he did, whilst the Enemy was near fifty Miles off. But as it is, I am very well satisfied with all that hath happened in this great Revolution, and convinced of the Truth of that old saying▪ Ques perdora vult jupiter, demantat pri●●.  M. 
So far I go along with you, that God doth often make use of the Wickedness and Treachery of Men, to bring his great Designs about▪ But whether God hath ordained this great Revolution, as you call it, for a Deliverance or Punishment to this Nation, I am yet in doubt, for if you please to consider how much those two Causes have contributed to this turn of Affairs, I suppose if you argue according to my Principles we must own that tho' this Change hath happened by God's permissive Providence, (as all things else tho' never so ill) yet whether he doth approve of ●ll that hath been done to procure it, I much doubt; since if divers of our Nobility, with some of our Clergy had not quitted their Doctrines of Passive Obedience, and Non Resistance, so long owned by the Church of England, this Revoluion could not have happened at all, or at least not so suddenly, as it did: So that indeed I must confess, I am not only grieved at his Majesty's hard Fortune, but also stand amazed, and cannot but reflect with wonder on the strange Vicissitude of Worldly Affairs, to see a Great King, who but last Week commanded a Powerful Army of more than Forty Thousand 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 sufficiently Bewail the King's Misfortunes, who hath been at once betrayed by the ill Advice of his Counsellors, the Treachery of his Friends, and though Cowardice of his Soldiers?  F. 
Methinks Sir. there is no such great cause of wonder, much less of concern in all this: For who can much admire that a Prince should be thus used, who had not only provoked a Powerful Enemy to invade him from Abroad, but (by industriously labouring to introduce Popery and Arbitrary Government at Home) had lost the Hearts of almost all, except his Popish Subjects, insomuch that many of his own Soldiers were so terrified with the Thoughts of being discarded (like the Protestant Army in Ireland) to make room for Irish and French Papists, that they had very little Courage to Fight, when they saw cashiering was the best Reward they could expect, if they proved Victorious: And who can much pity a Prince, who would rather lose the Affections of his People, than displease a few Priests and Jesuits: So that if he suffers he may thank himself; it not being Religion, but Superstition, which brought this Misfortune upon him. Since the King having got a Prince of Wales, and (as it is highly suspected) joined himself in a strict League with France for the Extirpation of Heretics, it laid an absolute necessity upon the Prince of Orange to come over, that by the Assistance of the States of Holland, he might not only relieve us, but vindicate his own, and her Royal Highness his Princess' Right to the Succession, and secure his Country from a dangerous and powerful invasion, which it was threatened with both by Sea and Land, whenever the Kings of France and England should be at leisure to join their Forces to make War upon them; which you know all Europe hath expected for above these two Years last passed.  M. 
These things were somewhat, if they could be proved; but indeed, to deal freely with you, I look upon this League, and the Story of the Suppositious Birth of the Prince of Wales, as mere Calumnies cast out of Wicked and Crafty Men to render the King more odious to his People.  F. 
Nay, Sir, you don't hear me positively affirm, either the one or the other; since I grant they are not yet made out; but whatsoever will consider all the Circumstances of the Birth of this Child cannot but be strongly inclined to believe it an Imposture, notwithstanding all the Depositions that are taken to the contrary. And as for the French League, you may be sure if there be any such thing, it is kept very private; and yet I must tell you there are very high and violent Presumptions to believe it true, or else why should the King of France in a late Memorial to the Pope, complain that his Holiness by Opposing his Interest in Europe had hindered him in those great Designs he had for the Extirpation of Heresy, by which he must surely intend England or Holland; Protestantism being sufficiently expelled out of his own Country already. And he could not do it in either of the other without the Consent and Assistance of his Brother the King of England? Or to what purpose should the King of England join with France to ruin Holland, and his own Son in Law into the Bargain, but to make a War merely for Religion; since neither the Dutch, nor the Prince their Stadt-holder, gave him till now any just Provocation?  M. 
Well, however, these are but bare suspicions and presumptions, at most, and not proofs; and therefore in a doubtful matter, as this is, if we ought to judge favourably of the Actions of others, much more of Princes, whose Councils and Actions, tho' private, yet are still exposed to the Censure and Calumnies of their Enemies, and therefore I hope you will not blame me, if I freely confess, that I am deeply concerned to see an innocent and Misled King forced to seek his Bread in a Foreign Land, and the more, since many of the Nobility, Gentry and Common People have contributed so much to it, by taking up Arms against him; and that so great a part of his own Army, and Officers should contrary to their Allegiance and Trust reposed in them, run over to the Enemy. Nay, that some of our Bishops and Clergymen should, contrary to the so often acknowledged Doctrines of Passive● Obedience and Nonresistance, not only Countenance, but be likewise active in such desperate undertake, and this in-direct opposition to the known Laws of God and this Kingdom; which must needs make our Church a Scorn to our Enemies the Papists, and a Shame and Reproach to all Protestant Churches abroad, and render the people of England odious to all the Crowned Heads in Europe.  F. 
Well, Sir, I see you are very warm, and I hope, more than the cause deserves. You may Judge as favourably of the King's Proceedings, and as hardly of the Actions of the Nobility, Gentry, Clergy and People in this matter as you please. But yet I think I can make it as clear as the Day, that they have done nothing by joining in Arms with he Prince of Orange, but what is justifiable by the Principles of Self preservation, the Fundamental Constitutions of the Government, and a just Zoal for their Religion and Civil Liberties, as they stand secured by our Laws; unless you would give the King a Power of making up Papists, and Slaves whenever he pleased. But as for your Doctrine of an Absolute Obedience without Reserve, and the Divine Right of Monarchy and Succession, you need not be much concerned whether the Papists laugh at you or no, since there are very few of them (if any) who are such Fools themselves as to believe such futilous Opinions. But indeed they have more reason to laugh at you whilst you maintain, than when you quit them; since as they have only rendered you a fit Object of their Scorn, so they would have made you but a more cas●● Sacrifice to their Malice. For what can Thiefs desire more, than that those they design to Rob, should think it unlawful to resist them? And what could the Papists have wished for more, than that our Hands being fotterred by this Doctrine of an indefinite Passive-Obedience, our Lives, Religion and Liberties should lie at their Mercy; Which how long we should have enjoyed, whenever they thought themselves ●●rong enough to take them away, the late cruel Persecutions, and Extirpations of the Protestants in France, Savey, Hungary, and other places have proved but too fatal Examples, and therefore no wonder (let your highflown Churchmen write or preach what they please) if the Body of the Nobility, Gentry, and People of England could never be persuaded to swallow Doctrines so fatal to their Religion, and destructive to their Civil Rights and Liberties both as Mon and Christians.  
And as for the Antiquity of these Doctrines, I think they are so far from being the Ancient Tenets of the Church of England, that they are neither to be found in its Chatechism, Thirty Nine Articles, or Book of Homilies, taken in their true Sense and Meaning; though indeed there is something that may tend that way in some of the late Church-Canons about fifty years ago, but I do not look upon them as the Ancient Established Doctrine of our Church, because these Canons are not confirmed, but condemned by two Acts of Parliaments, and consequently never legally Established as they ought to be by the public Saction of the King and Nation? Our Old Queen Elix Divines, 
Vid● Bilson of Christian Subjection, Edi●. 1586. p. 2●9, 280.  such as Bishop Bilson and Mr. Hooker being wholly ignorant of these Doctrines, nay, teaching in several places of their Writings the quite contrary. No● was this Doctrine of absolute Subjection, and Nonresistance ever generally maintained, until about the middle of King Iame's Reign, when some Court Bishops and Divines began to make new Discoveries in Politics as well as Divinity, and did by their Preaching and Writings affirm that the King had an absolute Power over men's Estates. 
Hooke●'s Ecclesias. Policy, L. 1. p. 11.  So that it was unlawful in any Case to disobey or resist his Personal Command●, if they were not directly contrary to the Law of God, as may appear by Dr. Harslet then Bishop of Chichester, his Sermon upon this Text, Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, wherein he maintained, That all the Subject's Goods and Money were Caesar's, that is, the Kings, and therefore were not to be denied him if he demanded them for the public use; which Sermon, (though ordered by the Lords and Commons to be Burnt by the Hangman) yet was so grateful to the Court, that he was so far from being out of Favour for it, that he was not long after Translated to Norwich, and from thence to the Archbishopric of York. So likewise about the beginning of the Reign of King Charles the First, Dr. Manwaring preached before him, the substance of whose Sermon was somewhat higher than the former, 
R. H. C. p. 609.  (viz.) That the King was not bound by the Laws of the Land, not to impose Taxes or Subsidies without the Consent of Parliament, and that when they were so imposed, the Subjects were obliged in Conscience, and upon pain of Damnation to pay them; which if they refused to do they were guilty of Disloyalty and Rebelion. For which Sermon he was Impeached by the Commons in Parliament 4. Car. I▪ and thereupon Sentenced by the House of Lords, to be Disabled to hold or receve any Ecclesiastical Living, or Secular Office whatever, and also to be Imprisoned, and Fined a Thousand Pound. Notwithstanding all which, we find him presently after the Parliament was dissolved, not only at Liberty, 
Ib. 635.  but also presented by the King to a Rich Benefice in Essex, and not long after made Bishop of St. David's. So likewise: one Dr. Sibthorp about the same time preached an Assize Sermon at Northamt●n, on Rom. 13.7. wherein he maintained much the like Doctrines, as that it was the King alone that made the laws and that nothing could excuse from an active Obedience to his Commands, but what is against the Law of God and Nature: And that Kings had Power to lay Pole Money upon their Subject Heads▪ But this much I have read, that this Sermon was Licenced by Dr. Laud then Bishop of St. David's, 
Vide Archbishop Abbot 's Narrative, R. H. C. p. 434.  because Archbishop Abbot had refused to do it as contrary to Law, for which he was very much frwoned upon at Court, and it is supposed to have been one of the main causes of his Suspension from his Archepiscopal Jurisdiction, which not long after happened. But as for this Sioth●rp, though he lived long after, (even till the Kings Return) yet being (as Archbishop Abbot describes him) a man of but small Learning, I cannot learn that he was ever preferred higher than the Parsonages of Barchley, and in Northamptonshire.  
But I find a New Doctrine broached by some Modern Bishops and Divines about the middle of the Reign of King james the first. That Monarchy was of Divine Right, or Institution at least; so that any other Government was scarce warrantable or lawful; and of this New Sect we must more especially take notice of Sir R. F. who hath written several Treatises to prove this Doctrine, and which is worse, That all Monarches being Absolute, they cannot be limited or obliged either by Oaths, Laws or Contracts with their People, 
F. P. c. 3. § 7, 8.  farther than they themselves shall think fit, or consistent with their supposed Prerogatives; of which they only are to be the Sole Judges: So that whoever will but consider from the Reign of our four last Kings, what strong inclinations they had to render themselves Absolute, and that few Divines, or Common, or Civil Lawyers were preferred in their Reigns to any considerable Place, either in Church or State, 
See Cowel 's Interpreter Titles King, Parliament, Prerogative.  who did not maintain these New Opinions both on the Bench and in the Pulpit: You need not wonder when the Stream of Court Preferment ran so strong that way, if so many were carried away with it; since it was but to expose themselves to certain misery, if not to utter ruin, to oppugn it. All who offered by Speaking or Writing to maintain the contrary, being branded with the odious Names of Puritans, Commonwealths-men, Whigs, etc. Some of whom you may remember were not long since imprisoned, Fined, nay, Whipped for so doing. So that it was no wonder if there were but very few to be found who durst with so great hazard speak what they thought, nor could any thing but the imminent danger upon our Laws, Religion and Properties, proceeding from the King's illegal practices have opened the Eyes of a great many Noblemen, Gentlemen and Clergy, who contrary to the Opinions so much lately in vogue, did generously venture both their Lives and Estates, to join their Arms with the Prince of Orange against the King's unjust and violent Proceedings.  M. 
I do not doubt, notwithstanding all you have said, to prove before I have done, these Doctrines of Nonresistance, and of the Divine institution of Monarchy to be most consonant to the Word of God, and to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church, and also to that of our Reformed Church of England. Nor were those Divines you mention in K. james the First's time, the Authors or▪ inventors of these Doctrines which were publicly received, and Decreed by both Houses of that Convocation which began in the first Year of K. james, and continued till the Year 1610. as appears by divers Manuscript Copies of the Acts or Decrees of this Convocation, the Original of which was lately in the Library founded by Dr. Cousins late Bishop of Durham, besides a very fair Copy, now to be seen in the Archbishop's Library at Lambeth: which if you please to peruse, you may be quickly satisfied that the Church of England (long before ever Sir R. F. writ thoses Treatises you mention) held that Civil Power was given by God to Adam and Noah, and their Descendants, as also that absolute subjection and obedience was due to all Sovereign Powers, without any resistance; as claiming under those Original Charters: These Doctrines being there fully and plainly laid down and asserted, as the Doctrines of our Church: So that you deal very unjustly with the memory of those Divines, as also of Sir R. F. to make them the first breachers of it, whereas you may find that it was the opinion of the whole Convocation, for many years before ever those Divines, or that Gentleman began to Preach, or write upon this subject; Nor were these the only men who maintained these Principles, but Archbishop Usher and Bishop Sanderson, (whom I suppose you will not reckon among your flattering Court Bishops) have as learnedly and fully asserted those Doctrines, you so much condemn, as any of that party you find fault with, and have very well proved all resistance of the Supreme Powers to be unlawful, not only in absolute but limited Monarchies Of the Truth of which you may sufficiently satisfy yourself, if you will but take the Pains to read the Learned and Elaborate Treatises written by those good Bishops, (viz.) The Lord Primate Usher's Power of the Prince, and Obedience of the Subject, and the Bishop of Lincoln's Preface before it, as also the said Bishop's Treatise the jura nouto, written whilst he was Doctor of the Chair in Oxford.  F. 
I must beg your pardon, Sir, if I have never yet seen or heard of that Convocation Book you mention, much less of the opinions therein contained, since there is no mention made of their proceedings, in any History or Record of those times either Ecclesiastical or Civil, as I know of. But this much I am certain of; That these Determinations or Decrees you mention, (call them which you please) never received the Royal Assent, much less the confirmation of the King and Parliament, one of which (if not both) is certainly requisite to make any opinion either in Doctrine or Discipline to be received by us Laymen for the Doctrine of the Church of England, otherwise the Canons made in 1640 would oblige us in Conscience, tho' they stand at this day condemned by Act of Parliament: so that however, even according to your own Principles, you cannot urge this Book as the Authoritative Doctrine of the Church of England, unless their Determinations had received the Royal Assent: which you yourself do not affirm they had, for you very well know that, as in Civil Laws, no Bill is any more than waste Parchment if once the King hath refused to give his Royal Assent to it, so likewise in Spiritual or Ecclesiastical matters, I think no Decrees or Determinations of Convocations are to be received, as binding either in points of Faith or Manners by us Laymen, till they have received the confirmation of the King, and the two Houses of Parliament; or otherwise the consequence would be, that if the King who hath the nomination of all the Bishoprics and Deaneries, as also of most of the great Prebendaries in England, of which the Convocation chiefly consists, should nominate such men into those places, which would agree with him to alter the present established Reformed Religion ●n Government, and to bring in Popery or Arbitrary Power, the whole Kingdom would be obliged in Conscience to embrace it, or at least to submit without any contraditio● to those Canons the King and Convocation should thus agree to make, which of how fatal a consequence it might prove to the Reformed Religion in this Kingdom, this King's choice of Bishops and Deans, such as he thought most fit for his turn, would have taught ●s when it had been too late.  M. 
You very must mistake me Sir, if you believe that I urge the Authority of this Book to you, as containing any Ecclesiastical Canons, which I grant must have the Royal Assent, but whether that of the two Houses of Parliament, I very much question, since the King without the Parliament is Head of the Church, and divers Canons made under Queen Elizabeth, and King james are good in Law at this day, tho' they were never confirmed by Parliament. But I only urge the Authority of this Book to you, to let you see that these Doctrines are more Ancient than the time you prescribe, and also that the Major part of the Bishops and clergy of the Church of England, held these Doctrines which you so much condemn, long before those Court Bishops or Divines you mention; meddled with this controversy, and I suppose we may as well quote such a Convocation Book, as a Testimony of their sense upon these subjects, as we do the French, Helvetian, or any other Protestant Churches Confessions of Faith, drawn up and passed in Synod of their Divines, tho' without any confirmation of the Civil Power.  F. 
If you urge this Convocation Book only as a Testimony, and not Authority, I shall not contend any further about it, but then let me tell you, that if the Canons or Decrees of a Convocation, though never so much confirmed by King and Parliament, do no further oblige in Conscience, than as they are agreeable to the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, sure their determinations without any such Authority can only be looked upon as the Opinions of so many particular private Men. And tho' I have a very great Reverence for the Judgements of so many Learned Men; yet granting those Doctrines you mention to be contained in this Book, I think notwithstanding, that we may justly examine them according to the Rules of Reason, and express Testimonies of Scripture, by either of which, when I see you can convince me of the falsehood of my Tenets, I shall count myself happy to be be●●er informed. But as for those Treatises of Bishop Usher, and Bishop ●anderson which you now mentioned, I must needs confess they are learnedly and elaborately written, and tho' I am against Rebellion as much as any man, and do believe that subjects may too often be guilty of it, yet am I not therefore convinced that it is absolutely unlawful in all cases whatsoever, even in the most Absolute and Arbitrary sort of Civil Government, for the People when violently and intolerably oppressed, to take up Arms and resist such unjust violence, or to join with any Foreign Prince who will be so generous as to take upon him their deliverance. So that though I freely acknowledge that those good Bishops you mention, were very Pious and Learned men, ●im ●hat I bear great reverence to their memories, yet doth it not therefore follow, that I must o●● them to be Infallible, or as great Politicians as they were Learned Divines; or that they understood the Laws of England as well as they did the Scriptures or Fathers; and perhaps there may be a great deal, more said on their behalf than can be for divers others, who have since Wekeen and Pr●● so much upon those subjects, for if you please to consider the times of their writing those Treatises, you will find them written about the beginning or middle of the late Civil Wars, which they supposed to be beg●n and carried on contrary to all Law and Justice, under the pretenced Authority of the two Houses of Parliament, against King Charles the First; and therefore it is no wonder if they thought themselves obliged to Write very high, for the Prerogatives and Rights of Princes, and the absolute obedience of Subjects when they saw even the King's just and lawful Prerogatives in danger to be taken from him by force. And altho' they may perhaps stretch several of these points too far, yet this may be very excusable, since it is a hard matter to Write so exactly against any error, as not to fall into the contrary Extreme, which nevertheless may sometimes prove useful enough: As those who would set a stick strait are forced to bend it to the other side: and so these Doctrines which might then be seasonable, whilst the People carried on their animosities against the King, farther than in Justice they ought, have not now the same reason and cogency, when this King hath so manifestly endeavoured to pull up the very foundations both of our Religion and Government▪ So that I am persuaded, could those good Bishops have lived by the course of Nature to our times, and have seen the ill and fatal use hath been made of those Doctrines by those in Power, they would either absolutely have renounced them, or at least have been very cautious how they published such doubtful opinions to the World.  M. 
I must beg your pardon Sir, if I am not of your Opinion, for I look upon the absolute subjection of the subjects to the higher or supreme Powers to be a thing of such constant and eternal Obligation, that no change of times or circumstances can ever dispense with us in, or discharge us from it; and I am so far from believing that those good Bishops would ever have recanted their opinions in this particular, that had th●y lived until this time, I think they could not, without the imputation of time servers, have forborn publicly to declare and maintain them: for sure we must not deny or lay aside true Principles, because of some inconveniences or hardships that may thereby happen to our Religion, Persons or Civil Liberties, since that were the ready way to give a Licence to the rankest Rebellion, and the highest disobedience to the Supreme Powers, for so the Primitive Christians might have claimed a right to Rebel against the Heathen Emperors, pretending they were not bound to submit themselves unto them, because they persecuted God's Church, and put the Christians to death for no other reason than that they were such. Whereas we may plainly see St. Peter and St. Paul teach us another lesson, and command absolute subjection without reserve to the higher Powers, which were then the Tyrannical persecuting Emperors, and that the Primitive Christians, who immediately followed the Apostles, understood them in this sense; and altho' they had sufficient strength, yet thought it unlawful to resist those heathen Emperor's under which they lived. I refer you to that vast Treasure of Quotations, out of the Fathers and Ancient Church Historians, collected with such Learning and Industry by the Lord Primate Usher in the second Treatise.  F. 
It is not my intention Sir, at present to fall into a severe examination of so many Texts of Scripture and Quotations of Fathers and other Authors, as are made use of by those Learned Men you lately mentioned, which require more consideration than our short time will now afford, therefore the best method I can propose to you for the true stating and understanding this Noble Controversy, were first to look into the Natural state of Mankind, after the Fall of Adam, and inquire, First, If God has appointed any kind of Government by Divine Institution before another. Secondly, If he has not; how far Civil power may be looked upon as from God, and in what sense, as derived from the people. Thirdly, Whether Resistance by the Subjects, in some Cases, be incompatible and absolutely destructive to all Civil Government whatsoever. Fourthly, Whether such Resistance be absolutely contrary to the Doctrine of Christ contained in the Scriptures, and that of the Primitive Church pursuant thereunto. Fifthly, Whether such Resistance be contrary to the Constitution of this Government. and the express Laws of the Land. Sixthly, Whether what has been done by the Prince of Orange, and those of the Nobility, Gentry, etc. in pursuance of these Principles, has been done according to the Law of Nature, the Scriptures, and Ancient Constitutions of this Kingdom; which material Points, if we can once subtle, and discover where the Truth lies, it will prove the clearest Comment and best Interpretation of all those places of Scripture, and Quotations of Fathers, and other Authors which are Cited by Divines or other Writers, for the Doctrines of the Divine Institution of Monarchy, and the Absolute Subjection of Subjects without any Resistance. For when we have once discovered what the Law of Nature or right Reason dictates; I think we may rest satisfied that that is the true Sense 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 Reason; or incompatible with the happiness and welfare of Mankind in this Life; as the Revealed Will of God does chiefly regard that which is to come.  M. 
I do very well approve of your Proposal, and therefore pray give me first your Opinion on those Heads, that I may see how far I may agree with you, and wherein I must differ from you; for I do assure you my Intention is not to argue with you merely for disputes sake, but that we may correct the Errors of each others understanding, and discover, if it be possible, where the Truth lies; therefore pray Sir, begin first with the Natural state of Mankind, but remember to do it like a Christian, and one that believes that we are all derived from one first Parents, and that we did not at first spring up out of the Earth like Mushrooms, or as the Men whom Ovid ●eigns to have been produced of the Dragon's Teeth Cadmus is feigned to have sown, who as soon as they sprung out of the Earth, immediately fell a Fight and Killing each other.  F. 
I thank you Sir for your honest and kind advice, and shall therefore in the first place suppose, that the necessity as well as being of all Civil Government, proceeded from the Fall of Adam, since if that had not been, we had still lived as the Poet's fancy Men did under the Golden Age, without any need of Kings or Commonwealths to make Laws against Oppression, Theft, Adultery, Murder, and those other Injuries which Men are now too apt in this lapsed corrupt state to commit against each other, much less would there have been any need of Judges or Executioners, either to sentence or punish Offenders, for if Man had continued as free from Sin as he was in Paradise, there could have been no need of a Supreme Coercive Power, since every Man would have performed his Duty towards God and his Neighbour without any punishment or constraint, So that all the Authority that can be supposed could have been then necessary for the Good and Happiness of Mankind, would have been no more than that of the Husband over his Wife, or that of Parents over their Children, the former of which would not have been an Absolute Coercive power neither, but rather such a power as his understanding then had over the inferior Faculties of his Soul, joined with a voluntary submission of her will to his, the Coercive power of the Husband, and his more absolute Rule over her being conferred by God on Adam, and in him on all his posterity after the Fall, for the regulating and restraining the unreasonable desires and passions of the Woman, which then began to exert and show themselves in her; and as for paternal Authority, that would have been so far from being Coercive, that Children having no Inclination to disorder either in their Wills, Appetites or Passions, there would have been so little need of punishments, that they would not have required so much as reproof or correction: God having planted the Laws of Nature or Reason in every Man's Breast, then free from Rebellions Motions against it, so that Children than could have had no more to do, than to pay their Parents all that Gratitude. Duty and Obedience which was due to them, as the subordinate Causes of their Being, which could only consist in performing those indifferent things, which they then would have had occasion to command them, since Mankind being Immortal, and the Earth bringing forth of itself all Necessaries for Humane Life, there could have been no occasion of attending and relieving their Parents when Sick, Old or Decrepit, and unable to keep themselves; and so likewise upon the same grounds all other Men would have been equal by Nature, in respect of any civil difference; for when there was no necessity of men's Service, there would have been no distinction between Master and Servant: But after the Fall, the stare of Mankind was altered, and Self-love, and the desire of Self-preservation grew so strong and exorbitant above all Natural Equity, that the inordinate passions of Men blinding their Reasons, they began to think they had a Right, not only to the Necessaries of Life, but to whatever their unruly Appetites desired, or that they thought they could make themselves Masters of. To remedy which Inconveniences, I suppose the Fathers and Masters of Families, and other Freemen (in whom alone then resided that little Government that then was in the World) were forced after some time to agree upon one or more Men into whose hands they might resign all their particular powers, and to make Laws for the due Governing and Restraining those disorderly Appetites and Passions, and also endowing them with a sufficient Authority to put them in Execution: But which of the Governments now extant, or that have been formerly, were Prior in Nature, I think cannot well be known; whether it was a Monarchy, or an Aristocracy, consisting of all the Heads or Fathers of Families, or Freemen, is not material since the SS. are silent in it; but it being sufficient to suppose, that it was at first begun by the persuasion or mediation of some one or more Wise and Virtuous persons, and was consented to by thy whole number, consisting of many Families, who were sensible of those great Inconveniences and Mischiefs they lay under for want of Civil Government. But be it which way it will, 'tis most certain that it was principally intended by God, for the God and Preservation of the Governed, and not for the Greatness or Advantage of the Person or Parson's appointed t● Gover●, since God designed all Civil Government for the restraining of Man's inordinate Passions and Lusts after the Fall, and procuring by sufficient rewards and punishments, that Peace and Happiness which could now no longer be obtained by men's Natural Inclinations to that which was equitable and honest; and besides, it is absolutely impossible to suppose, that any great number of people not pressed by the Invasion of a powerful Enemy from abroad▪ (which could not be supposed in this early Age of the World) would ever be brought to consent to put themselves under the absolute power of others, but for their own greater Good and Preservation, or to part with their Natural Liberty without advantaging themselves at all by the Change.  M. 
I will not take upon me to assert, after what manner Mankind would have been governed in case our First Parents had continued in their Primitive state of Innocency; But this much I think I may boldly affirm in opposition to what you have already said, that Civil Government after the Fall was not alike in all the Fathers and Masters of Families, but that Adam alone was by God endued with it, as the great Father and Monarch of Mankind; so that not only Civil Power, in genere, but in specie, 
R. F. A. M M. p. 254, 255.  (viz.) Monarchical, was immediately after the Creation conferred by God upon him. And Adam was Monarch of the whole World even before he had any Subjects.  F. 
Sir, not to interrupt you, it seems somewhat hard to conceive how Adam could be a Father before he had Children, or a Monarch before he had Subjects.  M. 
If you please to consider it, you will find no absurdity at all in this Assertion. For though I confess there could be no actual Government without Subjects, 
Ibid.  nor Fatherhood without Sons; yet by the Right of Nature it was due to Adam to be Governor of the World, when as yet he had neither Sons, nor Subjects, so though not in act, yet at least in habit, or in Potentia (as they say in the Schools) Adam was a King, and a Father, from his Creation, and even in the state of Innocency, he had been Governor over his Wife and Children; for the Integrity, or Excellency of the Subjects doth not take away the Order, or Eminency of the Governor: For Eve was subject to Adam before he sinned, and the Angels who are of a most pure Nature, and cannot Sin, are yet Subjects to God, and perform all his Commands: Which will serve to con●ute what you say in Derogation of Civil Government, or Power, that it was introduced by Sin, or the Fall of Man. Government, I grant as to co-active Power, was not till after Sin, because Co-action supposeth some disorder which was not in the state of Innocency; but as for directive Government, the State of Humane Nature requires it; since Civil Society cannot be imagined without a Power of Government. For although as long as Men continued in the State of Innocency, they might not need the direction of Adam in those things that were necessarily and morally to be done. Yet things indifferent that depended merely on their freewill, might well be directed by Adam's sole Command.  F. 
Pray, Sir, give me leave to settle this Point-between us, before you proceed farther, and I doubt not when you better consider what I say, you will not think we have any just occasion to differ. So far then you and I are agreed, that even before the Fall, Adam was superior over his Wife and Children, and that they owed him, not only Gratitude and Respect, as a Parent, but also Obedience in all indifferent things: Yet I deny that this Power or Superiority of Adam over his Wife and Children, was at all a Despotical or Civil Power, but merely Oeconomical, for the Good and Convenience of Adam, and the well ordering and preservation of his Family; which you will easily grant, if you please to consider what are the Essential Differences of Civil Government from Oeconomical. Now the Essential Properties of Civil Government consist in preserving and defending the Subjects, both in War and Peace, from Foreign Enemies, and Intestine Injurie●, and Invasions of men's Persons or Properties, and in revenging and punishing all such Transgressions by Death, or other Punishments, and consequently in making Laws concerning Property, and for restraining all Robberies, Murders, and the like▪ Now, in the state of Innocency there could be no need of any of these Essential Functions of Civil Power; for yourself must grant, that Man was then not apt to Sin, and immortal; so that all Laws about Peach or War, Punishments of Offences, public Judgements concerning Meum, & Tuum, and all Injuries, were absolutely needless, and had never been in Nature, if Adam had not sinned; and then how you can call this Authority, or Superiority (which I grant Adam had over his Wife and Children) Civil Power, I can by no means understand.  
But I do utterly deny, that even after the Fall, Adam was a Monarch, or Sole and Absolute Lord over the whole Earth, and all Creatures therein contained; and desire you to give me such plain proofs of it, either from Reason, or Scripture, that I need no more doubt of it, than yourself.  M. 
I shall first of all give you an Argument drawn from the Reason of the thing▪ and in the next place, the Authority of Scripture, for my Opinion: and first, I think it is evident, that every Man that is Born, is so ●at from being Free, that by his very Birth he becomes a Subject of him that begets him; and even Groti●● h●mself acknowledges that, Generatione ●us acquiritur in liberos. And indeed, the Act of Begetting, being that which makes a Man a Father, his Right of a Father over his Children, can Naturally arise from nothing else; and the same Author in another pl●ce hath these words upon the Fourth Commandment, Parentum nomine, qui naturales luns Magistraus, etiam alios Rectores par est iutelligi▪ quorum authoritas Soci●tatem humanam continet: And if Parents be natural Magistrates, Children must needs he Born Natural Subjects. So that, not only Adam, but the succeeding Patriarches had, by Right of Fatherhood, Regal Authority over their Children, as may 〈◊〉 by divers Testimonies out of Scripture, and therefore at is very reasonable that all Fathers should have a Power over the Lives of their Children, since it is to them that they owe their Life, Being and Education; and I think that even the Power which God himself exerciseth over Mankind, is by Right of Fatherhood.  F. 
Before you come to Scripture, give me leave, in the first place to examine your first Argument, which you deduced from the Law of Nature or Reason: For I doubt, if you please better to consider of it, you will and that so light and Transitory a▪ Action, as that of Generation, canno● give any Man an absolute Property and Dominion over the Person and ●●fe of those whom he Begets; since sew Men do principally intend the giving of a Being to another, so much as they do their own pleasure, in that Action; nor do we owe our Lives (properly speaking) to our Parents, but to God, who is the true and original Cause of our Being, though it is true, he makes use of our Parents as Physical, though not as Moral Means, or Instruments for that end; since it doth not lie in their power to hinder their Generating of Children, if they perform the Acts necessary thereunto; so that both the antecedent and the consequent are altogether false, viz. That Parents give their Children, Life and Being, and that therefore they have and absolute power over their Lives and Persons; which if it were true, would give the Mother an equal Title to the Lives of the Children, as the Father, seeing they owe their Lives as much to the one as the other: Which power in the Mother, I am sure you will not admit of. But as for what you say concerning the power of Fathers, arising from Education, though I confess that is a much better Title than the other: Yet doth it not follow, that, because by reason of my Parents care of me before I was able to help myself, I owe my preservation and well being to them; that therefore they are to be perpetual and absolule Lords over my Person and Life: Since by thus breeding me up, they only performed that Duty, and Trust which God had laid upon them, for the good and preservation of Manking, and which they could not without committing a Sin, either refuse or decline, and therefore their Authority or Power over my Person, being only for my well-being, can extend no farther tan whilst I am not of years of discretion to understand the true means of my own good and preservation: And though I grant that I am bound in gratitude to return this Care and Kindness by all Acts of Duty and Piety towards them, as long I live; yet doth it not therefore follow, that they are Masters of my Life, and of all that I have; since this were to take away more than they themselves ever gave▪ and though I should grant you that even the Power which God himself exerciseth over Mankind is by Right of Fatherhood; yet this Fatherhood is such, 
T. T. G. c. 5. p. 69.  as utterly excludes all pretence of Title in Earthly Parents; for he is our King, because he is indeed maker of us all, which no Natural Parents can pretend to be of their Children: but if you please more closely to consider your own Argument, you will find that he will quite destroy your Hypothesis. For if all Fathers have an absolute power over their Children, by Generations, than Adam could only have power over his own Children which he begat, and none at all over his grandchildren, since their Fathers by this Argument of Generation ought to have had the same power over their Children, which Adam had over them, for the same reason: So that this Monarchical Power of Adam as a Father could extend no farther than one Generation  M. 
I shall not further urge this Argument of Generation, since I see you are not satisfied with it; but this much I think I can clearly prove from Scripture, that Adam was Lord over the Persons and Lives of his Wife and Children, by virtue of that command which God gave Eve, Gen. 3. v. 16. Unto the Woman he said, I will greatly mutilply thy sorrow and thy Conception; In sorrow thou shalt bring forth Children, and thy desire shall be to thy Husband, and he shall rule over thee. From which words it appears that Adam had not only an absolute Power granted him by God over his Wife, but all the posterity that should be born of her. For in the first place it here appears that Eve was to yield an absolute subjection to her Husband; who was to rule over her as her Lord, from these Words, and thy desire shall be [subject] to thy Husband, (as it is better expressed in the Margin) and he shall rule over thee. And if his Wife was thus to be subject to him, 
B. P. P. § 21.  than likewise by a party of reason all her Children were to be so too: it being a maxim in the Law of Nature, as well as in the Civil Law, that Partus sequitur ventrem: so that if Eve was to be absolutely subject to Adam, the Issue by her must be so too, as in the case of a Master of a she Slave, not only the person of the Woman, but all that are begotten of her either by her master or any other man, are likewise his servants, otherwise the Children would be in a better condition than their Mother, for Adam having no Superior but God, both his Wife and Children must have been a like subject to him. There is likewise another rule in the Civil Law, 
Ib. § 32.  which is a voice of Nature too, quicquid ex me, & uxore mea nascitur, in potestate mea est, and though this is true in some sense in all Fathers whatsoever; yet it was so in a more superlative degree, where the Father had no Superior over him but God; as Adam had not; 
Ib. § 20, 21.  and farther it seems apparent to me from the very method that God used in Creating Mankind that Adam's Wife and Children should be subject to him: for if Adam and Eve had been Created at once, it could not have been known which of these two had the best right to command, and which was to obey. For Adam's strength or wit alone, would not have given him any Authority over her, and it might be that Eve was as strong and as wise as he, or at least she mi●ht have thought herself so, and if these two had differed and fought, nought but the event could have declared which of them should have been Master.  
So when they had Children born between them, the Children could have told as little which of the Parents they should have obeyed, in case they had differed in their commands: so that it had been impossible this way that any Government could have been in the World. But when God Created only one Man, 
Ib. § 22.  and out of him one Woman was made, sure he had some great design in this, for no other Creature was thus made at twice but Man. 
§ 24. 1 Tim. 2.12, 13  Now St. Paul shows a reason for Gods acting thus, when he says, the Woman should not Teach, nor usurp Authority over the Man, etc. And mark the reason; for Adam was Created and then Eve. So that in the Apostles Judgement this was one main cause why Adam should be Superior to his Wife, and all other Husbands to their Wives; 
§ 25.  and in the Corinthians from the History of the Creation the same Apostle deduces two other Reasons, 
1 Cor. 11.8, 9  for the Superiority of the Man over the Woman. For (says he) the Man is not of the Woman, but the Woman of the Man; (that is, Eve was form out of Adam) neither was the Man Created for the Woman, but the Woman for the Man: So that you see here is Adam stated in a degree Superiority over his Wife before the Fall: and immediately after it, God again renewed Adam's Title, 
§ 26.  when he told Eve (as I have but now mentioned) thy desire shall be subject to thy Husband, and he shall rule ever thee; now I so far agree with what you at first laid down; that if the fall had not disordered her faculties, and rendered her apt and prone to disobey her Husband, this command need not have been given her, but she would have known her duty from the order and end of the Creation, without this explicit positive 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 consequently all other Husbands and Fathers) ought to be Superior to their Wives and children, and likewise 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 after Children are separated from their Father's Family, they still owe their Parents all the gratitude, duty, and respect imaginable; but yet I deny that this power which Adam had over Eve, and his Issue by her, and all other Husbands have over their Wives and Children, is a regal despotical power, or any more than Conjugal in respect of his Wife, and Paternal in respect of the Children, nor is that filial reverence: and obedience which Children yield their Fathers, the same with that respect and duty which a Wife owes her Husband, or the same with that servile subjection which slaves owe their Lord and Master; neither is the duty of a Wife of the same kind with that which Sons pay their Fathers, or Slaves their Lords; nor did Sarah when she called Abraham Lord (who was then Master of a separate Family, and so subject to none) ever suppose that her Husband had the same Authority over her as he had over Hagar her Bondwoman, to sell her, or turn her out of doors at his pleasure: but to make it more apparent to you, that this power granted to Adam over Eve, was not regal nor despotical, but only conjugal, and for the well ordering of the Family, where some one must command in chief, and the rest obey to avoid confusion, will appear, first, If you consider that this Subjection of Eve to Adam was not enjoined till after the Fall, and is part of God's Judgements denounced against Her, for tempting Her Husband to eat the forbidden Fruit, and certainly included somewhat more than that Superiority which he had over her by his Creation, or else God should not have made it any part of the Judgement denounced upon her. If this submission she owed to her Husband before the Fall, had been of the same Nature with that Subjection she was to be under after it; which yet I take to be neither servile nor absolute, but only a conjugal Obedience or Submission of her will to his, in all things Relating to the Government of the Family and the carriage of herself; though I do not deny but the Husband may sometimes restrain her by force▪ in case she carries herself unchastly, or indiscreetly, to the loss of her Reputation, and prejudice of his Interest, when she will not be directed, or advised by his persuasion, or commands, which before the Fall when she was in a state of Innocency there was no need of; since, (as yourself grant) before the Fall she know what was her duty, and performed it without any force or 〈◊〉, etc. And therefore that Text which you have now quoted out of Genesis, thy desire shall be [Subject] to thy Husband, and he shall rule over thee, is not fairly cited, for as for the Marginal addition, viz. [Subject] to thy Husband, it is not warranted from the H●brew Original or Version of the LXX. The Hebrew having no more than (thy desire shall be to thy Husband) which the LXX renders i e. the conversion or inclination of the desire; by which some Interpreters understand no more than the carnal Appetite: so likewise from the words (rule over thee) they likewise observe that Moses makes use of the same Hebrew word, when he makes mention of the Sun and Moon ruling the Day and Night, though they do not do it by any violence, or corporeal force; so likewise by this ruling of the Husband, is not to be understood any absolute, despotic power, whereby he hath a right to dispose of the person and actions of his Wife in all things at his pleasure, but that she may in many cases refuse, nay control his commands, and resist his actions, in case they prove unlawful or destructive to herself and Children.  
But that this Argument of St. Paul of the Husband's Superiority over his Wife, was not granted to Adam alone, but equally extends to all Husbands whatsoever, appears from the very Text itself, or otherwise St Paul had argued very impertinently of the duty of all Wives; and if so, it will follow that every one of Adam's Sons as soon as he took a Wife, had the like Authority over her as Adam had over their Mother; And if over their Wives, then by your Maxims (of partus sequitur ventrein) & quicquid e● me & uxore mea nascitur, in potestate mea est, all the Sons of Adam must have had the same Power over their Children as their Father had over them: So that the same consequence will still follow from theses places of Scripture, and also from you Civil Law Maxims, that either Adam had no Civil, or Despotic Power over his Wife, and Children, or else, if he had, that every one of his Sons when Married, an separated from his Father's Family had the same, and consequently there were as many Princes as distinct Masters of Families, and then what would become of Adam's Monarchy, I give you leave to Judge.  M. 
I must beg your pardon if I am not satisfied with your answer to my last argument: For I am still of opinion notwithstanding what you have said, that Eve was to yield an absolute subjection to her Husband, from that place already cited, That her (viz. Eve's) desire (i. e. will) should be subject to her Husband, etc. To which you answer that this subjection of Eve to Adam, was not the same which Sons owe their Fathers, or Slaves to their Lords; And that Eve owed Adam, not a filial, or servile, but a conjugal subjection.  
For I would ●ain know the difference in the State of Nature, 
B. P. P. § 27, 28.  between one and the other: For if you please to compare that place of Genesiis, I but now quoted with that other, where God gives Cain power over Abel his Younger Brother, you will find them the same in words as also in sense. For in this God likewise tells Cain, That unto thee, shall his desire be subject and thou shalt rule over him. 
Gen. 4.7.  And ●ure God could not intend by these words, that Abel should yield a Conjugal, but a filial subjection to his elder Brother, and these words are not capable of two senses, but must be understood a like in both places (i. e.) That the Desire (which is a Faculty of the Soul, and that the most active too) was to be subject, and the body, and all the Powers of it, were to be overruled by him▪ which is as full and absolute a subjection as can be expressed in words; and whereas you say that these words were not spoken till after the Fall, and thence seem to infer, that Eve did not owe Adam so much as a Conjugal Subjection before that; St. Paul hath given you an answer to that already, which it is needless to repeat, and therefore upon the whole matter I think your distinction of a Conjugal Subjection different from a Filial or Servile one, will signify nothing,  F. 
I doubt not, Sir, but I shall be able to make good this distinction of a Servile and a Filial Obedience, and in order to it, shall reply to the consequence you have made, for Eve's absolute subjection to Adam from the like Expression used by God to Cain, concerning his ruling over his Brother Abel, as is used here to Eve concerning her Subjection to her Husband; and that because the Subjection of Abel was absolute, that therefore her Subjection must be so too. I must crave your pardon if I deny your Assumption; for I think I am able to prove, that neither Abel, nor any other younger Brother, was, or is obliged, by virtue of this Text to yield an absolute Obedience to his Elder Brother, in the state of Nature or that he is therefore his Lord and Master. Nor can I see any absurdity, but that the same words might be spoken to several Persons, yet in different senses, which according to the Nature of the Persons to whom they were spoken might have different Effects. As here these words when spoken to Eve enjoin a Conjugal Submission of Eve's Will to Adam as her Husband, but when spoken to Abel they may signify a Fraternal Submission of Abel's Will to Cain's as the Elder, and perhaps the wiser of the two, but without giving any absolute or despotic power over either.  M. 
I cannot be yet satisfied with your Reply; for methinks this is but to play the Fool, and trifle with God's Word, when he told Cain thy Brother's desire shall be Subject to thee, that is, (say you,) Thou shalt rule over him only as far as he thinks sir, or if thou hast the knack to wheedle or persuade him: Was not this a mighty matter for God Almighty to appear to Cain about? An Excellent and Rational way to appease his Wrath towards his Brother? Whereas God here plainly enjoineth a subjection from Abel to his Elder Brother, and if so, by Virtue of the same words, a like Subjection of Eve to Adam, and then it will likewise follow, that as the streams are of the same Nature with the Fountain, the Subjection of all her Posterity will likewise be included in hers, which I have sufficiently proved already, had you not mistaken the true sense of those two Maxim● I laid down. For first, if Partus sequitur vontrem▪ and the Mother be a Subject, as Eve was, all her Posterity must be so to all Generations. And if Quicquid ex me & uxore mea nascitur in potestate mea est be true, than Adam's grandchildren, and Great-grand-childrens, deriving themselves from him and Eve, must be likewise under Adam's power. Nor ca● I see how his Sons, or grandchildren, by setting up separate Families, could ever discharge themselves from this absolute Subjection to Adam, since they could never have quitted his Family without his consent; and when they did quit it, unless he pleased to manumit them, they, their Wives and Children, were still as much Subject as they were before. Since I do not see if they were once Subjects to him, how any thing but his express will, and consent could ever discharge them from it. Nor was that Authority (which every one of these Sons of Adam might Exercise over their Wives and Children, though they were not freed from the power of their Father) any more inconsistent with that Subjection and Obedience they owed him, as their Prince, than in an absolute Monarchy, the power of Fathers, and Husbands, over their Wives and Children, as to the things relating to the well-ordering and governing their Families, is inconsistent with that supreme predominant power which the Monarch hath over the Father himself, and all his Family, or than the power of a Master of a Family, in the Isle of Barbadoes, over his Slaves that are Married, and have Children, is inconsistent with that Marital and Paternal power which such a Slave may exercise over his Wife and Children within his own Family, though still subordinate to the will of the Master, who may forbid any such Slaves, or their Children to Marry, but where he hath a mind they should and may likewise hinder them, from correcting or putting to Death their Wives and Children without his consent. Though such Subjects in an absolute Monarchy, or Slaves in a Plantation cannot have or enjoy any Property in Land or Goods but at the Monarches, or Master's will▪ And so likewise at first none of these Sons of Adam, though they set up distinct Families from their Fathers, could enjoy or enclose any part of the Earth without his Grant or Assignment to whom the whole was given by God before.  
It seems likewise to be a great mistake, when you at first affirmed that all Civil Government was Ordained by God, for the benefit and advantage of the Subjects, rather than the Governors. Whereas from the first and most Natural Government it appears that Children who were the Subjects were Ordained as much for the benefit and help of their Parents, who were the first Monarches, as their Parents for them. From all which we may draw these Conclusions: 
F. A. M. M. p. 244.  First, 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 Constitution of power in general, but the special limitation of it to one kind, (viz.) Monarchy, and the determination of it, to the individual person of Adam, are all Ordinances of God. Neither had Eve or her Children any Right to limit Adam'● Power, or join themselves with him in the Government. Now if this Supreme Power was settled, and sounded by God himself in Fatherhood, how is it possible for the people to have any Right to alter, or dispose of it otherwise; it being God's Ordinance that this Supremacy▪ should be unlimited in Adam, and as large as any Acts of his Will. So that he was not only a Father, but a King and absolute Lord over his Family; a Son, a Subject, and a Servant, or Slave, being one and the same thing at first, the Father having power to dispose of or sell his Children or Servants at his pleasure; 
F. P. O. A.  and though perhaps he might deal too severely or cruelly in so doing, yet there was none above him, except God, in the state of Nature, who could call him to an account, much less resist or punish him for so doing▪  F. 
You have, Sir, made a very long Speech upon the Monarchical power of Adam, which you have made of so large an Extent, that this imaginary Kingship will swallow up all the other more dear and tender Relations both of a Husband, and of a Father▪ So that were I not satisfied you were a very good natured Man, and spoke more the sense of others than from your own Natural Inclinations, I should be apt to believe that if you had sufficient Power you would prove as great a Tyrant over your Wife, Children, and all that should be under your Command; as such Arbitrary Tenets would give you leave; but since I hope your Error lies rather in your Understanding, than in your Nature● I shall make bold to show you the mistakes you have committed in those Principles you here lay down. I might first begin with the place of Scripture you farther insist upon; for Eve's absolute Subjection to Adam from the like Expression used by God to Cain concerning his ruling over his Brother Abel, as is used here to Eve, and tho' you are pleased to think my exposition of this place so ridiculous; yet I doubt not but I be able to prove, when I come to speak of this pretended Divine Author of Elder Brothers over this younger, that this place cannot be understood in any such sense, according to the best Interpretation that both the reason of the Subject, and the sense the best Commentators put upon it can allow▪ but I shall defer this till we come to discourse concerning the successors of Adam in this Monarchical Power you suppose. And therefore I shall only at present pursue that absolute Power, which you suppose Adam to have had, not only over Eve, but all her descendants. So that your Argument of Eve's, and consequently all her children's, absolute Subjection to Adam, depends upon a very false supposition. For if the Subjection of Eve to Adam, and of all Wives to their Husbands is not servile or absolute, neither can that of the Children be so, since according to your own simile, if the streams are of the same nature of the Fountain, they can never rise higher than it, and tho' I grant, Adam might in some cases have put his Wife or Children to death, for any enormous crime against the Law of Nature, yet I allow him that power, not as a Husband or Father, but only as a Lord or Master of a separate Family, who having no Superior in the state of Nature, I grant it is endued by God with this Prerogative, for the good of his Family, and preservation of Mankind, lest such horrid crimes, so much to its prejudice should pass unpunished. But that the Husband or Father doth not act thus in either of these two capacities, I can easily prove.  
First, Because the Scripture tells us the Husband and Wife are one Flesh, 
Gen. 2.24. Ephes. 5.29, 30.  and that no man ever yet hated his own Flesh▪ so that it is impossible for a Husband to put his Wife to death, till by the greatness of her Crimes, she becomes no longer worthy of that tender affection he ought to bear her. Then as to the Father, he, as a Father, ought not to desire to put his Son to death, whose being he hath been the cause of, and who is principally made out of his own substance, and on whom he hath bestowed nourishment and education for so many Years, until he finds that instead of a Son he proves an Enemy to his Family, or hath so laid wait against his Life, that as long as he lives he cannot be safe; or else commits some of those heinous crimes which by the Laws of God and Nature do justly deserve no less punishment than Death, in short when he ceases any longer to deserve the name of a Son.  
Yet this Authority holds no longer than whilst the Son remains part of his Father's Family, and so Subject to his Power, and this I take to be the reason why we do not read, that Adam took any notice of Cains' murdering his Brother, because he was before freed from his Power, by setting up another Family, which certainly had been Adam's duty to have done, had he been then under his jurisdiction, Murder being as great a crime before the Flood as a●ter, 
Gen. 9.5.  tho' the punishment of in by Death were not positively enjoined by God till then: But I shall prove this point more particularly by and by, as also, that Adam's Children might enjoy, or enclose some part of the Earth without any grant or assent from Adam, to whom you suppose (tho' without any proof as yet) that the whole Earth was given by God.  
To conclude, I doubt you mistook me when you say, I at first affirmed that all Civil Government was ordained by God, for the benefit or advantage of the the Subjects, rather than that of the Governors, and therefore you undertake to show me, that in the first and most natural Government, viz. that of a Family, Children who are subjects in the state of Nature, are ordained as much for the benefit, and help of their Parents, who are their Princes or Masters, as their Parents for them; in which assertion you fall in to more than on mistake, for I do not assert that in Civil Government the benefit or advantage of the Subject, is only to be considered; For I shall easily grant that Princes may very well challenge a very great share in the honour and other advantages that may be reaped by their Government; and yet for all that when the happiness and preservation of the Subjects, is incompatible with that of the Prince, the former is to be preferred, and Bishop Sanderson is of this opinion; when he tells us in his Lecture 
* De oblg. consc. Prael. 5. §. 19  De juramento; That the end of Civil Government, and the obedience that is due to it, is the safety and tranquillity of humane society, and therefore the end is certainly to be preferred before the means, when they cannot both consist together; but this is no argument for the preferring the benefit or advantages of Parents, before that of their Children, since Paternal Government is not Civil Government; nor are Father's absolute Princes or Masters over their Children, as you suppose, and yet I think I may safely affirm, that even in this Paternal Government, tho' it be granted that Children are ordained for the benefit, or help of their Parents, yet when their happiness and preservation is inconsistent with that of their Children, it may be a great doubt which is to be preferred, since Gods chief intention in Parents, was for the Preservation and Propagation of Mankind; and therefore I cannot see how it could ever be any part of the Paternal Power, for a Father to make his Child a Slave, or to sell him to others at his pleasure as you suppose: This being no part or end of the design or duty of a Father.  
And whereas you lay to my charge my mistaking the true sense of those Civil Law Maxims you have quoted; I think I can easily prove that the mi●●ake lies on your side, and that you have misapplied them, to make them serve your purpose: For as to your first Maxim, Partus sequitur Ventrem, from which you infer, that the Child ought to be of the same condition with the Mother, this rule in your Civil Law relates only to Bastards, and not Legitimate Children, who follow the condition of the Father according to your Digest: 
Dig. 1. Tit. 6. L. 16.  Qui ex uxore mea nascitur filius mariti est habendus, so likewise in your Code, 
Cod. Tit. 19 L. 14.  Cum legitimae nuptiae factae sunt, patrem liberi sequuntur, vulgo quaesitus matrem sequitur. Nor is your second Maxim more true; 
Dig. Tit. 5. L. 19:  for tho' I grant according to your Roman Law, the Father might have absolute power over his Wife and Children: yet I cannot see how this word and nascitur, can be extended beyond those that are born of a man and his Wife, and therefore can never concern grandchildren, much less any more remote Descendants, and this very Law, that a Son or Daughter might be killed by a Father, seemed so cruel and odious, even to the Ancient Romans themselves, that neither the Law of the Twelve Tables, nor the julian Law of Adulteries, which were provided against Fathers, Sons, and Daughters, ever extended it to the Grandfather, Grandson, or Granddaughter by Interpretation; or argument à cas●● consimili. Nor do these words, in Potestate mea est, prove more than that all Children are born under the Power of their Parents, tho' whether they shall always continue so as 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 must needs observe this, of divers of you Civilians, that what ever Maxim you find in your Civil Law Books, that will make for your Notions, you presently adopt them for Laws of Nature, without ever enquiring by the strict Rules of Reason, and the Good of Mankind, (by which alone any Law of Nature is to be tried) whether they are so or no.  
I shall not trouble myself to confute those false Conclusions you have brought from those weak Promises; for if I have destroyed your Foundation, I think your Superstructure cannot stand; and therefore you must pardon me, if I cannot find this Original Charter of Government, and of all Civil Power, to be derived from Adam by any Argument that yet you have brought either from Scripture, or Reason; only give me leave to observe thus much, upon what you have said, That if not only the Constitution of Civil Power in general, but the special Limitation of it to one kind, (viz.) Monarchy, be the Ordinance of God, I cannot see how any other Government but that can be lawfully set up, or obeyed by Men, since no Government can challenge this Privilege against Divine Institution.  M. 
Since this Hypothesis doth not please you, I shall be glad if you can show me any better Original, either of Adam's Paternal Power, 
B. P. P. § 36.  or of Civil Government, than this, that God gave Adam over Eve, who indeed was as at the first Subject, so the Representative of all that followed, and it reaches not only to all her Daughters in relation to their Husbands, but to all of them in relation to their Fathers, and to her Sons too, in relation to both their Father, and their Eldest Brother after his Decease, if no body Superior to both of them, and him interposed, and diverted, or rather overruled it.  
For (1.) If a Priority of Being gave Adam a power over his Wife, it gave him much more so over his Children.  
(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 more so, which were derived from him, and by his Act.  
(3.) If she were form for him, not he for her; and that was another reason; this extended to his Children too, who were begotten for the comfort and assistance of both him, and her.  
(4.) When God put Eve under the Subjection of her Husband after the Fall, her Children must needs be so too, if they were not excepted, but we Read of no exception.  
(5.) Is it not an Eternal Law of Nature, that all Children should be subject to their Parents? And did not this Law spread itself over the Face of all the Earth, as Mankind increased?  
And whereas you would limit this Power of Parents over their Children, 
Ibid.  both in its Extent and Duration, this is purely owing to the Civil Laws of Nations, and not to the Laws of Nature, and is different in different places; some having restrained the Powe● of Parents more▪ and some less. But God gave the Parents a Power of Life and Death over their own Children, amongst his own People the Jews, and that not limited in Duration neither, for the Father's Power over his Son was not determined but by his Death, though they could not execute that Power, but in the presence of a Magistrate. And I am also sure that in all the Histories and Relations I have met with, amongst civilised Nations (where it is not otherwise ordered by the Civil Laws of the Country) all Husbands, and Fathers have Power of Life and Death over their Wives, and Children, and so it is at this day amongst many Eastern Nations, and was anciently amongst the Romans, Gauls, and Persians, etc. Which power I take not to have been given, or conferred on them, but rather left to them by the Civil Laws of their Country in the same state, as it was established by the Law of Nature, or rather Nations. Now if such Husbands and Fathers anciently had, and still have a power of Life and Death in divers Countries over their Wives and Children, I desire to know what higher power they could enjoy, since he that hath power over a Man's Life, which is of the highest concern to him, may certainly command him in all things else?  
But as for your last Scruple that you cannot see, if Monarchy be of Divine Institution, how any Government but that can be lawfully set up or obeyed by Men, I think it may be a satisfactory Answer, if I tell you, that if those who are Born under a Monarchy can justify the Form they live under to be God's Ordinance, 
F. A. MM. p. 266.  they are not bound to forbear their own Justification, because others cannot do the like for the Forms they live under; let others look to the defence of their own Government: If it cannot be proved, or showed that any other Form of Government had ever any Lawful beginning, but was brought in, or erected by Rebellion, must therefore the Lawful and Just Obedience to Monarchy be denied to be the Ordinance of God?  F. 
I hope before I have done, to give you a clearer Original from the Law of Nature, as well of Paternal Authority, as Civil Government, without recurring to Divine Revelation which (as I said before) would oblige none but Jews, and Christians, or Mahometans, whose Law is a mixture of both the other. In the mean time give me leave to tell you, that Eve's being the Representative of all Wives, did not put either herself or her Daughters into any absolute Subjection either to Adam, or their Husbands; if it did, then could not this Subjection be likewise owing either to Adam as the Patriarch, or Grandfather of the Family, or to his Eldest Son after his Decease, since this would make every Wife in the state of Nature to have had two absolute Lords, her Husband, and her Husband's Father, which is contrary to our Saviour's Rule, That no man can serve two Masters, that is, in the same kind of Service: And therefore it plainly makes out my distinction, that there is a great deal of difference between a Conjugal Submission of a Wife to her Husband, and a Servile Subjection of a Servant to his Lord, as also of that Obedience, or Duty, which a Subject oweth his Sovereign, since by your own Hypothesis it necessarily follows that either Cain's Wife (for Example) was not to be subject to her Husband, or else must be free from all Subjection to her Father Adam: But as for any Submission to Cain, as Elder Brother after Adam's Decease, I desire to be excused meddling with it till we have dispatched the Question in hand.  
I come now to those fresh Considerations you bring for this Monarchical power of Adam; for indeed I cannot call them new Arguments, because most of them have been answered already. The first Consideration is from the Priority of the Being which you suppose gave Adam a Power over his Wife, and consequently over his Children; but I think his Priority of Being could give him no such Power at all over her, and consequently not over them, for I desire to know whether if God had been pleased to have Created, the same day that Eve was made, twenty single Men, and their Wives, that therefore Adam must have been from his being first Created, Monarch over them all, unless God had particularly commanded it?  
I grant indeed that from God's Creating Eve out of Adam, it did render her inferior to him, and also from God's express command, that she was to be subject to him in all Conjugal Duties, yet did neither of these render her, or her Children absolute of perpetual Subjects, and Slaves to Adam. And that their being derived from him, or by his Act doth not at all alter the Case, I have already proved.  
As for the third, that if she ween form for him, and not he for her, that this must be another reason which must extend to his Children too: Here the Assumption is not only false, but the Consequence too: For she was not only form for him, but that they might be a mutual help to each other, and therefore the Scripture tell us, A Man shall leave his Father and his Mother, 
Gen. 2.24.  and shall cleave unto hit Wife, and they two shall be one Flesh; which words (in my Opinion) are very far from proving any such absolute Subjection; for no Man can ever tyrannize over his own Flesh; and if such an absolute Subjection had been intended, from Eve to Adam, it had been more consonant to reason, for the Scripture to have enjoined her to have left her Father, and Mother, to cleave to her Husband. Whereas indeed there was no more meant by this Text, than that when a Man marries, he may freely quit his Father's Family, and joining himself to his Wife, may set 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 assistance of him, and her, yet I have already proved that the Parents are more chiefly intended for their children's Propagation, and Preservation, than the Children are for their Interest and Happiness.  
Your fourth consideration is only a supposition of the question which is yet to be proved, that Eve was under an absolute subjection to Adam after the Fall, I have already proved this supposition not to be true, and therefore the consequence, as to the Children is false likewise.  
Your fifth, is rather an interrogation than an Argument, whether Children ought not to be, and have not always, been subject to their Parents all over the World? In answer to which I grant that it is true, that they have ever been so, tho' not in your sense. For I hold this subjection neither to be servile, or absolute, nor 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 of Nations, and not to the Laws of Nature, and for a proof of this you produce Gods own people the Jews, for an example that the power of the Father over his Son, was not determined but by his Death. But yourself confesses that he could not exercise this Power of Life and Death, but in the presence of the Magistrate; the circumstances of which if they be considered, will rather make against you; for first the Father could not have this rebellious▪ Son put to Death, till he had accused him before the Elders of the City, that, is the Judges who were established in every Precinct, who upon a solemn hearing, were to sentence such a rebellious Son to be stoned to Death by all the People of the City: where you may observe that the Father had no power to put him to Death himself, and therefore acted in this case as an accuser or a witness, not as a Judge. But if you'll believe Maimonides, one of the most Learned of the Jewish Rabbins, he will tell you that by the Municipal Law of the Jews, 
Tract. Memarim.  this power of the Father did scarce extend beyond the thirteenth year of the Son's Age, after which the Son was reckoned Adult, and Emancipated from his Father's Powers, and could not after that incur this punishment of a Stubborn and Rebellious Son; and a Father who did but strike his Son after he was Adult, incurred Excommunication, for that he offended against the Law. And tho' I grant that the Nations you mention did exercise a Power of Life and Death over their Wives, and Children, yet will not the Practice of some particular Nations, tho' never so much civilised, amount to a proof of a Law of Nature, which is only to be made out from evident Rules of Right Reason, and the great end of this Law, the common good of Mankind; and especially when against the Examples of those Nations which you produce, I can likewise set those of many more Nations, where this Custum was not allowed, after once Civil Government was established. And as for the Romans themselves, amongst whom the greatest Examples of this kind are to be found, they will not all of them amount to above three, or four, in six or seven hundred years, and then, tho' there might be very good cause for it, yet the People of Rome never so much esteemed or loved such Fathers after they had put their Sons to Death, as they did before, but counted them too severe and cruel for so doing. 
De Clem.  And you read in Valerius Maximus, and Seneca, that they killed Erixiin a Roman Gentleman, for whipping his Son to Death like a Slave; so much did they abhor all such Cruelty of Parents towards their Children; and afterwards, when by the General Corruption of Manners amongst the Romans, Fathers grew more cruel to their Children, and often put them to Death without cause. Those of your Faculty, suppose that some of the Roman Emperors (tho' 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, since there are no particular Edicts to be found concerning this matter, do suppose this Law to be changed by degrees, and to be left off by common consent of the Romans themselves for it seems dangerous to grant to a private person the cognizance of any crime, which might belong to public Authority; and they thought it better to strengthen both the Paternal and Marital Power by other Laws than putting to Death. And therefore Simplecius upon Epictetus his Enchiridion, says, that the Romans allowed Fathers this Power, because they thought they might very well trust their Natural Affection to their Children, for the exercise of that Power of selling them or putting them to Death, which 'twas supposed they would rarely use, unless compelled by extreme necessity or unpardonable crimes; and therefore if a Father would put his Son to death, he was to do it with his own hands, that he might suffer as well as his Son, but when this tender affection ●oo failed, it was no wonder that the Roman Emperors did not think it for the common good of their People, to trust Fathers with this Power any longer, which they had hitherto exercised, not so properly by right of Fatherhood, as that of the Master of a Family, who governed his Servants and his Sons by a like Authority.  
To conclude, I cannot but observe, how slyly▪ you wave my objection against the Divine Institution of Monarchy, for tho' you seem loath expressly to condemn all other Governments as unlawful, yet the consequence will be the same upon your principles: For if it be a good argument which some make use of, for the Government of the Church by Bishops, because that Government being supposed by them to have been instituted by the Apostles by Divine Precept, therefore that no other Government but Episcopacy can be lawful, or any true Church, where that Government is not in use: so the same argument will likewise hold in Civil Governments, that all others must be unlawful if Monarchy alone were ordained by God, and that all other forms whatsoever began from Rebellion or the Fancies of Men.  M. 
To answer what you have said, in the first place I cannot so slightly pass over this argument of the Law of Nations, by which I supposed the Power of Fathers over the Persons of their Children is sufficiently established, and from whence also it appears that among the jews as well as Romans, the Children were looked upon as part of the substance of their Father, and consequently that they had a perpetual right in their Persons, as long as they lived, that the Romans had the power of selling their Children three times, yourself do not deny; that the jews also had it in use among them appears, first by the story of the poor Woman, the Widow of one of the Sons of the Prophets, who complained to Elisha, in the second of Kings, 
Chap. 4.1.  telling him that her Husband is dead, and the Creditor is come to take her two Sons to be Bondmen. And so likewise in the New Testament, our Saviour in St. Matthew, supposes it as a thing commonly practised in those parts of the World where he lived. For in the Parable of the King, who would take account of his Servants, 
Matth. 18.24, 25.  amongst whom one owed him Ten thousand Talents: But for as much as he had nothing to pay, his Lord commanded him to be sold, and his Wife, and Children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. Which was founded upon that Law amongst the Jews, that Fathers might sell their Children for Bond-servants, 
Verse 5.  until the year of jubilee▪ as appears by Nehemiah, Chap. 5. where he relates the Complaint of those poor Jews, who had been forced for want to bring their Sons and their Daughters into Bondage: Neither was it in their power to redeem them, for other Men had their Lands, and their Vineyards.  
And amongst the Romans, this Power of selling their Children continued till it was forbidden by the Emperor justinian. And as for the Grecians, Plutarch in his Life of Solon relates, that till his time it was lawful amongst the Athenians, for Fathers to sell their Children to pay their own Debts: And I suppose it was upon this account, that Cymon the Son of the great General Miltiades, was kept in Prison by the Athenians, till he had paid the Fine of ten Thousand Talents, which his Father died indebted to the Commonwealth. And Philostratus in his Life of Apollonius Thyanaus relates, that it was common amongst the Phrygians to sell their own Sons: And to come to more Modern Times, a Son amongst the Muscovites▪ may by sold four times, but after the fourth Sale the Either hath no longer a Right in him, as the Baron of Heber●lein tells us in his Relation of Muscovy; and it is not only in use amongst them, but also amongst the Tartars, East-Indians, Chineses, and the People of Japan, not only to sell their Children themselves, but also, that they are liable to be sold by the Prince, or his Officers, for their Father's Debts, or Offences: So that you see here is the Consent of most of the Civilised Nations in the World, who sure, in this, follow the Dictates of Nature, and Reason, in the exercise of a full, and absolute Propriety, and Dominion in, and over the Persons of their Children; so that if it be a received Custom, or Law amongst most Nations, it is also from Reason too, since the Law of Nations is only that which receives its obligation from the Consent of many Nations, as Grotius well observes: And Aristotle lays it down as one of the strongest proofs, when all men agree in any thing: And Cicero tells us, That the Consent of most Nations is to be looked upon as a Law of Nature; and therefore these Customs are to be esteemed as obligatory amongst all Civilised Nations, where the Municipal Laws of those Countries have not restrained or altered this Natural Power, and Interest, which Fathers had originally over the Persons of their Children.  
But as for what you say, that according to my Principles no other Government can be Lawful besides Monarchy, I shall give you the same Answer, that some of the most Moderate of our Divines have given to those, who would make the like Objection against us of the Church of England, tha● believe Episcopacy to be jure Divin●; viz. That God may for the necessity of some Ecclesiastical Order and Government in a Church, allow that Form of Government to be Lawful, which himself never Instituted; Nay, which perhaps was unlawful to have been set up in the Church at all; and so likewise in Civil Governments, I will not deny, that those Forms may be lawfully obeyed as the Ordinance of God which he never Instituted, but have wholly proceeded from the Rebellions, or Inventions of Men.  F. 
I must confess, Sir, I cannot see how any Law of Nations can be supposed to lay any Obligation upon Mankind different from the Law of Nature, and Reason, or the revealed Law of God in Scripture. And, tho' I confess there is some division amongst Learned Men about this matter; yet I think it is far more rational to suppose▪ that there are but two Law that can be Rules of Humane Actions, the Natural Law, and the Divine. And of this Opinion is the Learned Grotius himself in the place you but now cited, where he says, he added the words, many Nations, because there can scarce be found any Natural Law, which is also wont to be called the Law of Nations, that is common to all Nations: Yea, that is often looked upon as a Law of Nations in one Country, which is not so any where else; as (says he) we shall show in its due place, concerning Captivity, and Postluminium.  
And for a farther confirmation of this, I will make bold to read to you in English some part of what th● Excellent Pu●endof hath written upon this Subject in his Learned Work De Jure Naturae & Gentium, 
S. 23.  Lib. 2. Cap. 3. which you may here read with me.  
The Law of Nature and the Law of Nations is accounted by many one and the same, which only differ by an extrinsic denomination. And form hence, Hobbs, De Cive, C. 14. § 4. Divides the Law of Nature into the Natural Law of Men, and the Natural Law of Common Wealths, which is commonly called Jus Gentium: And then adds that the Precepts of both are the same; but because Commonwealths, when once instituted do put on the personal properties of Men, that Law which speaking of the duty of particular men, we call Natural, being applied to all Commonwealths or Nations, is called Jus Gentium▪ to which opinion we do likewise subscribe; neither do we think there can be any other voluntary or positive Law of Nations, which can have the power of a Law properly so called, and which may oblige all Nations as proceeding from a Superior. But most of those things which amongst the Roman Civil Lawyers, and others are referred to the Law of Nations, as suppose about the manner, of acquiring of Contracts, and the like, do either belong to the Law of Nature, or else to the Civil Laws of particular Nations, which agree together, for the most part, in these things: yet from which n● new, or distinct sort of Law is Rightly constituted, because those 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 Lawgivers in each particular Commonwealth; from whence the same things may be changed by one People or Nation, without consulting the rest, and often times are found to be so changed.  
And of this he here gives us several Examples of different customs amongst Nations in making War upon each other, according to divers forms, or tacit Agreements, whereby War may be managed with a little Cruelty as may be: but thus he proceeds;  
These Customs altho' they may seem to contain some Obligation, as arising from this sort of Tacit agreement amongst Nations, yet if any Prince shall wage a lawful War, or neglect them, or should do quite contrary to them, he would not be guilty of any sin against the Law of Nature; but only of a piece of Roughness or Incivility, that he did not make War according to those Rules of Honour which are used among them, by whom War is looked upon as a liberal Art. [And a little farther proceeds thus.]  
Amongst the principal Heads of the voluntary Law of Nations, Grotius reckons the right of Ambassadors, where we also suppose that by the very Law of Nature, Ambassadors are inviolable even with the Enemy, as long as they appear Ambassadors, and not Spies, and do not contrive Plots against those to whom, they are sent, and having shown the necessity of Ambassadors in order to Peace, he thus goes on; but there are other privileges Attributed to Ambassadors, especially to those, who reside in a place rather to fish out the Secrets of another State, than for Peace sake, those privileges depend from the mere indulgence of that Prince to whom they are sent, and so if it seems good to him may be denied them, without the violation of any Right, if he will likewise suffer that his own Ambassadors should be Treated in a like manner.  M. 
I see whether this Author tends, but do not understand what use you ●an make of it to your purpose.  F. 
But I will quickly show you if you please to have a little Patience, and therefore to apply what I have now read, to the matter in hand, in the first place, it is apparent from this Author, that the Law, or Custom of Nations, hath no Obligation as such, but only as it agreeth with the Law of Nature, and the Law of God, and what Laws of Nations, are founded on the Law of Nature, can only be tried by some rule, which certainly is not to be learned from the Knowledge of the Customs or Laws of all Nations, since who is able to know them all? And therefore these Laws must be tried either by the natural light of a Mans own Conscience, or else by considering whether this or that practice of a Nation conduces to the Honour or Service of God, or the common good and happiness of Mankind, and so may be known as well by the unlearned as the learned. Now I suppose you will not affirm, that this Law of the absolute Property and Dominion of Fathers in and over their Children, can be discovered by either of these ways, or that a Man's Conscience will tell him, that it is his duty to let his Father Kill him or Sell him, or use him like a Brute, without any contradiction or resistance. And as for the other, I think I have sufficiently proved that this absolute power which you assert of Fathers over their Children, doth not proceed from that great Law of Nature, viz. the common good and preservation of Mankind, to which the practice of it may prove very destructive, which if proved, I think, I may easily answer all that you have now said about the particular Customs, or Laws of divers Nations concerning this Matter, tho' your Instances were many more than they are.  
For in the first place as for those you allege out of the Scripture, they do (as I said before) only regard th● Municipal Laws of the jews; those of the Romans touching this matter, did only concern those Commonwealths whilst they were in being and no other Nations whatsoever, and for this opinion, I have both Grotius and Pufendrof of my side, for the former in the beginning of the Chapter last quoted, after having set down the different Powers which Fathers may exercise over their Children, according to their different Ages: thus affirms; as you may here see. Whatsoever is beyond these Powers, proceeds, only from a voluntary Law, which is different in divers places so by the Law which God gave the jews, the Power of the Father over his Son or Daughter, to dissolve their Vows was not perpetual, but only endured as long as the Children were parts of their Father's Family.  
And by the same Rule I may add, that Children were not reckoned as part of their Father's Goods, and to be sold by him, or seized upon by Creditors for his Debts any longer, than they continued Members of their Father's Family, and consequently were not seized upon as his Sons, but Servants. And I desire you to show me an Example, where ever among the jews, the Children after they were Adult, and parted from their Father's House, were sold or seized as Slaves for their Father's Debts. And as for the Romans, it is plain, they acknowledged their Patria Potestas to be in use amongst them, neither by the Law of Nature, or Nations, but only from their own Civil Law, as appears by this Title, almost at the very beginning of Iustininian's Institutions, (as I suppose you know better than I) Patria Potestas est Juris Civilis, 
Iust. L. 1. § 2. T 9  & Civium Romanorum propria. The Text follows in these words (as I remember) Jus Potestatis quod in liberos habemus proprium est Civium Romanorum, nulli enim alii sunt homines qui talem in liberos habeant Potestat●●, qualem nos habemus; And therefore they would not permit strangers to exercise it over their Children within the City of Rome. And if the Power of the Father among the Jews and Romans was not by the Law of Nature, or Nations, no more could it be so, tho' exercised amongst never so many other Nations, since if it were one of the Laws or Precepts of Nature, it could never have been taken away, or restrained by any Civil Law without the express Consents of all Fathers. And as for your Instance of Cymon amongst the Athenians; it makes nothing to this purpose; since if I take it at the worst, it maketh no more, than that the Athenian Commonwealth dealt very ungratefully, and Tyrannically with Miltiades and his Son; and it might be that they kept him Prisoner as being Heir to his Father's Principality in the Thracian Chersonnese, out of which they supposed he might pay the Debt; as the King with us doth often put an Heir in Prison for his Father's Debts, where he hath Assets by Descent.  
But for all your other Examples, unless they have a reason in Nature to support them, they will no more prove that by the Law of Nations Fathers should have a Right of Life and Death, or of selling their Children, than if you should argue from the Common Custom amongst the Lacedæmonians, the Aborigines in Italy, the Inhabitants of the Kingdom of Sophiris, as amongst the Indians mentioned by Queen Curtius, and the Chinese, and the Inhabitants of Formosa at this day; all which either did, or now do destroy their Children as soon as they are brought forth, or else in the Womb afore they are born, if they please so to do. And as for some of these Nations you have instanced in, and particularly the Muscovites, who can ●ell their Children, but four times, it is apparent it is only a Municipal Law; for if the Property of the Father over the Sons Persons were by them looked upon as perpetual, he might not only sell him four times, but forty, if it were possible.  
But on the other side, I have against this Custom of your N●tions, the Examples of divers altogether as Wise, and Civilised, who did not permit Fathers to exercise this absolute Power over their Children, and therefore against your Example of the Jews, I set that of the Egyptians, who did not Permit Parents to put their Children to Death, nor yet to sell them, unless in case of great necessity, and when they could not otherwise maintain them, and then I grant it may be necessary, So likewise against your Roman Law, I set that of all the Greek Nations, none of whom permitted Fathers to put their Children to Death, 
Plutarch in Lycurgo.  except the Spartans', and that was only in one case, and that was only in one case, and that with the judgement and consent of the eldest Men of the Family, yet when their new born Infants were so weak or ill shaped as to be thought not worth the rearing. So likewise against▪ your examples of the Ancient Gauls, I set that of the Germans, a Nation altogether as wise and civilised as the other, to whom I could likewise add the Ancient Britain's, Spaniards, and divers others, and to the more Modern examples of the Eastern Nations, where this custom is permitted of selling or killing their Children; I shall oppose the Turks and Persians, amongst whom it is forbidden, as also amongst all the Nations of Europe, who believe Christianity; and if we go over to America, we shall find that they are there so indulgent to their Children, that no fault whatsoever, tho' never so great, shall make them put them to Death. And to let you see that this is most suitable to Reason, the two greatest Philosophers amongst the Greeks, Plato and Aristotle, have condemned it; The former in his Laws, where he expressly forbids it, supposing that in no case whatever, a Father ought to put off all Piety and Humanity towards his Son, and that a Son should be rather led by Nature, than driven by force to obey his Father; especially since his Power is sufficiently established by the Law, and the appointing of public Judges; and Aristotle in his Morals to Nicomachus, Lib. 8. cap. 12. accuses the Jus Patrium in use among the Persians as Tyrannical, and Grotius tells you; he makes use of these examples of the Romans and Persians, only that we might distinguish Civil Rights from natural. 
* VI P. Aerodius Rerum Judicatarum L▪ VI cap. 17. De emendatione Liberorum.  From whence it appears that the putting of Children to death by Parents, was looked upon as an odious thing amongst the wisest of the Ancients; and therefore neither the Lex Regia, nor the Law of the XII. Tables, nor the Julian Law de Adulteriis (all which left Fathers a Power over the Lives of their Sons and Daughters) yet would extend this Power by Interpretation to the Grand Father towards his Grandson or Granddaughter.  M. 
Yet for all this I think all the wisest and most Civilised 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 wiser and better People than the Greeks, and the Ancient Gauls, than the Germans. Nor does your argument against this power of Life and Death in Fathers by the Law of Nature, seem cogent, that if it were so, it could never be taken away or restrained by any Civil Law▪ since this argument will make v● much against that power of Life and Death, with which you invest your Fathers of Families in the state of Nature, since if they have it by the Law of Nature, it could no more he restrained, or taken away by Civil Laws, than any Paternal Power in the like case.  F. 
I pray Sir, hold, if this controversy is to be decided by the Wisdom and the Civility of Nations, we shall never have done; For in the first place, who shall judge of this consent of the most Civilised People? and that no account is to be made of those whom you call Barbarous; for what Nation will acknowledge itself to be so; or can arrogate so much to itself, as that it may require all others to conform themselves to their Laws and Customs; and that all Nations must be barbarous that act otherwise? Anciently the arrogance of the Greeks, made them look upon all other Nations as Barbarous, and then the Romans succeeded in this foolish conceit of themselves; and at this day we People of Europe (who are but a few in comparison of the rest of the World) do suppose ourselves to exceed all others in Knowledge. And yet on the other side there are divers Nations who prefer themselves far before us, and I have read that the Chineses have a saying, that the Europeans see with one Eye, themselves with two, but that all the rest of the World are stark blind, and yet this Nation maintains a Power of selling, and exposing their Children, which we Europeans abhor. Now pray tell me if there is not some common rule to be drawn from reason, or the common good of Mankind, how shall we judge which is in the right? So that notwithstanding all that hath been said on this subject: I think I may safely conclude with the Judgement of the Learned Pufendorf, in Lib. 6. Cap. 2. where speaking of the Paternal Power, he says thus, But neither th● same Power as such, seems to extend itself to that of Life and Death by reason of any fault, but only to a moderate chastisement. For since this authority is employed about an Age, that i● weak and tender, and in which such incorrigible crimes can hardly be committed, which nothing but Life can expiate, it is much better that a Father should turn out of Doors a Son who doth wilfully refuse through obstinacy and wickedness all due correction. So that Abdication and Disinheriting seems to be the utmost punishment which can be inflicted by a Father on a Son considered as such.  M. 
I see it is to no purpose to spend longer time about this question but since yourself have all along allowed that the Father of a separate Family in the state of Nature, hath a Power to put his Wife or Children to Death, in case they have committed any heinous sins or offences against the Laws of God or Nature, but you have not yet told me (and I doubt cannot) how Adam or any other Master of a Family could be endued with this Power of Life and Death, unless it were granted him by God.  F. 
I promise to give you full satisfaction to this question 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 exercised by Masters of separate Families, over their Wives and Children in some cases, is not by any Power they receive from God, as Husbands or Fathers but only as Heads or Masters of such Families, may by proved by this instance, suppose a Master of a Family independent on any other (as in the Indies) hath neither Wife nor Children, yet sure he hath notwithstanding the same Power of Life and Death over his Servants or Slaves, for such great offences as you have mentioned, in case there be no superior Power over him to take Cognizance of such Crimes. And to make this yet plainer, suppose a Married Man having a Wife and Children will live (together with them) in the Family of such a Master as I have now described (yet not a● a Servant, but as an Inmate or Boarder) and whilst he so continues, his Wife Kills one of her Children, or one of his Sons, Murders his Brother, who hath right to punish this offence, but the Master in whose Family he is an Inmate▪ And this follows from your own supposed: for if every separate Family in the state of Nature be a distinct independent Government, than all those that enter themselves, as Members of such a Family must be subject to the Master or Governor of it. Nor do you reduce me into any absurdity by your reply to my argument, That if▪ the Power of Life and Death were Originally in Fathers by the Law of Nature, it could never be restrained nor taken from them without their consent; that then this will make as much against the like Power of Masters of Families; since I must grant, this is taken away by Civil Laws, And why not the other? To this I reply, that you do not observe the strength of these words, Without their consent; For I suppose that no Power whatever can take this out of the hands of such Fathers, or Masters of Families in the state of Nature, without they assign it to the Supreme Powers of the Commonwealth upon its first Institution; whereas you make this Power to be obtainable by Force, as by Conquest, or Usurpation, not only over those that are not at their own disposal, as Children and Servants; but over their Fathers and Masters too, without their consents; which is contrary to the Law of Nature and Reason.  M. 
I see you take it for granted, that I will admit your Instance of the Power of Life and Death to be in the Masters of Families, and not as Fathers in the State of Nature: But as plain as you think it, since you question the Power of Life and Death, which I suppose to be inherent in all Fathers; I know not why I may not with more Reason question your allowing the like Power to Masters of separate Families, since there is no reason, in my Opinion, which you can bring for such a Power in your Masters of Families, which I cannot with like reason urge may be also exercised by Fathers, and Husbands, over their Wives and Children, in case they deserve it. For if it be for the good and preservation of mankind, that great and enormous Crimes, such as Murder and Adultery, should be punished, and that with Death; Who is more fit to inflict these punishments, or who can be supposed to judge more impartially of them, than the Father, or Husband himself? Since he cannot put his Son or Wife to Death, however they may deserve it, without very great reluctancy; since he, a● it were, thereby lops off a Limb from his own Body. And therefore I cannot see any Reason, why such a Married man as you describe, should by coming under another Man's Roo● only, as an Inmate, or Boarder, and not as a Slave, (which I grant would alter the Case) should lose that Power of Life and Death, which I suppose he hath by the Laws of God and Nature over his Wife and Children, unless he had actually given it up to the Master of that Family with whom he came to Board. And therefore as I do not deny, but that a Master of a separate Family hath power of Life and Death, and also of making Peace and War, with other such Masters of Families, nay, with Princes themselves, if there be occasion, as we read in Genesis, Chap. 14. That Abraham made War with the four Kings who had taken Lot Prisoner. So likewise when Judah pronounced Sentence of Death against Thamar his Daughter-in-Law, for playing the Harlot, Bring her forth, says he, and let her be burnt, Gen. 38. I own this was not done by the Authority of a Father alone (she not being his own Daughter, and his Son being then dead;) but as the Master of a separate Family, who hath (I grant) power of Life and Death, as he is Lord over the persons of his Children, a● Servants, and consequently over their Wives also; for if he hath 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 set them free. But now I desire to know by what right these Patriarch● could exercise all these mark● of Sovereignty, especially this great Power of Life and Death, unless it were derived from God at first; since no Man hath any power to dispose of his own Life at his pleasure, and therefore sure hath naturally no power over that of another man's: So that not only this Power of the Patriarches, but also that of all Monarches to this day, must be derived from this Divine Original.  F. 
Well then, I find you're forced to quit the power of a Father, as such by Generation, since it plainly appears, that this power of Life and Death, which you affirm a Husband, or Father may exercise over their Wives or Children in the state of Nature, is not, quatenus, as a Father, but Lord and Master over them; which in the first place I cannot allow to be true in relation to the Wife; nor that the submission of the Wife's Will to the Husband must imply a power of Life and Death over her; for if she is not his Slave (as certainly she is not, for then a Man might sell his Wife when he pleased) I cannot see how she herself could convey by force of the contract, any such Power over her Life, though I grant, indeed, if she happen to commit Murder upon one of her Children, or other Person of the Family, he may proceed against her as an Enemy, but not as a Subject; and if it be for Adultery itself, I cannot see that the Husband can by the Law of Nature punish her with Death; for since that Crime doth really dissolve the bond of Matrimony, Divorce, or putting her away, and deserting the Child born in Adultery, was even among the Romans looked upon as a sufficient punishment. 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 whilst they are part of his Family, as over his Slaves or Servants in Case of such great and enormous Crimes as you have already mentioned; but that this is not as a Father, but Master of a Family, yourself have already granted in your Instances of Abraham and Judah; though if you will consider the last a little better, you will find that Judah did not proceed thus against Thamar, as her Father, or Master, but by some other Right; For if you please to look upon the 11th Verse of that Chap. of Genesis, from whence you cite this Example, you will find that Thamar, after the Death of Onan her Husband, went with Judah's leave, and dwelled in her own Father's House, and she was then a Member of his Family, and consequently (according to your Hypothesis) not under Judah's Power, when she was thus got with Child by him; and therefore not he, but her own Father ought to have condemned her, if this Judgement had belonged to him as to the Master of the Family. And therefore some of the Rabbins suppose, that when Judah gave this Judgement against Thamar, he did not act either as a Father, or Master of the Family, for he was then under the Power of the Canaanites; (who certainly had some Civil Government among them at that time) and therefore they suppose that he acted thus as a Civil Judge, appointed by the supreme Magistrate of that Nation.  
But to defend the Instance I have given you of a Father of a Family losing his power of Life and Death, upon his becoming a part or Member of another Family; you yourself have already yielded me as much as I can reasonably desire for the defence of my Assertion, since you allow this power of Life and Death to Fathers, not as such, but as Lords, and Masters over their Children, as over their Slaves; and if so, I desire to know who can challenge this Power but the Master of the Family with whom he ●ives, unless you can suppose two distinct Heads, or Masters in the same House, and then they will not be one Family, but two, under distinct Heads, each of them still retaining their distinct Rights. But you will say, that this Boarder, or Inmate, is not a Servant, or Slave to the Master 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; but it is no matter whether he did, or not, since by making himself a Member of the others Family, he ceased to be Master of his own, and concequently must lose 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 so many distin Commonweat●●, independent upon each other; it will likewise follow, that the Heads of those Families must be in all things necessary for the Good and Preservation of the Family, like so many distinct Civil Sovereigns, and consequently must have a power of Life and Death, and also of making Laws, with Punishments annexed to them▪ in all Cases where the good and peace of the Family require it. If therefore in a Civil State, or Monarchy, and absolute Prince come into the Dominions or Territories of another, it is acknowledged by all Writets on this Subject, That such a Prince loses that power of Life and Death which he had before, and cannot exercise it as long as he is in the other Prince's Dominions: So by the same Reason, if the Masters of Families, in the State of Nature, are like so many Civil Sovereigns, it will follow, that they must cease to be such, when they become members of another's Family, unless you will fall into the absurdity of supposing to absolute independent Heads, or Masters, in one and the same House; which, what a confusion it would bring, I leave to yourself to judge.  M. 
I shall not much dispute this Power of Life and Death with you, as belonging to Masters of separate Families: But pray show me how they can exercise this Power over the Lives of those that are under their Jurisdiction, unless it were granted them by God, by virtue of that Original Power given to Adam, not only as a Father, but Prince of his Posterity.  F, 
I do not doubt but I shall give you a satisfactory Answer to this important Demand, without supposing any extraordinary Divine Commission from God to Adam; For as for your Instance of Abraham's making War, Leagues, or Covemants with other Princes, it i● no more than what any Master of a separate Family may do for his own and their defence; and what if you or I were Masters of a Family in the Indieses, where their is no Power above us, we might do as well as Abraham, and all this without any other Commission from God, than the great Right of Nature, Self-preservation, and the Well performance of that trust which God hath put into our hands, of defending, and providing for ourselves and our Families, since if God hath ordained the End, he hath likewise ordained all means necessary thereunto; and therefore there is no such great Mystery in this as you suppose.  M. 
If there were no more in it than a mere Right of Self defence, for which I grant Retaliation, or Revenge may be also necessary, you would have a great d●●l of Reason on your side; But pray show me how a Father, or Master of a Family▪ can Condemn either his Wife, Child, or Servant to Death, as a Punishment for any enormous Crime, such as I have mentioned (and you agreed to) without such a Divine Commission as I suppose Adam had. Since I own Revenge or Re●alla●ion may ●e used by private men in the State of Nature, by the Right of Self defence, 〈…〉 grant may be exercised between equals; But since all punishments, properly taken, are the Acts of Superiors towards their Inferiors, I cannot conceive how any Father, or Master of a Family, can inflict so great a Punishment as Death upon any Member of it, unless he derived this Power immediately from God, by virtue of the Divine Charter committed by him to Adam, and and from thence to be derived to all Masters of Families, or civil Sovereigns, who could never derive this Power from the Joint Compacts or consent of Fathers, of Masters of Families; since no man could convey that to another, which he had not himself. And I have already, I think, with a great deal of Truth Asserted, That no man hath power over his own Life, to take it away when he pleases, and therefore cannot have it over another man's; much less can convey any such Right to others, except it were granted at first by God, in the manner I have supposed, which I conceive may easily be made out by several places in Genesis; by which it plainly appears that Adam, and after him Noah, were supernaturally endued with this Divine Power.  F. 
Tho ● am satisfied that this Hypothesis is extremely absurd, since if it were so only, Christian or Jewish Sovereigns, or Magistrates, who acknowledge the Scriptures, could lay any claim to▪ or exercise this Divine Power; whereas we find it practised by all those Nations, with whom the memory of Adam, and Noah is quite lost, and therefore must claim this Prerogative, not from any Revealed, but Natural Law of God; yet however since you think you have such clear Texts of Scripture on your side, I desire you to produce them, though, if they should make out what you say, they would only serve to confirm, by Divine Revelation, that Prerogative of Life and Death, which all Masters of Families, as well as Civil Sovereigns, enjoyed by the Law of Nature, before ever the Bible was written.  M. 
As for my own part, I am so well satisfied of this Supreme Power of life and death granted at first by God to Adam, and after to Noah, that I cannot see that without the supposal of this, any Supreme power could lawfully be exercised by civil Sovereigns at this day: And therefore I am of Mr. Selden 's opinion, who in his most learned Treatise, De jure gentium apud Hebraeos, maintains with the jewish Rabbins, That the Law of Nature can never be planly proved, and made out by Reason, without a Tradition of its Precepts, as given by God to Adam, and thence conveyed to Noah, and his posterity: Which Divine Laws, or Commands, are called by the jews the Seven precepts of Noah, which whatsoever Nation, or People, would observe, they permitted them to live as Inhabitans among them; though they did not embrace Circumcision, or those other Rights and Ceremonies commanded by the Law of Moses. Now amongst these Precepts, that of instituting public Judgements for capital Crimes, is one of the first, in pursuance of that Command which God gave Noah immediately after the Flood, Gen. 9 v. 6. Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. By which Text almost all Commentators understand that it is not any common man, but the person of the civil Magistrate or Sovereign that is to be meant: Since it would be both impracticable, and also breed great confusion in civil Societies, if by this word man, every common person, not endued by God with this Supreme Power of Life and Death, should be understood; and therefore I do suppose with the most Learned jews, that this Power was first exercised by virtue of that Divine Charter that was given of it by God to Adam, and then renewed again to Noah, by the Text abovementioned.  
Now that Adam had by Divine grant an absolute Dominion over the whole World, 
F. O▪ 210, 211▪  and all Creatures therein contained, will appear from Gen. 1. v. 27, 28. (here is the Bible, I desire you would read it with me) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them; and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the Fish of the Sea, and over the Fowl of the Air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth. By which Grant, or Donation, from God of subduing the Earth, and having dominion over the Creatures, Adam was made the general Lord of all things, with such a particular propriety to himself, as did exclude his Children from having any share in it. So that if Cain had his Fields for Corn, or Abel his Flocks, and Pasture for them, it was only by Adam's Grant▪ or Assignation, none of his Children or Descendants having any property in Lands or Goods, without his particular Grant, or Permission.  F. 
You must pardon me, Sir, if I cannot be of your Opinion, that all the Precepts of the Law of Nature must depend upon no firmer foundation, than a Tradition of the Seven Precepts, supposed by the Jewish Rabbins to be given to Adam, and Noah, and from them conveyed to all their Posterity, since we find not the least mention of any such Precepts in the Scripture, or in Josephus, Philo Judaeus, or any other ancient Writer, but only in the T●lmud: Which though it pretends to a great Antiquity in its Traditions, yet any judicious man that will but peruse it, may easily see the falsehood, as well as absurdity of the pretended Tradition of these Precepts; one of which is against ea●ing the Members of any living Creature; which savours so strongly of a Jewish Superstition, that if that were a true Precept, or Law of Nature, no man could eat a Dish of Lambstones, or a Black pudding, without sinning against the Law of Nature: And it is very impro●●● to suppose, that all mankind, except Jews, Christians and Mahometans, should be obliged to live or act by those Laws or Precepts they never heard of. For▪ it (as you yourself must grant) the memory or tradition of these Precepts be quite lost amongst all Nations, except the Jews, it is all one as if they had acted without any Law at all; and consequently, if they have not some better grounds for their observation of the Law of Nature, than these Precepts of Noah, I doubt whether (according to your Hypothesis) all Civil Sovereigns that do not own the original of their Power of life and death▪ to this Divine Charter granted to Adam, and Noah, must be no better than Murderers, since they take upon them to exercise this great Prerogative without any Divine Authority for so doing. But I hope to show you before we have concluded this conversation, that, not only the Power of Life, and Death, but also other Laws of Nature, may easily be deduced, by Reason, to have been given by God to Mankind, by the ordinary Course of his Providence, without recurring to Divine Revelation; which can only oblige those that have heard of it. But since you lay so much stress upon those Texts of Scripture you have now cited; I pray give me leave to examine, whether they will bear that sense you put upon them. As for the first of those Texts you quote, Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, etc. Suppose I should take it in that sense you put upon it, only to extend to Civil Sovereigns, or Magistrates, it will be so 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 seems to imply the contrary; for if it was a known Law before, that Murder was to be punished with death by a Father, or other Magistrate, to what purpose 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 Expositors agree, that this is the first Precept enjoining Murder to be punished by the Civil Magistrate, which, before any of the Kin of the Person slain might have executed, as appears by Genesis 4. v. 14. when Cain said unto the Lord, I shall be a fugitive, and a vagabond on the Earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me, shall slay me; which had been a needless fear, if none but Adam had a power to take away his life for the murder of his Brother, as you suppose; much less that God should have needed to have set a mark upon him to keep him from being murdered by his Brethren, or other Relations. Nor will that other place you cite out of Genesis prove Adam's sole dominion over the Earth, and all the things and persons therein contained: For if you please to consider it, you will find, That it is so far from proving your Opinion, that it speaks the direct contrary. pray therefore observe of whom Moses speaks in that place; surely not of Adam alone, when he says, Male and Female created he them; and God blessed them, and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the Fish of the Sea, and over the Fowl of the Air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth: From whence we may observe, 
P. n. M. p. 10.  First, That these words being directed in the plural number, both to the Male and Female, were not intended to Adam alone, but by way of anticipation, not only to himself, and Eve, (who was not then made) but likewise to their Posterity (that is) all mankind; Then that they should be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it, (that is, possess and enjoy it) and have dominion, etc. 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 Mankind, but only over Bruit-beasts, that move or creep upon the Earth, is hereby conferred. And that this must be the true meaning of this place, is plain, if you will but read the two next Verses that follow. And God said, Behold, I have given you every Herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the Earth; and every Tree, in which is the fruit of a Tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the Earth, and to every Fowl of the Air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the Earth, wherein there is life▪ I have given every green Herb for meat; and it was so. Which words are certainly directed to the same persons as the former (that is) to all Mankind, by the same Argument as that every green Herb is here granted for meat to every Beast of the Earth, and every Fowl of the Air, etc. that then was, or ever shall exist in Nature. So that this Text which you have cited to prove this absolute and sole dominion of Adam over the Earth, and all thee Creatures therein contained, is so far from proving any such thing, that it seems to me to make out the direct contrary Doctrine, viz. That the Earth, and all the Creatures therein, were not granted to Adam alone, as the sole Lord and Master of them; but in common to himself, his Wife, and all his Posterity, who had as good a right to them, `as he had himself. So that I must tell you, if you intent to bring me over to your Opinion, you must produce some better proofs out of Scripture, or Reason, than those made use of by 〈◊〉 R. F. and therefore I desire that you would give me some plaine● proofs for Adam's absolute Power over his Wife, and all his posterity, than hitherto you have done; since I cannot see any Divine Charter granted by God in Scripture, of any absolute power, or dominion, over their Lives, or Persons.  M. 
I shall, Sir, do my best endeavour to give you all the satisfaction I can possibly therein; therefore I desire you farther to take notice, That Mr. Selden, in his Mare Clasum, and all the Jewish Rabbins have understood this Text in Genesis, 
L. 1. c. 4.  to give Adam an absolute power over the Earth, and all things therein contained, exclusive to his Posterity as long as he lived. And the said Author from the ancient Tradition of the Jews, 
Ibid.  is of the same Opinion in his Mare Clausum▪ So that if Sir R. F. and divers others have erred in the sense of this place, I believe it is more than you or I can prove, since sure they would not have put this sense upon it, without they had some good reason for it.  
But this much I suppose you will admit, that Adam was created by God, 
Luke 3.27.  and is in Scripture called the Son of God, as indeed he was; and if so, let yourself, or any other rational man considered Whether it be at all likely that God should not endow this Son of his, 
B. P. P. Sect. 32.  the Father of mankind, with somuch Authority and Power as should enable him to govern his own Family, and Children, as long as he lived, without depending upon them for their consent, and chopping Logic with them, whethe● his Commands were reasonable, or lawful or not: And if a power of life and death was necessary (as the murder of Abel by Cain shows it was) whether Adam had no more share in that Power, than any of his Children, or grandchildren: which is sufficient to show you the absurdity of your Tenets. That the Authority of Adam over his posterity was not absolute in its exercise, as well as perpetual in its duration; and this I think you cannot but admit, because you have already acknowledged this Power of life and death to proceed from, or to be granted by God to Adam; and so consequently must have continued with him as long as he lived.  F. 
Well, I perceive you find your Monarchy, or absolute Dominion of Adam over Eve, and all her Posterity, as also over all the Creatures of the Earth, not to be proved from any of these Places of Scripture you have brought for this extravagant Opinion▪ and therefore you now urge upon me my own concession of this Supreme and Absolute Authority of Life and Death, which I do not deny but Adam might have exercised in some cases over his Wife and Children 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 Master of his own Family, I think I have sufficiently proved, and therefore need not repeat it. And indeed your own instance of the murder of Abel by Cain, (which for all we can find passed unpunished by Adam) sufficiently proves, That this Power of Life and Death over his Children or Grand children, when once they were separated from his Family, was not a necessary Prerogative of his Government, or else that his Children, and grandchildren, when they have erected 〈◊〉 milies of their own, had it as much from God as he▪ and that from the same reason which you give, why God endowed Adam with it, viz. because without such a Power they could not have been enabled to Govern their Children and Families as long as they lived. So that Adam's being created by God, or called his Son, gave him not a jo● more power over his Children, and his Descendants, than what as a Master, or Head of a Family he would have had by the Law of Nature however; and it is all one in this Case, whether you suppose Mankind to have been created by God, or to have existed from all Eternity, provided you hold the being of a God, according to the Hypothesis of the more modern, Platonists, who though they held the Eternity of the World, yet likewise owned all things to be governed by God's Providence: And therefore if on this Supposition, Mankind could not be well governed, nor preserved, without inflicting of Capital Punishments for great Crimes, and that they are necessary for its peace and preservation; it is likewise as necessary, that there should be some Judge appointed by God to inflict them, which in the State of Nature can be only the Head, or Master of a Family; as after Civil Government is once instituted, it belongs to the Civil Sovereign, or Commonwealth. And this I hope will serve to answer your Scruple, how Adam, or any other Master of a separate Family, may very well be endued with this great Power of Life and Death by the Law of Nature, without supposing any Charter granted him for it by Divine Revelation▪ or else depending upon his children's consent for his exercise of it.  
But before I farther consider, whether this Power of Adam, or of any other Father, or Master, be perpetual or not, and extends any farther than his own Family, give me leave to examine, Whether or no Children, when grown to years of Discretion, and even whilst they continue Members of their Father's Family, may not in some Cases chop Logic with him (as you call it) and not only question, but judge whether their Commands be reasonable, or lawful, or not; or else Abraham (for example) mut have sacrificed to Idols, 
Vid. Jos. Ant. lib. 1. c.  because his Father bid him. Whereas Josephus tells us, He rather chose to quit his Country, and his Father's house, than to sin against God. And therefore I think you cannot deny, but if Husbands, or Fathers command their Wives or Children to do any thing that is morally unlawful, or contrary to the Laws of God, or Nature, they may lawfully (nay are obliged) not to obey such unlawful Commands.  M. 
I shall so far agree with you, That if the thing commanded be apparently contrary to the Laws of God, 
B. P. P. Sect. 48.  and Nature, that they are not obliged to obey their Commands; but they must be evidently, and apparently so, before they thus take upon them to refuse obedience to them; otherwise I deny that their Conscience, however misguided, aught to be any excuse, or just ground of their disobedience. For if their Conscience be truly grounded upon the Laws of God, or Nature, that will excuse them, but if it be not, Conscience without such a Law, can never do it. And yet this non-performance of the unlawful Commands of the Husband, or Father, may very well consist without any Anarchy, or disorder in the Family, since the Wife and Children must always yield him an active-obedience, in performing all his Commands; or else a passive one, in submitting to whatever harsh usage, or punishment such a Husband, or Father shall please to exercise, or inflict upon them for their non performance of them, though never so unlawful▪ But yet certainly in all possible and indifferent things, Children are boun● yield, not only a passive, but an active obedience to their Father's commands. For if his Children should have a liberty to judge of his commands, whether they are reasonable, or not, what can ensue but Anarchy and Confusion in all Families?  F. 
Well, I am glad we are so far agreed, that a Wife and Children in the state of Nature have liberty to Judge of their Husband's and Father's Commands, whether they are lawful, or not, and also to disobey them, when they are not so: And I think I may carry this a little farther, and affirm, That such Wife and Children ought not to obey the Commands of such a Husband or Father, though they are not really contrary to such Divine, or Moral Laws, but only erroneously supposed so by them; and therefore most Casuists agree, That even an erroneous Conscience does oblige, as long as a man lies under that mistake. For St. Paul tells us, Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, Rom. 14. Nay farther, Such an erroneous Conscience may excuse a man before God, if his ignorance was not wilful, but invincible, and not proceeding from his own fault; but of this no man can Judge, but God alone, and the Party whose Conscience it is; and therefore such a Husband, or Father, can have no Right or Authority to compel their Wives and Children to perform such Commands, because the Will ought always to follow the Dictates of the Understanding; and therefore they should not be forced to do that which they Judge contrary to God's Moral, or Divine Law; since Conscience may be instructed, but can never be forced. Neither will your distinction of an Active and Passive Obedience help you in this matter; For Active Obedience I understand well enough; but as for Passive Obedience, I think it is next door to that we call a Bull, or Nonsense. And to prove this, I shall give you this plain instance; Suppose you had a jew to your Servant, and should command him to do you some work or other on a Saturday, which he judged a Breach of the Fourth Commandment, that forbids him to work on the Seventh Day, (or Sabbath) and you being very angry, should cudgel him sound for this refusal; whereupon he tells you, That you may beat him as long as you please, he would not resist, but yield a passive Obedience; but yet could not perform your Commands. I ask you now, Whether you would rest satisfied that this jewish Servant had sufficiently performed what you bade him, by submitting to your cudgelling? And whether your Dinner or Horse would not be as much undressed after this sort of passive Obedience, as it was before?  M. 
Perhaps indeed this Phrase of Passive Obedience may be somewhat improper, and may be more properly termed an absolute Subjection, or Submission; but it is all one what we call it, as long as you understand what we mean, since such Submission doth sufficiently avoid that Anarchy and confusion which would necessarily follow, in case it were lawful for Wives, or Children, in any case whatsoever, to resist their Husbands, or Fathers, though for the defence of life itself; since no Government can be maintained, where the Parties governed have a right to resist their Superiors, or Governors, in any case.  F. 
I grant indeed that no Government can be maintained where the Parties governed resist their Superiors or Governors in the due exercise of their Power; 
P. n. M. p. 110.  but when, they exceed those limits, they cease to Act as true Superiors, or Governors; and therefore when instead of Husbands, or Fathers, they prove Destroyer's of their Families, I doubt not but they may then be lawfully resisted by them. For suppose such a Father of a Family should in a furious or drunken fit go about to kill his Wife, or one of his innocent Children, can any body think this was Treason against the Monarch of the Family, if his Wife, or one of his Sons, should rescue herself, or this innocent Child out of his hands by force, if they could not otherwise quiet him?  M. 
This supposition of Madness, or Drunkenness, in Fathers of Families, 
B. P. P. Sect. 47.  you Gentlemen of Commonwealth Principles make great use of, to justify your Doctrine of Resistance; and I know no reason why you might not extend it as well to Anger, Lust, or any other Passion that a man is subject to; and have given all the World a power to Judge when a man is Drunk, or mad, as well as his Wife, Children, or Servants, nor do I know why you so much insist upon it, but because the Authors from whence you had it, are so in love with Rebellion and Disorder, that they seek and catch at every opportunity to recommend it to the World. But, I believe, had you a Wife, Child, or Servant, that should take the liberty of controling you upon this pretence, you would be more enraged with the Reason of the Resistance, than with the Resistance itself.  F. 
I am sorry, Sir, any thing I have said can so far transport you to passion, as to make such unkind Reflections upon your Friends; but pray be not so hot; is it not possible that a Master, or Father, in the State of Nature, may be mad, or drunk?  M. 
Yes; And is it not possible also that the Wife may be so too? 
B. P. P. Ibid.  Now suppose they should mutually charge each other with madness, or drinking too much, who shall Judge betwixt them ● What horrible confusion must this introduce into all Societies, to give inferiors a power to Judge their Superiors to be mad, or drunk, and thereupon to resist, and oppose them with force? But if it doth at any time happen; Wives, Children, and Servants, that are dutiful, may have ways to appease their Husbands, Fathers, or Masters, when mad, or drunk, without resisting or Fight them; as by getting out of the way, or by submission, Prayers and Tears, which Nature hath taught them on such occasions to make use of, and which is a thousand times a better method, than those violent Courses you propose.  F. 
All I desire of you in this Conversation, is, that you would be pleased to believe, I do not Argue out of any love to Rebellion, or Disorder, or that I desire to encourage it in private Families, much less to recommend it to the World; only what I speak, is purely out of a desire of the happiness and preservation of Mankind; and I hope I say no more, than what all sober men will allow may be every day practised in private Families; and therefore, since you will needs have it, I do extend this Power of Resistance, not only to Madness, or Drunkenness alone, but even to Anger, Lust, or any other Exorbitant Passion a man can be subject to; and I do likewise give all the World a power to Judge when such a man is mad, or furiously passionate, as well as his Wife, Servants, or Children, if in those drunken or mad fits he goeth about to kill them, or any else. For I think in that case, you will not deny, but any honest Neighbour may step in and bind him, or hold his hands, and so may likewise the Wife or Children themselves. As suppose this Father or Husband should be so far Transported with passion, or lust, as to go about to kill his Wife, or ravish his Daughter; I hope you will not deny, but they may lawfully resist him, if they can neither run away, nor yet pacify him by submission, prayers, or tears, which I grant are much better methods, if they may prevail: But what if they can neither get away, nor yet any of those gentle means, you propose, can work any good upon him, what shall they do then? Can any one believe that God hath appointed an innocent Wife, or Children, to be made a Sacrifice to the madness, drunkenness, passion, or lust of such a Father, or Husband? And as for the Case you put, Where the Husband or Wife should charge each other with madness, or drinking too much, who should judge between them? it is a mere Cavil; for as long as they only 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 mischif or kill each other, no doubt but the Children or Neighbours may come in, and part them; and may either hold, or shut up one, or both of them, till they are sober.  M. 
Pray, Sir, let us leave this touchy Discourse concerning Self-defence, till anon, when we shall have occasion to fall more naturally upon it. Suppose then I should at present grant you, That a Wise or Children may (in case of such Extremities as may happen to them by the madness, or Drunkenness of the Husband, or Father) restrain, or resist his violence, in case no other means can prevail; what is this to disobeying his Commands, or resisting him when he is sober? Which certainly they have no right to do. But to come as near you as possible I can, and to let you see I am not a man of a domineering temper, and who approves of unnecessary Severities, or unnatural Rigours, either in Masters of Families, Husbands, or Fathers; I grant that no Father, or Master of a Family, has any right to punish, or put to death the meanest of his Slaves, much less his Children, without a sufficient cause; or that he may sell his Children, or otherwise Tyrannize over them by cruel usage, or too severe punishments, since they are not only part of his own Substance, and to whom by the order of the Creation he gave a being, but was also (as you well observe) ordained by God for their happiness, and preservation, as they were also (as well as his Wife) for his constant help, comfort and subsistence; and therefore they were, as much, or more, made for him, as he for them, as it is plain concerning the Wife from the Text in Genesis, when God said, It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make him a help meet for him, Gen. 2.17. (viz.) the Woman; and therefore, as her subjection to her Husband is perpetual, as long as she lives, so likewise is that of the Children in whom he acquireth a Property by their Education for so many years; which I look upon as a greater obligation than their Generation; and over both whom he must, in the State of Nature, have an absolute power of life and death; which though I grant he may happen sometimes to abuse, yet I suppose no person living hath any right in that state to resist him in the Execution of it, much less to call him to an account, or punish him for the Maladministration of his Power. And you have granted, that the Husband in the state of Nature hath a power of life and death over his Wife, if she murders her Children, or commits any other abominable sin against Nature; and that then she may be justly cut off from the Family, and punished as an Enemy to Mankind, and so certainly may his Children too. But what need I say any more of this Subject, when you have not as yet answered my former Arguments, concerning the absoluteness and perpetuiry of this Conjugal Subjection, (and that which will likewise follow from it) the constant service and subjection of Wives and Children to their Fathers in the state of Nature. Therefore pray, Sir, let us return again to that Head, and let me hear what you have to object against those Reasons I have brought for it.  F. 
I beg your pardon, Sir, if I have not kept so close to the Point as I might have done; but you may thank yourself for it, who brought me off from what I was going farther to say on that Head, by your discourse of Passive Obedience and Nonresistance, and I know not what strange unintelligible Power of Life and Death conferred by God on Adam, as a Husband, and a Father. But first give me leave farther to prove, that this subjection of the Wife is neither absolute, nor irrevocable. For proof of which I shall lay down these Principles. 1. That the Wife in the State of Nature, when she submits herself to the power of her Husband, does it to live as happily as she did before, o● rather to enjoy more of the comforts of life than in a single State. 2. That therefore she did not renounce either her own happiness or Self-preservation. 3. Neither did she make him the sole and absolute Judge of the means that may conduce to these ends: for if this were so, let him use her never so cruelly, or severely, she could have no cause to censure him, or complain in the least against him. 4. If she have not so absolutely given up her Will to his, she is still Judge when she is well used by him; or else so cruelly, that it is no longer to be endured. And therefore if such a Husband will not allow his Wife sufficient Food and Raiment, and other necessaries; or that he uses her cruelly, by beating, or other punishments, or hath endeavoured to take away her Life; in all these cases in the State of Nature, and where there is no Superior Power to complain, or appeal to, she may certainly quit him; and I think she is not bound to return, to cohabit with him again, until she is satisfied he is sorry for his former cruel Treatment of her, and is resolved to make amends for the future. But whether this Repentance be real, or not, she only can be Judge, since she can only Judge of her own happiness, and the means of her preservation. And the end of Matrimony being for their mutual happiness, and help to each other; if he have broke his part of the Compact, she is then so far discharged from hers, and consequently in the mere state of Nature (which is that we are now talking of) the Vinculum Matrimonii (as you Civilians term it) will be likewise dissolved: So likewise such a Husband, for no just cause, or crime in the Wife, but only to be rid of her, should endeavour to take away her life, as suppose to strangle her in her sleep, or the like, no doubt but she may (notwithstanding your Conjugal Subjection) resist him by force, and save her life, until she can call in her Children, or Family, for her rescue and assistance; who sure may also notwithstanding this absolute Daspotick Power you place in their Father, or Master, rescure her from his rage and malice whether he will or not: Nay they are bound to do it, unless they will be Accessaries to her Murder.  M. 
These are doubtful Cases at best, and do very seldom happen; and a Husband can scarce ever be supposed to be so wicked, as to hate, and destroy his own Flesh, and therefore we need not make Laws on purpose for Cases that so rarely happen.  F. 
Rarely happen! I see you are not very conversant at the Old Bailie, nor at our Country Assizes; where if you please to come, you may often hear of Cases of this Nature; and I wonder you that are a Civilian, and have so many Matrimonial Causes in your Spiritual Courts, brought by Wives for Separation, propter Saevitiam, etc. Should doubt whether Husbands do often use their Wives so ill, that it is not to be endured. But if the Wife have these Privileges, pray tell me why the Children shall not have the same, according to your own Maxim of partus Sequitur Ventrem, since the Subjection of Children must be according to your own Principles, of the same natere with that of the Mother; and then pray what becomes of this absolute and perpetual Subjection you talk of?  M. 
Yet I hope you will not affirm, but that Children are under higher obligations of Duty and Obedience to their Father, than a Wife is to her Husband, with whom perhaps she may in some cases be upon equal terms; but Children can never be so in respect of their Father, to whom they are always inferior, and aught to be absolutely Subject in the state of Nature (that is) before Civil Laws have restrained Paternal Power.  F. 
I thank you Sir, for bringing me so naturally to the other Head I was coming to, and I agree with you in your other Maxim, of Quicquid ex me & ●xore mea nascitur in potestate mea est, yet not in your sense; For i● I should grant, that the Father's Power over the Child, commences from his Power over the Mother by her becoming his Wife, and submitting herself, and consequently all the issue that should be begotten of her, to her Husband's Power; yet (as I have proved already) in case of the Wife, so I think I may affirm the same in that of the Children, That they are not delivered by God so absolutely to the Father's Will, or disposal, as that they have no Right, when they attain to years of Discretion, to seek their own happiness and preservation in another place, in case the Father uses them as Slaves, or else goes about to take away their Lives without any just cause, since when Children are at those years, I think they are by the Laws of Nature sufficient Judges of their own happiness, or misery, that is, whether they are well, or ill used; and whether their Lives are in danger, or not, by their Father's Cruelty.  
For tho' I grant that Children considered as such, are always inferior to their Parents; yet I must likewise affirm, that in another respect, as they are men, and make a part of that great aggregate body of mankind, they are in all points equal to them; that is, as the Parents have a right to Life, Happiness, and Self-preservation, so have they likewise, and consequentially to all necessary means thereunto, such as Food, clothes, Liberty (I mean from being used as Slaves) which Principles, if true, will likewise serve for a farther proof against that absolute Property, and Dominion, you supposed to be conferred on Adam over the Earth, and all things therein, exclusive to that of his Wife and Children. For if they had a right to a Being and Self-preservation, whether he would or not, so had they likewise to all the means necessary thereunto; and he was not only obliged to provide Food and Raiment for his Children, whilst they were unable to do it for themselves, but also when they grew up to Years of Discretion, they might take it without his assignment, and this by Virtue of that Grant in Genesis, I before quoted, And God said, Gen. 1. (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, etc. Behold, to you it shall be for meat. So that sure you were too rash, in affirming with Sir R. F. That a Son, a Slave, and a Servant, were all one at the first: For I hope I have proved the Father doth not acquire any absolute Property in the person of the Son, either by his begetting him, or bringing him up; for than I grant, a Son and a Slave would be all one. But if you please better to consider it, you will find, that Fathers were never ordained by God for perpetual Lords and Masters over their Children, but rather as Tutors and Guardians, till they are of Years of Discretion, and able to shift for themselves; God having designed the Father to beget, and bring up his Child, nor for his own interest, or advantage only, but rather for the Child's happiness and preservation, which by the Laws of God and Nature he is bound to procure: For as it is the Son's Duty never to do any Action that may make his Father repent his begetting, or bringing him up; so on the other side, the Father ought not to Treat his Son so severely, as to make him weaay of his Family, much less of his Life. It is the Apostle's Precept, Ephes. 6.4. Parents provoke not your Children to wrath; which certainly he knew they were apt to do, or else that precept had been needless. Now pray tell me, if Adam had used one of his Sons (whom he loved worse than the rest) so cruelly, as to make him a Slave instead of a Son, and when grown a Man, should have put him to all the servile and hard labour imaginable, with scarce Victuals enough to live upon, or clothes to cover him, What must this Son have done? Born all patiently? Or else do you think it had been a damnable sin, if he had fled into the Land of Nod, to Cain his elder Brother?  M. 
To answer your Question, I think in the first place it had; for I do not only take Cain to have been the first Murderer, 
B. P. P. c. 2. Sect. 9  but Rebel too; and in the next place this Question is needless; for it can scarce be supposed, that ever Adam, or any Father can be so wicked and ill-natured, as to use a Son thus cruelly without some just occasion; but if he had, I think he ought to have endured any thing from his Father, rather than have left him without his leave, since I cannot see how Children can ever set themselves free from their Father's Power, whether they will or no.  F. 
If that be the condition of Children, they are then, instead of Sons, as absolute Slaves as any in Turkey, whenever their Father pleases. But you have already granted, that Fathers ought not to use their Children like Slaves, nor to sell them for such to others; And though I have no great kindness for Cain, yet I know not what warrant you have to call him Rebel; I am sure neither the Scripture, nor josephus, mention his going to the Land of Nod, as an offence committed against his King and Father Adam; but rather as a piece of compliance, or obedience to God's Sentence, who had made it part of his Curse so to do.  M. 
I shall not much trouble myself whether Cain was a Rebel or not; I only tell you▪ what some Learned men have thought of his quitting his Country; but as for other Children, though I grant their Fathers ought not to use them like Slaves, yet if they should happen to do so, I think such Children ought to bear it as a Judgement inflicted by God for their Sins, and should not by any means set themselves free, though their Fathers use them never so severely, since it is God's will they should be Born, and continue under the power of such severe 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 likewise bound to bear this as a punishment from God for his Sins, and might he by no means set himself free? Since this could not happen without God's permissive Providence at least, and I think you will s●arce prove it more in the Case of the Father, unless you will allow God to be the Author of Tyranny and Oppression.  M. 
I Grant that a Man that is made a Slave to a Stranger by force, without just cause given by him, may set himself free by what means he can; But I deny he hath the same Liberty in respect of his Father, since the Father's power over him is from God, and so is not the Stranger's.  F. 
What power of the Father do you mean? That of making his Son a Slave, or of using him as a Father ought to use a Son? The latter of these I very well understand to be from God, but not the former; And if the Father hath no such power from God, I cannot see how it can be any Act of disobedience in a Son to look to his own Liberty, and Preservation, since Cruelty and Tyranny can never be Prerogatives of Paternal Power, as you yourself confess.  M. 
I grant, indeed, a Father hath no such Power from God to treat his Son thus cruelly; but if he does, I say again▪ That God having ordained the Son to be absolutely subject to his Father, he must endure it, let the consequence of it be what it will: And I suppose you will not deny, but that in case of necessity, as when a Father hath not wherewithal to nourish, and breed up his Children, he may sell, or assign his interest in them to any person who will undertake to provide for their Nourishment and Education; and that the Children so sold, or assigned, do thereby become absolute Servants to the person to whom they were thus assigned as long as they lived; and why this should be their condition in respect of a Stranger, and not so to their Father, I can see no Reason, since their Father would have been at as much trouble and charge for their Education as the Stranger.  F. 
I so far go along with you, that in case of such necessity as you mention, a Father may sell, or assign the present interest in his Child to a Stranger; yet I cannot see any Reason that this Sale, or Assignment, should confer so absolute a Property in the Person of this Child, as that therefore he should be a Slave to this Master, or Fosterer, as long as he lived, since admitting that the Father, or other person who takes upon him that Care, may perhaps justly claim a Right in the Service or Labour of the Child, to satisfy them for their trouble and charge in bringing him up; yet it doth not therefore follow, that this Service is due as long as the Child lives, but rather until such time as they can make their Labour satisfy them for their Charge and Trouble in keeping him, which may very well be by that time the Child attains to Twenty five years of Age at farthest; and there are those that have offered, to breed up and maintain all the Foundlings, and Bastard Children in England, if they may be bound to serve them until about that Age; so that I see no reason, why a few years of Education, should give any Man a right over another's person as long as he lived.  
But if you urge, that the Child owed his Life to his Father, or Fosterer, since without his assistance he must have perished, and therefore the Service of the Child's whole Life is but little enough to recompense it: To this I Answer, That the Parents are under an absolute Obligation, by the Laws of God and Nature, to breed up their Child, and they sin, if they do not perform it as they ought; the end of a Father being chiefly for the Breeding up, and preservation of the Child, and therefore there is no Reason he should acquire such a property in him, merely because he did his Duty; And the Duty of a Father being to better the condition of his Son, and not to make it worse, I doubt whether an absolute and perpetual Servitude, or Death itself, were the better bargain; and if this Right will not hold for the Father himself, much less will it be for a Fosterer, since he is likewise obliged by the Laws of Nature, and common Humanity, as well as by his Contract with the Father, to breed up this Child so assigned him; and not to let him perish, if he be able to breed him up. Nor ought this Father's or Fosterer's temporal advantage, which he may make of this Child, to be the principal end of his undertaking, but the doing good to mankind, and the advantage he may reap thereby, is to be considered only as an encouragement, and not as the only motive to this Duty, since he is Obliged to do the same thing, though he were sure the Child would either die, or be taken away from him, before he could be with him half long enough to satisfy him for his Charge.  
Neither doth this reason hold true even according to the Scripture Rules of gratitude, That a Man hath a right to exact of one to whom he hath done a Courtesy, or bestowed a Benefit, a return as great as the benefit bestowed; since this were not Beneficence, but mere Bartering, or Exchange; and a Man who had his Life saved by another's assistance, (suppose by pulling him out of the Water) must be obliged by this Principle to submit his Life to his disposal ever after. And therefore I desire you would give me some better Reasons, why such a Son ought to be so absolutely subject to his Father's Power, as that it is not lawful for him upon any account whatsoever to free himself from it, let his Father use him never so cruelly or severely.  M. 
Well Sir, since you desire it, I will give you the best Reasons I have, why God cannot permit so unreasonable a Liberty as this would give to all Children, in case they should make use of it whenever they thought fit; and therefore God hath ordained it thus, to take away all those pretences of undutifulness and disobedience which Children might make, should they be permitted to be their own Judges, when they might quit their Father's Family without his leave; which pretence of cruel usage they would be sure to make use of, thereby to leave their Parents upon every slight occasion, saying, That their Fathers were so cruel and severe, that there was no living with them any longer; when, indeed, it was not so, but on the contrary, no just cause of complaint against them, more than bare correcting them for their Faults, and so the Father be bereavest of any, nay, all his Children who should be helpful and serviceable to him in his old Age, which would breed great confusion and inconveniences in Families, especially in the State of Nature, as in the Case you have put concerning Adam's Sons, they being the only Servants he could have to make use of, on all occasions.  F. 
I desire you in the first place to take notice, That I put this Case concerning Adam by way of supposition only; not but that I have a better opinion of our first Parent (notwithstanding his Fall) than to believe him so ill-nattured, or that he was ever so cruel as to use his Children thus hardly. But in this depraved state of Nature such unnatural Rigours and Cruelties in Fathers, as well as Disobedience in Children, is but too frequent, which no man needs to doubt of, that will but consult the Custom of divers Nations in Africa, and other Countries at this day, where they sell their Sons for Slaves, and exercise this Fatherly Power with the greatest Tyranny and Rigour; using them as Slaves, or felling them to others for such things as they want. And if you think it against the Law of Nature for such Children, when they see themselves ready to be sold to work in the Mines in Peru, or Sugar-works at Barbadoes, to run away into another Country to avoid such a Condition, which is as bad or worse than death, you may enjoy your own opinion; but I am sure you'll have but f●w Proselytes, but such as are of the like Arbitrary Principles; and as for your Pretence, that if Children should be allowed to judge when their Fathers treated them too severely, or like Slaves, they would all run away, that is but a Subterfuge: For first, it is a needless Caution, Children being, when young, not apt to leave their Parents who have bred them up, ●pon whom they depend for their subsistence, and to whom, if they are treated like Children, they seldom fa●l to bear a natural Duty and Affection; and if well used, they will, when of years of discretion, be likewise willing to stay with them, and look after them when Sick, or Old, not only for Duty, but also for their own advantage, and in hopes of having a share in what Goods, of Estates they may leave behind them when they die. But if, when they come to years of discretion, they can better their condition by marrying, and leaving their Father's Family, their Parents are bound in conscience to let tehm go, since it is their duty to better the condition of their Children, and not to make it worse: Always provided that such Children either take care of their Parents themselves, or else hire others to do it for them, in case they want their assistance by reason of their old age, Poverty or Sickness; but if children may not quit their Father's Families, though they are never so hardly or severely dealt with, the consequence will be, that Fathers may keep their children as Slaves as long as they live, though it were a hundred years, or else may sell them to others, to be used worse if possible; the absurdity of which assertions, and how contrary to the common good of Mankind, I might leave to any indifferent Person to judge of.  
Therefore, I think, I may very well (according to the learned Grotius) divide the lives of children into three Periods of ages. The first is the Period of Infancy or imperfect Judgement, before the child comes to be able to exercise his reason. The Second is the Period of perfect Judgement or discretior, yet whilst the child continues still part of his Father's Family. The third is, after he has left his Fathers, and entered into another Family, or sets up a Family himself. In the First Period, all the actions of children are under the absolute Government of their Parents: For since they have not the use of reason, nor are able to judge what is good or bad for themselves, they could not grow up nor b● preserved, unless their Parents judged for them what means best conduced to this end; yet this power is still to be directed to the principal end, viz. The good and preservation of the Child. In the second Period, when they are of Mature Judgement, yet continue part of their Father's Family, they are still under their Father's Command, and aught to be obedient to it in all actions which tend to the good of their Father's Family and concerns. And in both these Ages, I allow the Father has a Right to make his Children work, as well ●● enable them to get their own living, as also to recompense himself for the pains and care he has taken, and the charge he may have been at in their Education, and also to correct them in case they refuse to work or obey his Commands. But in other actions, the Children have a Power of acting freely, yet still with a respect of gratifying and pleasing their Parents, to whom they are obliged for their being and Education▪ Since without their care they could not have attained to that age. But this duty being not by force of any absolute subjection, but only of Piety, Gratitude and Observance, it does not make void any act, though done contrary to their duty. The third and last Period is, when the Son being of years of discretion, either by marriage or otherwise, is separated from his Father's Family. In which Case, he is in all actions free, and at his own disposal, though still with respect to those duties of Piety and Observance, which such a Son must always owe his Father, the cause thereof being perpetual.  M. 
I must beg your pardon if I cannot come over to your opinion, notwithstanding all you have said in this long discourse; since I cannot conceive, 
F. O. G. p. 22.6.  how in any Case Children can naturally have a power or moral faculty of doing what they will without their Parents leave; since they are always bound to study to please them, and though by the Laws of some Nations, Children when they attain to years of discretion, have a power and Liberty in many actions, yet this Liberty is granted them by positive and humane Laws only, which are made by the Supreme Fatherly Power of Princes, who can regulate, limit or assume the Authority of inferior Fathers for the public benefit of the Commonwealth. So that naturally the Power of Parents over their Children never ceases by any separations, though by the permission of the transcendent, Fatherly power of the Supreme Prince, Children may be dispensed with or privileged in some cases from obedience to subordinate Parents.  F. 
And I must beg your pardon, Sir, if I cannot alter my opinion in this matter, for all that you have now said, since you can give me no better Reasons than what you did at first; and though you say, you cannot conceive how Children can ever in any case, have a power or moral faculty of doing what they will without their Parents leave, yet they may have such power in many cases, whether you can conceive it or no. For though I do grant, that Children are always bound to study to please their parents, 
P. n. M. 20.21.  yet doth not this duty of gratitude or complacency include a full and perfect Dominion of Fathers, in the state of Nature over the persons of their Children, and an absolute power over them in all cases whatsoever, so that the Children can have no right to consult their own good or preservation, however it may be endangered by their Father's passion or ill nature, since a Wife is always obliged to this duty of complacency to her Husband; yet is not this so absolute, but that in a State of Nature she may quit his Family in those Cases I have already mentioned, and against which you had nothing to object; and I deny your position, that Children when they attain to years of discretion, derive that power, and liberty they use it many actions, from positive Humane Laws only, or that the power which Parents naturally have over their Children, can never cease by any separation, but only by the permission of the Father.  
For as for Bodin, and divers others that have written on this Subject, they do no more than follw others, who have asserted this absolute power of Fathers upon no better grounds than the Civil or Roman Municipal-Laws, without ever troubling themselves to look into the true Original of Paternal Authority or Filial Subjection, according to the Laws of Reason or Nature. And most Treatises of this Subject being commonly writ by Fathers, no wonder if they have been very exact in setting forth their own power over their Children, but have said little or nothing of the Rights of Children in the State of Nature, and therefore I shall farther let you see, that this duty of Children, even of pleasing or obeying their Parents, can only extend to such things as they may reasonably or Lawfully command. For suppose, that Adam had commanded some 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 there then lay a higher obligation upon them to increase and multiply, than there is now, they might then certainly have chosen Wives for themselves, when they were of years of dicretion and capable of Marriage.  
And farther to show you, that Children may in some Cases separate themselves from their Father's Family and Subjection, without their Father's consent, is apparent, as to the Daughters, who if they were at first obliged by this precept to Marry, might likewise 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 also they must serve two Masters, which is against our Saviour's Rule, by which it appears, that the subjection of Daughters in the State of Nature is not perpetual: And to prove that Sons have a like Right to separate from their Father's Family, let us suppose that Adam had been so cruel, and unnatural as some Fathers are, that being only sensible 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 affirm, that he might have done so if he had pleased, and that the Sons had no Lawful means to help themselves, since he only was Judge whether ever he thought fit to set them free or not: You yourself have already granted the contrary, when you affirmed, that a Father had no Right to sell his Child as a Slave, and then sure he can have as little Right to use him so himself.  
But as for what you say against that natural equality of Children to their Parents considered as Men, you might easily have understood it, if your thoughts were not so wholly taken up with this transcendent imaginary Empire of Fathers in the State of Nature, as if they were some what more than Men. For pray tell me, are they not equal, who have the same Right from God to the same things? For if Fathers have a Right to live and be preserved, so likewise have the Children, and if they have a Right to the end, they have likewise the same to the means necessary thereunto, such as are food raiment freedom from Slavery, etc. And if they are thus equal, they must likewise when they attain to years of discretion, be endued with a Power of judging for themselves, concerning what things are necessary to their happiness and preservation, and what tends to their misery or destruction, and consequently may very well judge whether their Fathers treat them kindly or cruelly; for if the Father in the State of Nature in the sole Judge of the means that conduce to his Son's happiness and preservation, without his consent he may determine that Poverty. Slavery and Torment, shall be fit means, and conducing to this end, which is against sense and reason; and though I grant, that Sons may sometime be mistaken in the true means that may lead to these great ends of life, yet doth not this take away their Right of judging for themselves, any more than it doth the same Right from their Fathers, who as Men are also liable to the like mistakes. Neither did any Slave or Subject ever give up his will so totally to his Master or Monarch, as absolutely to renounce all Right to happiness and self preservation, or to the means that may conduce thereunto. But I think, we have sufficiently debated this great point of the Natural Power of Fathers over their Children, and therefore.  
Let us in the next place consider whether Children may not upon these Principles in some Cases make use also of self defence, even against their Fathers, if they cannot otherwise avoid certain ruin and destruction, therefore I will first ask you what you think of this Case? A Son in the State of Nature being separated from his Father's Family, and having Children and House of his own, what shall he do in Case his Father, by the evil suggestions of a Stepmother, or other wicked Persons, be so far incensed against his Son, as to send Men to burn his House, plunder him of his Goods, and destroy his Plantation?  M. 
If the Son be absolutely set free from his Father's Family and Power with his consent, I do not deny but that such a Son may resist those Persons his Father sends to ruin him and his Family, and may repel their violence by force, but I do not allow the Son the same power to resist the Person of the Father, if he should come himself thus to destroy him.  F. 
Why so? Do you think a Father by being so, hath any greater Right to destroy his Son and ruin his Family then a Stranger?  M. 
No; but because the Person of a Father ought always to be esteemed by the Son as Sacred as his Natural Prince, and if he should have a Right to resist his Father by force, he might happen to kill him in the scuffle, which would be a sin against Nature.  F. 
Well, suppose the worst, would this be more a sin against Nature, than to suffer himself, Wife, and Innocent Children to be turned out of all they have, and left to perish by hunger and cold? St. Paul says, That he that doth not provide for his Family is worse than an Infidel, and I think so would the Son be if for fear of hurting his Father's Person, he should permit all his Family to be exposed to certain 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 resistance of the Person of the Father to be.  F. 
I grant indeed that a Father, acting as such, is not to be resisted, even when he corrects his Son, but I suppose you will not say that in the Case I put, he acts as a Father, but an Enemy, when he goeth about without any just occasion to kill or ruin him, unless you can suppose, that the will to preserve and destroy can consist together in the same Subject; neither can you affirm that the Father hath any right to deal thus wickedly and violently towards his Son, and his innocent Family. By what Law then must the Son be obliged to Sacrifice his own life, and that of Wife and Children, and all that he hath, to this imaginary Duty?  M. 
There seems to me two good reasons for it. The first is that gratitude which the Son must always owe his Father for his Being and Education, and therefore if he give up his Wife, Children, and all that he hath to his Will, it would scarce be a sufficient requital for all the Benefits he hath received from him. The second is, because no circumstances whatsoever can take off or obliterate this Relation; and though 'tis true your Father, whilst acting thus doth not deal with you as a Father, but an Enemy, yet he is still your Father, and you are and will be always his Son do what you can, and so consequently you will still owe him Subjection. For it is a maxim not only of the Civil Law, 
B. P. P. §. 15.  but that of Nature too, and this most of all in the State of Nature, that is, before Civil Laws had restrained tha● Paternal Power, jura Sanguinis nullo delicto dirimi possunt, and lastly from the fourth Commandment of, Honour the Father, etc. Now no Man can tender honour to him whom he goeth about to resist, and so may also destroy.  F. 
I consists you have urged this Argument as home as the thing will bear; but yet I think I can show you, that the Son is so far from acting against the Law of Nature in thus resisting his Father, that I think he would rather transgress it if he acted otherwise. But first to answer your Arguments, I deny, that either Generation or Education do confer so great a benefit, that a Man is obliged to Sacrifice himself, his Wife, and Children, and all he hath in return for it. First for Generation, I suppose you will not much insist on that, since you must grant that a Father doth not act 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 so much to propagate his Species, as to gratify his own present natural appetite.  
Then for Education, which I grant is much the greater obligation, since by the former I am only born an irrational helpless Creature, but by the other I am made a reasonable Man, able to help and provide for myself, and knowing my duty to God and other Men, yet even these obligations are not great enough to make me Sacrifice myself and all that I have to his fury or humour. I grant indeed, that if it were to save 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 such a Father, he hath a Right to give up the lives of others which are not at his disposal (as those of his Wife and Children are not) in this case. For this were not only to return more than was first given, but also 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 one, if I can hinder it, qui non prohibet facit. Then as for the Relation of a Father, which you say no fault of his can obliterate or destroy; you must grant that it may be suspended for a time, as when a Man binds, or resists his mad or druken 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 so likewise in this Case, he doth not resist his Father, but a furious unreasonable Creature, who is so far from behaving himself as becomes a Father, that he doth not act like a Man: Nor doth your Maxim hold true in all Cases, and therefore is no Law of Nature, for jura Sanguinis aliquo delicto dirimi possunt, or else a Father could never put his Son to death for any crime whatever, which you have affirmed he may; but certainly when he acts thus, it is not as a Father, nor doth he destroy him as a Son, but an Enemy or Malefactor.  
Now I desire you or any indifferent Man to consider, since the common good of Mankind is the sum of all the 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 consist at once or together. That a Father, who by your own confession, comes to do an unlawful wicked action, (viz.) to ruin and destroy his Son, with his Wife and Children, should be resisted, and consequently one Man's life put in hazard, than that many innocent Persons should be ruined, and perhaps starved to death for want of food and shelter. And as for the fifth Commandment, that extends no more to the Father than to the Mother; though you are pleased to leave her out, because it makes against your opinion: and therefore if by Honour, is meant, Thou shalt no resist, than no Man should resist his Mother any more than his Father, if she went about to kill him, and yet not the Mother, but the Father, is by your Hypothesis, the natural Monarch that hath this Power of Life and Death over the Son. But let us pursue this point no farther, if you will not be convinced I cannot help it.  
But pray tell me now, what a Son must do, if his Father transported by fury and malice should go about to kill him with a Sword or other Weapon, and that he hath no other way left to save his life, neither by entreaty nor flight, (which I grant aught to be done if possible,) whether he may resist his Father with what next comes to hand, or suffer himself to be killed?  M. 
I am much better satisfied in this Case than in the other, that he ought rather to let his Father take away his life than resist him, since here is but one life to be lost, whereas, I confess, the other Case was harder, because there were more lives concerned than the Sons, and I am of this opinion partly for the same reasons as before, and partly because 'tis more suitable both to Reason, and the Law of Nature, as also to Holy Scripture, Precepts and Examples: For i● St. Peter command, Servants to be Subject to their Masters, etc. Not only to th● good and gentle, but also to the froward. And if Servants, much more Sons, who owe their Fathers a higher duty and obedience, than Servants can owe their Masters; and Isaac was so far convinced, that his Father Abraham had Power over his life; that though he was a lusty young Man, and could carry Wood enough to consume a Burnt-offering, yet do we not find, that he offered in the least to resist his Father, when he was about to bind him to be Sacrificed: For he very well knew, that his Father could not be resisted without endangering his life if not taking it away in the scuffle; and sure you will grant, that a Son ought rather of the two to let his Father kill him, than he take away his life, by whose means he received his own; especially since Abraham was the Master of a great Family; and in whose life and well being, not only his Mother, but all the Family had an interest as necessary for their well being and happiness: Nor can I think, that Abraham would have so readily assented to God's Command for the doing of it, had he not been already satisfied, that he had an unaccountable power of Life and Death over his Son by the Laws of God and Nature.  F. 
In the first place, to answer your authorities from Scripture, as for that place of St Peter you have cited, i● is not a precept given by the Apostle to Sons, but to Servants or Slaves, whose lives and all that they had were at their Masters absolve disposal, being those whom the Apostle Paul calls, Servants under the yoke; and unless you will make a Slave and a Son to be all one, (which you have already denied) this precept doth not at all concern them. And as for Example of Isaac, that will make as little for your advantage, for first as to Abraham, he could not but know, that to kill his Son without any just cause, was as much murder in him as in any other Man: Now what could be a juster or a higher cause than God's particular Command? So that as this act of Abraham is not to be taken as an Example by other Fathers, so neither doth the Example of Isaac oblige other Sons to the like Submission; therefore it is most reasonable to suppose, that Isaac being then (as Chronologers make him to be) about nineteen or twenty years of age, 
P. n. M. p. 27.  and of years of discretion to ask where was the Lamb for the Burnt-offering, was also instructed by his Father, before he came to be offered, of the reason of his dealing thus with him, and then the Submission was not paid to his Fathers but to Gods will, from whom he miraculously received his being. But if any Man doubt wheter resistance in such a Case were Lawful, I leave it to his own conscience to consider, whether if his Father had him alone in a place where he could neither run away nor yet call for help, he would suffer his Father to cut his Throat without any resistance, only because he pretended Divine Revelation for it. Not but that I so far agree with you likewise, as to limit such a resistance only to the holding his Father's Hands, or warding off his blows, but not to the taking away his life, but of the two rather to lose his own than to kill him, for the reasons you have given, and which I will not deny; but yet if the Father be mad, I much doubt whether the Son is bo●nd to let him kill him rather than take away his life, since such a Father's life is no way useful to the good of the Family. So that though I should grant that Paternal Power is from God, and consequently irresissible, yet doth it not follow that all the unjust force or violence, which a Father as a Man may use against his Son's life or fortune, is such part of a Paternal Power as God hath commanded us not to resist, since yourself must grant that he doth not thus act (in going about to kill his Son) as a father, but a violent and wicked Man: So that where the father hath no Right, to take away his Son's life, I think in all such Cases, the Right of the Son to resist him doth take place. And if a Man may resist or bind his Father when he is Mad or Drunk, and in such fits goeth about to kill him, I can see nothing to the contrary why he may not do the same thing, when his Father is transported by a sudden rage or unreasonable malice, since both of them do take away the use of natural Reason as much the one as the other, according to that saying of the Poet, Ira furor brevis est. Anger is but a short madness: Fury and Malice being alike fatal and destructive to the Sons life and safety, with Drunkenness and Madness; nor doth such a Son resist his Paternal Power but only his Brutish force and violence. So that if Sons when grown to years of discretion) have not a right to defend their lives in the State of Nature against all Persons whatsoever, who go about to take it away without any just Cause, every Son ought to suffer his Father to kill him, when ever being transported by madness, drunkenness or sudden passion, he hath will so to do: which how it can consist with that great Law of Nature, of propagating and preserving the species of Mankind, if a Father should have any unreasonable unlimited Power, I'll leave it to yourself or any other reasonable Man to consider; nor doth it follow, that because a Son can in no wise be Superior to his Father, he ought not therefore to resist him; since though I grant punishment is a Right of Superiors over their Inferiors, 
P. n. M.  yet so is not resistance; since every one knows that resistance; is exercised between equals, as I have already proved, Sons are to their Fathers in all the Rights of life and self-preservation: and conseqently to judge when their Lives and Estates are unjustly invaded.  M. 
I must confess I am in a great doubt which will most conduce to that great Law you mention, (which I grant to be the Sum of all the Laws of Nature) viz. of preserving or prosecuting the common good of Mankind; that Fathers should have an absolute irresistible Power over the Lives and Fortunes of their Children, let them use it how they will, or else that Children should have a Right to resist them in some cases, when they go about to take away either of them without any just Cause: for though I own, that (if the former Principle be true) Parents may be sometimes tempted to take away their children's Lives or Estates without any just Cause: so on the other side if Children shall assume such a Power to themselves of judging when their Fathers do thus go about, to invade either their Lives or Estates, it will (I doubt) lay a foundation for horrid confusions and divisions in Families, since if Children are under a constant subjection to their Fathers, they ought then to be absolutely Subject to them in the State of Nature, and therefore ought not to be resisted: For if all Fathers, and Masters of Families, are trusted by God with an absolute Power of Life and Death over the Wife, Children, and Servants of the Family, as yourself cannot deny, than no resistance of this absolute Power can subsist with the peace and tranquillity of that Family, without the diminution or total destruction, of that absolute Power, with which they are entrusted.  
And though I admit that Parents ought neither to use nor sell their Children for Slaves, not to take away either their Lives or Goods without great and sufficient Cause: yet of these Causes Fathers in the state of Nature must be the only and uncontrollable Judges; since if Children (whom I still consider as Subjects, though not as Slaves in the State, as long as they continue members of their Father's Family,) should once have a Right to resist, when they thought their Lives or Estates were unjustly invaded; they might also oftentimes through undutifulness or false suggestions pretend or suppose that their Fathers were mad drunk or in a passion, and went about to take away their Lives, when really they intent no such thing, but only to give them due correction: Which would give Children an unnatural power of resisting, or perhaps of killing their Fathers upon false surmises or flight occasions.  
And as this would introduce great mischief and confusion in priute Families, so would it likewise prove a Foundation of Rebellion against all Civil Powers whatsoever; if Subjects who are the same thing in a Kingdom, that Children are in a Family, (in the State of Nature) should take upon them to resist their Prince when ever they think he goeth about to invade either their Lives or Fortunes, which would likewise serve to justify all the most horrid Rebellions in the World; since all Rebels whatsoever may or do pretend, that their Lives, Liberties and Fortunes are unjustly invaded, when indeed they are not, and Likewise upon the least hardship or injustice in this kind inflicted upon any private Subject, either by the Prince or his Ministers, (which abuses and violences do often happen even under the Best Governments,) any such private Person who shall think himself thus injured, may upon this principle take up Arms, and endeavour to right or defend himself against such violence, by which means under pretence of securing a few Men in their Lives or Estates, whole Kingdoms (if such Persons can find follows enough) may be cast into all the mischiefs and confusions of a Civil War, till the Prince and Government be quite destroyed.  F. 
I must confess, the Arguments you now bring are the best you have yet produced, since they are drawn from that great and certain Law of procuring the common good and peace of mankind. But, I hope I shall make it plain to you, that no such terrible consequences will follow from the Principles I have already laid down, and therefore I must first take notice that you have in your answer confounded two Powers together, which ought to be distingishued in the State of Nature. (viz.) The Power which Fathers, as Masters or Heads of Families, may exercise over the Lives of their Children or Servants whilst they remain Members of their Family; and that reverence and duty which Children must always owe their Fathers as long as they live, even after they become Fathers or Masters of Families of their own. In the first State, I have already allowed, that such Fathers, as Masters of Families may Lawfully exercise a far greater Power over their Children, whilst they are members of their Family, than they can when they are separated from it, yet is not this Power in all Cases absolute or irresistible, as I have already proved; and therefore I do in the first place restrain this Right of self-defence, only to such Cases, where a Father would take away a Sons life in a fit of drunkenness, madness or sudden passion, without any crime committed or just cause given: which I also limit to a bare self defence, without injuring or taking away the life of the Father if it can possibly be avoided; and in this Case if the Son, who is like to suffer this violence, may not judge when his life is really in danger to be destroyed, because he may pretend so when really it is not. This is no just reason to overthrow so great a Right as self Preservation; since if this were a sufficient objection, it would have the same force against all self defence whatsoever: For it doth often happen that wicked and unreasonable Men will pretend that they were forced to take away the lives of others only to preserve their own, when indeed it was altogether false and needless, and they only killed them to satisfy their own malice or passion, And therefore, as there is no reason that the abuse of this natural Right should be used as an Argument against the use of all self-defence by any Man whatsoever. So likewise neither aught the like abuse hereof by some wicked Children to be brought as an Argument against its being made use of at all by others, who are never so unjustly assaulted, and in danger of their Lives from their Father's violence. If the first principle be true, (on which this is founded) that a Son may excercise this Right of self-defence in such Cases, without any entrenchment upon his Father's Paternal Authority, or that Filial duty and respect which he must always owe him when ever he returns to himself, and will behave himself towards him as becomes a Father, and not like an Enemy or Cutthroat.  
And as for the quarrels and confusions, which you allege may happen in Families between Fathers and Children, in case such a liberty should be allowed, those inconveniencies will prove very inconsiderable if you please to take Notice, That first I do not allow this Right of resistance to be exercised by any Children before they attain to years of discretion. Secondly, that after they have attained to these years, no resistance ought to be made against a Father whilst they remain part of their Father's Family, but only in defence of their own, their Mothers, Wives▪ and children's Lives; since I grant, that a Son as long as he continues a member of his Fathers. Family, aught to bestow all his own labour for his Father's profit, and cannot acquire any property either in Lands or Goods without his Father's consent: And since you conceive this Right of self-defence, if allowed to Children, would be the cause of so great mischiefs in Families, if Children should have no Right to judge when their Fathers abused their power over them; let us a little consider on which side this abuse is most likely to happen, for if you please but to look into the World, and survey the Nature of Fathers and Children, and set the faults of the one against the other, you will find, (that as I confess,) it is the Nature of many Children to contradict and disobey their Father's Commands, and that most young people hate restraint, and love too much liberty, and may oftentimes think their Fathers too harsh or severe to them, when really they are not; yet doth such false surmises and disobedient actions seldom end, either in absolute resistance or taking away their Father's lives by force, or if they do so, it is really done for their own defence, or whilst they are assaulted by them in their own Lives, or those of their Children, but is commonly acted privately to satisfy their own revenge or malice, which I hold to be utterly unlawful, so likewise let us consider on the other side, 
P.n. M. p 41,  those temptations that Father's lie under of injuring their Children, or taking away their Lives, or u●ing them like Slaves, without any just Cause; you'll find that they by reason of their age, natural temper or infirmities, may be easily transported to that degree of passion, that not considering the follies of Youth, they may oftentimes in their passion, either beat them so cruelly, as utterly to disable or maim them, or else take away their Lives for little or no Cause. And besides, Fathers being often covetous and illnatured, (which are the vices of old age,) may (where there is no power over them to restrain them from it) either keep them as Slaves themselves, or else sell them to others for that purpose, (as I have already given you an example of the Negroes in Africa,) and which of these two inconveniencies are most likely to happen between Children and Parents in the State of Nature; I should leave is to any indifferent Man to judge between us. And therefore I think, it more conduces to the good and peace of Families, and consequently the happiness and preservation of Mankind, (which are the end of all Laws) that Children should be allowed these Rights (I have al●erdy laid down) of asserting this Natural Liberty from Slavery, and defending their Lives, and those of their Wives and Children from the unjust violence of their Fathers than that they should be left wholly at disposal to be maimed, killed or ruined, when over this covetousness, passion or malice may prompt them to it: Sense if all Fathers were satisfied that their Children have a Right thus to defend themselves in these Cases against their unjust violence, it would be a means to make them act more catiously, and to behave themselves with greater tenderness and moderation towards them.  
So than to conclude, I utterly deny that these Principles I have here laid down, do at all rend to countenance Rebellion, or raising disturbances in Civil Governments, since I cannot allow you have proved Parents to be Princes or Monarches in the State of Nature, or that Families, and Kingdoms or Commonwealths are all one: Or if I should grant them to be so, yet would it not therefore follow, that every private Subject in a Civil State hath the same Right to defend his life, or that of his Wife and Children, against the violence or injustice of the Supreme Powers, as a Son may have in the State of Nature to defend his life, etc. against his Father's rage or violence; since I grant no particular Subject can contradict or resist the Supreme Power of the Lawful Magistrate (however unjustly exercised) by force, without disturbing or at least endangering the quiet and happiness of the whole Community, and perhaps the dissolution of the Government itself, which is against the duty, not only of a good Subject, but also of an honest Moral Man, who will not disturb the public tranquillity for his own private security or revenge. But in private Families the Case is otherwise, and Children may resist their Father in the Cases already put, without introducing either Anarchy or Civil War in the Family; since it can scarce be presumed that either their Mother, Brothers or Sisters, will take part with a Son or Brother against their Husband and Father, unless it beware that they might thereby hinder him from committing murder, by defending their Son or Brother's life, when thus violently and without cause assaulted; and if it should sometimes happen otherwise, yet this would be a much less mischief, then that out of this fear the Lives and Liberties of an innocent Wife and Children, should suffer without cause by his drunkenness or passion.  
But as for the resistance which Sons may make in the State of Nature, and when separated from their Father's Families, it is of a much larger extent since they may then not only defend their own Lives, but also those of their Wives and Children with their Estates against their Father's unjust violence, Thò I do here likewise restrain this self-defence, only to cases of actual invasion or asault of such Fathers, upon the Lives and Estates of his Children, in which cases, I also absolutely condemn all actions and proceedings done by way of prevention, before such violence or assault is actually begun to be made upon them; much less do I allow of any revenge or return of evil for evil, by such Children, when the danger is over; since however such revenge may be Lawful between Persons in the State of Nature, no ways related or obliged to each other; yet do I by no means allow the same Privilege to Children against their Parents, since I look upon the obligation they have to them to be of so high a Nature, that it can never totally be canceled, though in those cases of self-preservation and defence they may be suspended for a time, As if I owed my life, and all that I have to some great Person, who hath either saved the one, or bestowed the other upon me, though I should be very undutiful and ungratful too, if upon his becoming my Enemy though without any just cause, I should go about to return his injuries in the same kind; yet were I not therefore obliged to give up that Life and Estate he had before bestowed upon me, when ever he thought fit, without any just occasion to take them away; and I am confident that Resistance in these cases, and with these restrictions, doth neither derogate from that Gratitude and Piety, which Children always ought to pay their Fathers, nor yet can tend to encourage either Anarchy or Rebellion; since such Sons when once married and are become Masters or Heads of Families themselves, they then cease to be under their Father's Subjection as they were before, though I confess they are always to honour and reverence him according to Gods Command in all cases, when they will deal with them as Fathers, and not as Enemies  M. 
I shall no longer dispute this Right of Resistance in Children in the Cases you have put, since I see it is to little purpose to argue longer with you about it; but this much I think is still true, that all Supreme Powers whatever, cannot without Rebellion and absolute dissolution of the Government be risisted by the Subject; so that if the Government of Fathers or Heads of Families be Supreme as you seem to grant, that cannot be resisted neither, without bringing all things therein to Anarchy and confusion.  F. 
Pray give me leave Sir to interrupt you a little; I desire you to remember that I do not allow the Power of Fathers or Masters of Families to be any more than Oeconomical and not Civil Power, and I have already showed you how Resistance of such a Power, when violently and unjustly exercised, may be resisted without any Anarchy or confusion in the Family; but as for Resistance of Civil Powers in some Cases, it is not the Subject of this discourse, and therefore I desire you would now mind the Subject in Hand, and not pass off to any other till we have dispatched this, so that I would rather if you have any fresh objections to make, that you would now do it, because it groweth late.  M. 
I must confess ingeniously, your Arguments have much s●aggered me, since I see great inconveniencies may happen, on either side; for if the Father or Master may be the sole Judge, when and how he may exercise this absolute Power. I grant all those mischiefs may sometimes fall out, which you have here set forth, so on the other side if the Children may be Judges in their own case, those evils may often happen, which I have already alleged: And therefore pray pardon me, if I am not too hasty in altering my opinion in this point without better consideration; but methinks you have not yet fully answered one of my main Arguments, to prove the Power of Life and Death to proceed from God alone, and therefore must have been conferred as first on Adam, since no Man hath a Power over his own life, (as I said before) and therefore cannot have it over that of others.  F. 
I thought I had already as good as answered this doughty objection, when I had yielded to you, that neither private Men nor Masters of Families have any Right to defend their own lives, much less to take away those of others, but as it is granted them by God in the Law of Nature, in order to the procuring the great end of it, viz. the happiness and propagation of Mankind, which I own, could not in this lapsed and depraved State of Nature we now are in, long subsist without such a Power. Yet I think I have already sufficiently proved, that we have no need to recur to I know not what divine Charter granted by God to Adam or Noah, and from them derived to all Civil Magistrates that ever have been or shall be in the World, the consequence of which would be, that no Sentence of Death could be justly given against any Man, but in such Kingdoms or Commonwealths, who own this Authority as conferred on them by God in Adam or Noah, from which they must deride their Title to it. Now I desire you would show me how many Kingdoms or Commonwealths there are in the World, who ever heard of, much less owned this Divine Charter, this fine notion, yea scarce reaching farther, than some few Divines and high Royalists of our own Island.  
But be it as it will, the Antecedent, or first Proposition is not true, that no Man in any case whatsoever hath power over his own life, and therefore neither is your consequence; for I suppose, that for the same End for which the Civil Powers may take away another Man's life, viz. in order to the greater good of Mankind, (of which my Religion or Country is a part,) I am likewise Master of my own, and may lay it down or expose it, when I think it can conduce to a greater good than my single life can amount to. And therefore the Example of Codrus the Athenian King is highly celebrated by all ancient Authors, and is not condemned by any Christian Writer, that I know of, for Exposing himself to certain death to gain his Citizens the Victory, the loss of which would have been the ruin of the State. And in the first Book of Maccabees, Chap. 6.43. (which th● it be not Canonical Scripture, yet is allowed to be Read in our Churches, as containing Examples of good manners,) you may Read, that Eleazar the younger Brother of judas Maccabeus, is there highly commended for his valour in killing the Elephant, on which the supposed King Antiochus was mounted, that he might thereby destroy him likewise, though he might be assured of his own death by the Elephants falling upon him: And the zeal for the Christian Religion amongst the Primitive Christians was so great that we may read in Tertullian, and divers Ecclesiastical Historians, of whole Troops of Martyrs, who though unaccused, yet offered up their lives at the Heathen Tribunals to a voluntary Martyrdom; and farther, Eusebius himself, doth not condemn, 
Euseb. l. 8. cap. 12.  but rather commends some Primitive Christians, that being like to be taken by their Heathen Persecutors, cast themselves down head long from the top of their Houses, esteeming (as he their tells us) a certain Death as an advantage, because they thereby avoided the cruelty and malice of their Persecutors. I could likewise give you (if it were not two tedious) several other Examples of Ancient Martyrs, who have given up themselves to certain Death to save the Lives of some of their friends, or else of Christian Bishops, whom they looked upon as more useful to the Church than themselves, and which St. Paul himself does likewise suppose to be Lawful, when he tells the Romans, That the scarcely for a Righteous Man would one die, 
Rom. 5. v. 17.  yet per adventure for a good Man som● would even dare to die, that is a Man highly beneficial to others. And the same Apostle, in the last Chapter of this Epistle, returns thanks to Priscilla and Aquila, not only on his own behalf, but also for all the Churches of the Gentiles, because they had for his Life laid down their own Necks, that is, hazarded their lives to save his, and where ever they might have thus exposed them, surely they might have lost them too. And therefore I think, I may with reason affirm, that in most Cases, where a Prince or Commonwealth may command a Man to expose his Life to certain destruction for the public good of his Religion or Country, he hath power likewise to do it of his own accord, without any such command, the Obligation proceeding not only from the orders of his Superior, but from that zeal and affection, which by the Laws of God and Nature he ought to have for his Religion and Country, even beyond the preservation of his own Life.  M. 
Well, I confess, that this that you have now said carries, some colour of reason with it, and is more than I had considered before. But pray resolve me one difficulty more, which still lies upon my mind. By what Authority, less than a Divine Commission from God himself revealed in Scripture, do Supreme Powers take upon them to make Law●? And that under no less penalty than Death itself, against such offences, as by the Laws of Nature do no ways deserve Death, such as Theft, Counterfiting the public Coin, with divers other offences, needless here to be reckoned up. And if a Father (as you will not allow him) hath no Right over the Lives or Persons of his Wife and Children, I cannot see how a Master of a separate Family can have any such Power, more than his Wife or any other of the Family; and the Scripture seems to countenance this Power of punishing for Murder, to be in any that will take it upon them, and therefore you see Cain, said, whoever meets me will slay me. And God tells Noah, whoever sheddeth Man's Blood, by Man shall his Blood be shed, without restraining it to any Man particularly who is to do it.  F. 
This Objection is easily answered, if you please to consider, what you yourself did a good wh●●● since urge to me, that God endowed Adam with so much Authority, as should enable him to govern his own Family and Children as long as he lived; which I readily granted you, and I only differed in the manner of its derivation, you affirming it to proceed from a Divine Charter or Grant, by Revelation conferred upon him by God, and I maintaining, that both he and every other Master of a separate Family, derive it only from Gods Natural and not Revealed Law, which if it be well proved, such Masters of Families, as also all Civil Powers (whom I suppose to be endued with the Power of all such Masters of Families or Freemen taken together) may for the s●me end, (viz.) the good Government, and Peace of ●heir Families and Commonwealths, make Laws under no less a Penalty than Death itself, against such offences as by the Law of Nature do not deserve it, since without such a Power (the wickedness of Man being come to this height it is) no Family or Commonwealth, could be long preserved in Peace or safety. And therefore, I suppose you will not affirm, but that such a Master of a Family, may very well inflict any punishment less than Death for such offences, which if they find too gentle to amend those crimes, they may likewise for the same reason increase the punishments ordained for it. And therefore, I yield, that though Theft doth not in its own Nature deserve Death, yet if the Master of such a separate Family shall find his Children or Servants to be so addicted to this vice, as not to be amended by any less punishments than Death, he may, for the quiet of his Family, make a general Law, that whosoever for the future shall commit Theft, shall suffer Death; and I doubt not, but such a Law when promulged, may be Lawfully Executed, since this Master of a Family is entrusted by God with the sole Power of judging, not only what are crimes, but also what are fit punishments for them, since both are alike necessary for the happiness and preservation of the Family. And I so far agree with you, that such Masters of Families, have as much Power over the Lives of their Children and Servants, as the most absolute Monarches have over their Subjects, that is, for their common good, and no farther. And upon the same Principles, do all Kings and Common wealths inflict capital punishments for the Transgression of all such Laws, as do any way entrench upon the common interest and safety of their People, and upon this ground, they may justly inflict noless punishments than Death, for Coining of false Money, which is but a sort of Theft from the public Treasure of the Commonwealth. And the same may be said for all capital punishments ordained against other offences of the same Nature.  M. 
If Fathers or Masters of Families are endued by God, (as you yourself now own,) not only with this Power of Life and Death, for enormous crimes against the Laws of Nature, but also to make new Laws, or ordain what punishments they please for such offences, as they shall judge destructive to the quiet and happiness of their Families, I see no difference (notwithstanding what you have hitherto said to the contrary) between Oeconomical and Civil Power. 
F. P. c. 1. §. 10.  For if we compare the Natural Rights of a Father or Master, with those of a King or Monarch, we shall find them all one without any difference at all, but only in the latitude or extent of them. For as the Father or Master over one Family: So a King, as a Father or Master over many Families, extends his care to Preserve, Feed, Cloth, instruct, and Defend the whole Commonwealth; his War, his Peace, his Courts of justice, and all his Acts of Sovereignty, tend only to preserve and distribute to every Subordinate, and inferior Father and his Children, their Rights and Privileges. Hath a Monarch Power to make new Laws, and appoint what punishments he will to enforce their Observation? So also hath a Father of a Family. Hath an absolute Prince Power to command or dispose of the Goods and Estates of his Subjects, for their common quiet and security? So also hath a Father or Master of a Family. So that all the Duties of a King, are summed up in this Universal Fatherly care of his People; and if the Sovereignty be the same, I cannot see and Reason, why the Rights and Prerogatives of it should not be so too. And therefore, if non resistance against their Authority, be an unseparable Prerogative of Sovereign Power, then if a Father or Master of a Family be endued with it, he ought no more to be resisted, than the most absolute Monarch.  F. 
I perceive your Head is very full of this Notion of the idintity of Natural and Civil Power, or else you would never insist so long upon it as you do, after what I have proved to the contrary. And therefore, since I see you look upon this as your topping Argument; I shall do my endeavour to show you more plainly the difference between them. For though I grant, that such Fathers or Masters of Families, (as we here treat of,) are endued by God with divers Powers, which are Analogous, or perhaps the same with those of a King or Monarch, that is, of defending their Families as far as they are able from Foreign force and Domestic injuries, and of revenging and punishing all offences that may prove prejudicial or destructive to the Peace and Happiness of their Families; yet doth it not therefore follow, that the Government of private Families and Kingdoms are all one, since they differ very much, not only in their Institution, but also in their End. For first, 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 those Ends; and therefore this Relation of a Father is so inherent in him, that it can never be parted with, or assigned over to any other, so as to make the Child or Son so Assigned, to owe the same duty to him, as he did to his Father.  
There is also, besides the Power of a Father, that of a Master, or Head of a Family over his Children and Servants, whilst they continue Members or Subjects of it, which Power I grant may be assigned, or made over to one, or more Persons, when ever such Master shall think fit to institute a Kingdom or Commonwealth: Yet, as Dr. Sanderson very well observes, this Power of a Master differs very much from that of the Civil Powers of a Kingdom or Commonwealth, as well in the object as end of this Power. For first, the Power of a Father is only over one single Family, whereas that of a Commonwealth is over divers Families, united under one Civil Head. Secondly, in respect of the end, the Power of the Master is chiefly ordained for his own interest and advantage, but that of the Civil Power, chiefly respects the good of the whole People or Community. Lastly, the Power of the Master of the Family, is only for the maintaining his own Natural Property, in those things which he hath acquired in the State of Nature, whereas one great end of Civil Government, is to introduce and establish Civil Property in things, according to the Laws of the Commonwealth, and also to maintain it when so constituted. To conclude, Fathers beget their Children, and Masters acquire to themselves Slaves and Servants, but it is from the consent of Fathers or Masters of separate Families, that any sort of Civil Government commenced at first, so that the People at first made Kings, and not the Kings the People: And further, it is the duty of Fathers and Masters to provide for their Children and Servants, but the People ought to provide for their Kings, not only for their necessities, but for their Magnificence and Grandeur; so that the Power of Fathers and Masters is Natural, whereas that of Kings and Republics is Political and Artificial, as proceeding from compacts or the consents of divers Heads of Families or other Freemen. And as Kingdoms and Families differ in the manner of their Intitution, so do they likewise in their ends, which is of a far larger extent in the latter than in the former, the main design of instituting Kingdoms and Commonwealths, before not only to defend their Subjects from such injuries or violence that they may do each other, but chiefly by their united Forces, to Guard them from the violence and invasion of Foreign Enemies.  
For though I grant, it may be sometimes happen, that a Family may consist of so great a number of Children, Servants or Slaves, as may make a little Army, such as Abraham's was when he made War againk the four Kings, yet is this purely accidental, and not at all essential to the being of a Family, which is as perfect in all it's constituted parts, if it consists of three or four Persons, as of three or four hundred. Whereas a Kingdom or Commonwealth cannot subsist, unless it can either by its own Power or united Forces, defend its Members from Foreign Force and Invasions: So also in private Families, in the State of Nature, there can be no property acquired in Lands or goods by any Members of it, without the Master's express will or permission. But in all Civil Governments, the very institution and preservation of Civil Property was one of its chiefest ends, which may be easily proved by experience: Since in all Nations, where there is any property either in Lands ●or Goods, there is a necessity of some Civil Government to maintain i●. Whereas in divers parts of Africa and America, where there is no distinct property in Land, and where there are no other Riches, than every Man's Cottage and Garden, with their Hunting and Fishing Instruments, there is no need of any Common or Civil Power over them, higher than that of Masters or Fathers of Families, who own no Superiority among themselves, unless it be when they go to War, and then they choose out of their own numbers for their Captains or Leaders, those whom they know to be stoutest and most experienced, whose Power determines as soon as the War ceases.  
But to make an end of this long Discourse, suppose, I should grant all you can desire, the Oeconomical and Civil Government do not differ in kind, but in largeness or extent, yet will it not follow, that therefore it must be in all Cases irresistible, since I think I am able to prove, that no Power whatever (except that of God himself, can be endued with this Prerogative) if once it goes about to frustrate, and destroy all the main ends of Government, (viz.) the happiness and safety of the Subjects, either by dowright destroying of them, or else by reducing them to a condition of Slavery and Misery, as the Great Turk uses his Christian Subjects. But to let you see, I would deal fairly with you, I will discourse this point of Adam's Sovereignty no farther, but will at present take it as the Lawyers say, de bene esse, or for granted, and I desire you would show me in the next place when Adam died, by what Law, either Divine or Natural, Cain or Seth (choose which you will) could command over all the rest of his Brethren and their Descendants. And then again, if you could do this, what benefit this Doctrine would yield to all Princes and States at this day, or how you intent to deduce a Title for them from Adam or Noah, or any of their Sons to their respective Kingdoms, and consequently to an absolute Subjection of their Subjects, without which all your Hypothesis will signify nothing.  M. 
I must return you thanks Sir for your candid dealing, and for the great pains you have taken to enlighten my understanding in this important question. And though I doubt, you have laid down Principles not so suitable to Gods Will revealed in the Holy Scripture, yet I will not imput it to any want of sincerity in yourself, who I hope, are satisfied of the truth of what you have maintained; so on the other side, I desire you not to take it ill, if I cannot leave my own opinion, which I have always hitherto looked upon, as most suitable to the Doctrine of the Church of England, and to the Practice of the Primitive Church, and to the Laws of the Land, and must continue therein, till I am convinced I am in an Error. But since I desire to have a further Conversation with you upon this important Subject, pray let me know, when we shall meet again, that I may prove to you, from Holy Scripture as well as those Authors, I have perused that there is a Divine Right of Blood instituted by God for the Succession of Kingdoms, which cannot without a kind of Sacrilege, or the highest Injustice, be taken away from the Right Heir.  F. 
I kindly accept your proffer, and if you please shall Discourse this important Question with you to Morrow in the Evening, if your Occasions will give you leave.  M. 
I expect you between seven and eight, and in the mean time am your Servant.  
FINIS.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
STate Tracts: Being a further Collection of several Choice Treatises relating to the Government; from the Year 1660. to 1680. Now published in a Body, to show the Necessity, and clear the Legality of the Late Revolution, and Our present Happy Settlement, under the Auspicious Reign of Their Majesties, King William and Queen Mary. Printed for Richard Baldwin.   

Bibliotheca Politica: Or a DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE, WHETHER There can be made out from the Natural, or Revealed Law of God, any Succession to Crowns by Divine Right?  
Collected out of the most Approved Authors, both Ancient and Modern.  
Dialogue the Second.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, near the Oxford-Arms; where also may be had the First Dialogue. 1692.   

The Subject of the Second Dialogue.  
WHether Hereditary Succession to Crowns be by Divine Right, or Institution, or not? Authors made use of in this Discourse, and how denoted in the Margin.  

1. Sir. Robert Filmer's 

Patriarcha. F. P.  
Preface to his Political Observations. F. P. O.  
Observations on Forms of Government. F. O. G.  
Directions to Obedience. F. D. O.    
2. Patriarcha non Monarcha. P. N. M.  
3. Mr. Bohun's 

Preface to Sir R. Filmer's Patriarcha. B. P. P.  
Conclusion to the same. B. C. P.    
4. Two Treatises of Government together. T. T. G.  
5. Grotius de jure Belli & Pacis. G. I. P.  
6. Bishop Sanderson's Preface to Archbishop Usher's Power of the Prince. S. P. P.    

Advertisement TO THE READER.  
THE Author of these Discourses hopes you will be so charitable as to believe, that tho' he hath made one of his Disputants argue pretty stiffly against the Divine Right of Monarchy, and Succession to Crowns, yet He is no Commonwealths-man, or one who hereby designs or desires Alterations in the Government of this Nation, either of Church, or State, since none can admire their Excellent Constitution more than himself; much less does he prefer an Elective, before an Hereditary Succession to Crowns, since he justly esteems the latter, as being a most Excellent, if not (Only) Means to prevent all Disputes, and Civil Disturbances about Succession, and therefore is never to be departed from, unless when some Natural, or Moral Disability in the Person, or other unavoidable necessity renders it absolutely inconsistent with the Public Peace, and Safety of the Kingdom.  
Therefore as a Man may be said to be truly devout without Superstition (which is but the Corruption, or Abuse of Religion;) so the Author likewise thinks that a Subject may be truly Loyal, and Obedient to his Prince, tho' he hath never heard of, or does not believe any Divine Right of Monarchy derived from Adam, and Noah, or of Succession from God's Promise that Cain should Rule over Abel: Nor hath the Author an Aversion to Absolute Monarchy as such, could he be assured that Princes would be always as wise, and good as they ought to be; nay, he owns, that divers Nations have never been more happy than under the Government of such Monarches. As the Roman Empire (For instance) never arrived to a greater height of Riches, and Power, (if we may believe Historians) than under Nerva, Trajan, and the two Antonines: So that indeed the fault is not in Absolute Monarchy as such, but in the too general Corruption of Humane Nature, which rarely produces Persons of just Abilities, both as to Wisdom, and Goodness, fit for so great a Trust.  
I confess Subjects may be sufficiently happy, and (if they please) contented under any Form of Government, where the Governors are of Equal Capacity and Honesty, and have a real hearty Love, and Concern for the Common Good of their People: But where these are wanting, it is not mere Forms, or empty Names can make them so; and therefore the Author very justly admires the Wisdom of the Ancient German, and Gothick Nations, who preferred a Limited Monarchy to all other Forms of Government, as an Excellent Medium between the Mischiefs of Arbitrary Power, and those unhappy Inconveniences that attend Republics, where either the Common People, or Nobility must govern.  
But the Author farther hopes, that tho' he makes one of his Disputants in this Dialogue to show the absurdity, and fatal consequences of Sir R. F's Principles; yet the Reader will not from thence infer, that he passes an absolute judgement against them; much less hath He done this out of any prejudice to Sir R's Person, which he never was acquainted with, since he hath rather an honour for his Memory, his Writings speaking him as a Person of Gentile Learning, and subtle Ingenuity: But whether his Tenets be destructive to the Fundamental Constitutions of this Government, the Author submits to the Reader's considerate judgement, which he hopes will be made without partiality, or any prejudicated Opinion proceeding from this, or that Party, or Faction, and will determine according to the Merits of the Cause; and therein observe the Apostles Rule, to try all things, and hold fast that which is good.  
The Author lastly desires the Reader not to think the worse of this performance, tho' all the Latin Quotations are not Englisht; for since these Discourses are supposed to be between Gentlemen, and Scholars, and principally intended for such, it would be thought needless to translate them.   

THE Second Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman AND Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian.  M. 
YOU are I see, Sir, a punctual man to your hour; Pray do me the favour to sit down by the Fire, I will but make an end of what I am writing, and wait on you presently.  F. 
Your Servant Sir, take your own time, but pray remember the point you are now to satisfy me in.  M. 
Now Sir, I have done, and if I remember right, I am to derive a Title to all the Kings, and Monarches that have ever been or shall be in the World from that Supreme Fatherly Power conferred by God on Adam. But pray take notice I undertake this Task only for Monarchies, not Commonwealths, whom I must own to be of mere Humane Invention; And tho' I will not say that they are absolutely unlawful, yet I think they are not the Powers ordained by God in Scripture.  F. 
Well Sir, we will discourse farther of that anon: and therefore I do assure you, I do not desire any more of you now than that you should prove the Divine Institution of Monarchy, and I think that task sufficient if it can be made out in one or two meetings.  M. 
It may seem indeed somewhat absurd to maintain, that all Kings are now the Fathers of their People, since you'll say experience shows the contrary. 
F. P. Ch. 1. § 8.  It is true all Kings are not now the Natural Parents of their Subjects, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those Primogenitors, who were at the first the Natural Parents of the whole People, and do in their right succeed to the exercise of the Supreme Jurisdiction, and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children, but also of their Brethren, and all others that were subject to their Fathers, and therefore I suppose, that God, when he conferred this Supreme Power on Adam, did not intend it should die with him, but descend to his Heirs after his Decease.  F. 
Well, I shall at present grant you all this likewise, tho' it might be questioned. But pray who were those Heirs? many, or but one Person?  M. 
I suppose you will also grant me at present, what we before disputed, that the Power of Fathers over their Children, being the Fountain of all Regal Authority, 
Ibid.  by the Ordination of God himself, it follows that Civil Power, not only in General is by Divine Institution, but even the assignment of it specifically to the eldest Parents.  F. 
Pray whom do you mean by Eldest Parents, our Great Grandmother 〈…〉 if you mean by it one that had longest had Children, she must come in as next Heir by these words.  M. 
No Sir, you altogether misapprehend me, I mean the Eldest Son of Adam; Eve was his Wife, and could have nothing to do to inherit in an Hereditary Monarchy as this was.  F. 
〈…〉 your pardon Sir, if I misunderstood you, but you must thank the looseness or impropriety of your expression for it, for I suppose you cannot deny, but Eldest Parents commonly signify either the Eldest men, or Women that have Children, or those who have longest had Issue and then in either of these senses, our Great Grandmother Eve, stood fairest to be Heir of this Divine Power of Adam; but this I am sure of, Parents can never signify Heirs Male or Female, much less a Child who may sometimes (according to your hypothesis) happen to be Heir; but since I am gotten into this mistake, I shall not leave my hold, but shall make bold a little to argue our Great Grand Mother's Title, for indeed I cannot see any reason why her Eldest Son (for Example) should have any right to Govern his Mother, and all his Brothers and Sisters, whilst she was alive.  
For first, if your Argument from Generation must be good, that every man that is born, becomes a subject to him that begets him, this Argument will serve for Eve as well as Adam; since (as I have already proved) the Mother hath as great (if not a greater) share, in the Generation of the Children, than the Father; Or secondly, if you insist upon the Divine grant you so much ●●lked of last time, of Adam's Dominion over the Creatures, in which his Children were included; I then proved to you, that this Grant was made as well to Eve as Adam; And consequently th● either she must have thereby an equal right with him, or at least after his Decease to this Dominion, as a Husband and Wife when joint Purchasers have to an Estate at Common Law. And lastly, If the Commandment of Honour thy Father and thy Mother, were then in Force by the Law of Nature or by express Command from God, and that by Honouring, obeying must be meant (as most Commentators agree) than it will follow, that after Adam's Decease, all Eves Sons and Descendants, tho' never so remo●e, were to have obeyed or been subject to her, and not to her Eldest Son, unless you can show me that the Salic Law against the succession of Women was made by Adam the first Monarch, which I suppose you will not undertake to prove.  M. 
I must confess, I did not consider this difficulty, for indeed it might never have happened, since Eve might have died before Adam, or if she did outlive him (which is uncertain) yet she was then very old, and consequently (besides the natural weakness of her Sex) uncapable, or unfit for Government, and so might very well leave it to Seth, since Cain the Eldest had by the Murder of his Brother, and his flying away into another Country, forfeited his Birthright, and made himself uncapable of the Succession.  F. 
So then here is a Forfeiture, and an Abdication of this Divine Right of Succession in the very first Descent; whereas indeed I supposed, that this Divine Right had been at least as unforfeitable as the Crown of England, the very Descent of which, as our Lawyers tell us, purges all defects in the next Heir, tho' he had murdered his Father and Elder Brother too. But I only show you the absurdity of this Notion, and shall not longer insist upon it, therefore pray proceed.  M. 
I cannot tell what might have been said, if Cain had come to claim his Birthright, but this is certain, that he neither did or could come to do it, since God condemned him to live in a strange Country far from his Brethren, 
B. P. P. c. 2. § 9 Gen. 4.16, 17.  and we read That Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelled in the Land of Nod, on the East of Eden, and he built a City, and called the Name of it Enoch, after the Name of his Son Enoch. And there are four descents set down immediately of his Family, which could be no other than the Princes of that City of Cain's Race. So that you see, even in Cain's Line, the Principality descended to the Eldest Son.  F. 
I confess Cain's Children and grandchildren are particularly set down in Scripture, but that they were Princes or Monarches over their Posterity, or which way this City was Governed after Cain's Death, whether by one, or by all the Sons of Cain is no where mentioned, but I see some Men can find even absolute Monarchy in a Text, where the Scripture mentions no such thing, and no wonder, for the Alchemists have found out likewise the invention of their Elixir, or Philosopher's Stone, in such Texts as you or I can see no such thing. But to be more serious;  
That a Father should be Lord over his Children and Posterity. I confess there may be some colour of reason, tho' none cogent enough to make it out: But that an Elder Brother hath any Natural or Divine Right, to be Lord over all the rest of his Brethren, I can find no ground for, in reason, even upon your own Principles, for if every Man by his Birth become the subject of him that begets him, it will necessarily follow, that a Man by his Birth cannot become a subject to his Brother, who (sure) did not beget him.  
Therefore I suppose you will still insist upon that place in the fourth of Genesis, which you cited at our last Meeting, when God told Cain (speaking as you suppose) of his Brother Abel, His desire shall be subject unto thee, and thou shalt Rule over him. From which words I then told you. I thought an absolute subjection of Abel, and of all younger Brothers whatsoever could not reasonably be inferred, for you may remember I showed you, that this Promise by God to Cain concerning Abel might be only personal, and relate to Abel only, and not to the rest of his Brethren, much less, all other younger Brothers, that should be in the World; And in the next place this Ruling might only have been by advice and persuasion, and not by any Authority or Right of commanding him. So that if this be the place (as I suppose it is) from whence you would deduce your Divine Right of Elder Brothers being Monarch's over the younger in all Hereditary Monarchies, I must freely tell you I think it a very bold undertaking to found a Divine Right upon such doubtful expressions, as these of God to Cain.  M. 
I confess, I was now about again to urge this place to you; for as I was not then well satisfied with your explanation of it, which you now again repeat, so upon second thoughts I am much more unsatisfied with your Paraphrase upon them. For you seem to me plainly to pervert the sense of the words, 
BPP. § 64.  and make them signify just nothing. For sure when God spoke the same Words to Eve concerning Adam, as he did to Cain concerning Abel, can you conceive they were meant personally to Eve only, and concerned no other Wife that should be after her? Or can you assign any Reason why these words should be rather meant personally in the last, and not in the first case? Unless you will do it out of pure Love to Anarchy and confusion. And if you say these words do not signify any despotic Power, but a Ruling or Governing by fair means or persuasion, this seemeth mere trifling with God's Word, who says expressly, Thy Brother's desire shall be Subject to thee; That is (say you) as far as he thinks fit, and thou shalt rule over him, that is, if thou hast the knack to wheadle or persuade him. Would not this have been a mighty matter for God Almighty to have appeared to Cain about, and an excellent Argument to comfort him, 
Ib. c. 2. § 7.  and to appease his Wrath against his Brother? So that it seems apparent by this Law given by God to Cain and Abel, that this Regal and Paternal Authority was not to die with him, nor ●o be equally divided amongst all his Children at his Death, or that from thenceforth no man should have a Right by Birth of commanding another, for this command to Abel could not be supposed to take place in the Life of Adam, for then Adam was Lord over all his Children, and so none of them without his permission could rule over the rest, and if it were otherwise by Adam's appointment, than Adam was the Sovereign still, and the Son or Grandson so exercising this Power was but his Deputy: but after Adam's decease than it became a real Sovereignty in his Eldest Son, as having none but God Superior to it.  F. 
I hope you will judge more charitably of me▪ than to believe that the sense that I have put upon these words, tho' different from yours, is out of any love of Anarchy or confusion, much less out of any design to pervert or wrest this place of Scripture: and if I should be so severe as you are, perhaps I might with more reason lay this charge at your Door: for in the first place, I am not satisfied with your Argument, that these words could not be meant personally, or concerning Abel only, because the same words when spoken of Eve do likewise concern her Posterity, and therefore when spoken concerning Abel they must likewise relate to all Younger Brothers in Hereditary Monarchies: which consequence I may with very good reason deny, for whatsoever subjection may be due by virtue of the like words from Eve and her Posterity, to Adam and all other Husbands, is to be supposed to have been enjoined, because all Women are descended from Eve, and so were represented by her as their first Parent. Thus St. Paul supposes all men to be in a state of Sin and Death, 
Rom. 5. v. 12.  as represented by Adam; their Ancestor, by whose disobedience all have sinned. But no man will affirm that all the Elder Brothers, or Monarches in the World were represented by Cain, and all younger Brothers by Abel, no man at this day being (as appears in Scripture) descended from either of them: and I cannot but take notice that the better to strengthen your Notion you again foist in out of the margin of our English Bible, His desire shall be subject to thee, whereas in the Hebrew it is no more than, His or its desire shall be to thee.  
And that the words Rule over, are to be interpreted according to the subject, and do not always mean a ruling by force, or command appears by the same Hebrew words made use of in the first of Genesis▪ concerning the two great Lights that God set in the Firmament, 
v. 17, 18.  to give Light upon the Earth, to rule over the Day, and over the Night, which cannot signify a ruling by force or command, but only by a natural influence, or pre-eminence of the Sun and Moon above the Stars or Planets. And tho' you are pleased to ridicule this explanation of mine, yet I think, I may with as much reason treat yours with the like contempt, for since yourself grant that this Power of Cain over Abel, was not to commence till after the Death of Adam, and that this Murder of Abel was committed above a hundred years after Adam's Creation, 
Gen 5. v. 3.  appears by the time of the Birth of Seth, (who was born sometime after 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 cheer up, for the time should come that if he behaved himself well, about eight hundred years hence, when his Father Adam should die, he should then Lord it over his Brother, and be revenged of him for the affront he had received in having his Sacrifice preferred before his own? So that this interpretation of yours is so absurd, that I do much rather agree with divers learned commentators as well Jews as Christians, who make not only a quite different interpretation, but also a different version of these words from the Hebrew Text, and if you have the Learned Jesuit Menochius his Notes upon the Bible, I pray let me see them. Here pray observe what he says upon this place. Se● sub te erit appetitus ejus; in Hebraeo, & apud LXX est, ad te conversio ejus: sensus est, Peccatum ejusque appetitus, & concupiscentia te sollicitabit ad consensum▪ sed ita, ut ad te converti, & a te conseusum petere, & impetrare debeat; id noster interpres ad sensum clare vertit, sub te erit appetitus ejus; by all which he means no more, than that sin should tempt, or solicit him to offend, but that he should rule over it, that is, had a power so to do if he would use it as he ought. So likewise Mr. Ainsworth upon this place, (as you may see in Pool's Critics) puts a li●e sense upon the following words, referring the whole sentence to the sin in these words, Peccatum ponitur pro poena Peccati; juxta Hebraeos ita accipitur, Gen. 19.15. Leu. 20. 9 1 Rep. 7.9. sinsus est prope te punitio peccati & ad te desiderum ejus, i. e. cupit te poena peccati tui, ut solet post peccatum admissum. Sed tu si vis dominaberis illi, i. e. potes declinare peccatum, q. d. poena haec, sicut canis est, qui ad ostium cubat▪ cupiens ingredi, sed in potestate Domini est, vel claudere ostium, ne ingrediatur, vel aperire ut intret. Probatur hic sensus 1. Prius membrum de praemio l●quitur, reportabis scil. praemium, ergo posterius loquitur de poena, peccatum jam inerat ipsi, punitio vero nondum, sed ad fores erat. So that according to these learned Comentators, this place is to be thus turned out of Hebrew, If thou dost not well, sin lieth at the door, and to thee is its desire, but thou mayst or shalt rule over it, which seems to me to be a much more genuine and Rational Interpretation, than that of our English or Latin Bibles; so that I think I may justly except against the Authority of so doubtful and obscure a place, as sufficient to found your Monarchical Power of Elder Brothers, in the State of Nature.  M. 
Well Sir, since you are no better satisfied with this Testimony o●● of Genesis, for the Divine Right of Primogeniture, I will no longer insist upon it, tho' I am not yet convinced, but that my Interpretation of this place is truer than yours, since I have likewise great Authorities on my side, both Ancient and Modern, besides our common versions to authorise it, and therefore since I have many other examples out of Scripture of this kind, I shall the less insist upon it, but will now proceed to the examples before the Flood. First therefore, it seems highly probable if not certain, that whatever Civil Government there was in the World, before that period of time (as it is very rational to believe there necessarily m●st be some in so long a space as near two hundred years) it was chief●y administered by those first Patriarches, whose names you'll find particularly recited in the fifth of Genesis, and sure that long Chain we there have of them, 
B. P. P. § 52.  by whose Lives the Chronology of the World is only reckoned till the Flood, were in their several Generations considerable persons, nay Princes over their own Families which 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 obscure unregarded men, but that they were either Monarches or Princes of all Mankind or at least over that part of the World in which they lived, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   and josephus is likewise of my opinion in the first Book of the Jewish Antiquities, where (as you may see) cap. 3. he expressly tells us, thus, Seth autem centesimo & quinto anno genuit Eno●. Qui dum quinque & nongentos vixisset annos. rerum curam tradidit filio suo Carnae, and immediately after proceeds thus, Lamec●um autem filium genuit Ma●husalas, Enocho oreus, cum annos ipse habere 〈◊〉 CLXXXVII. Imperium vero Lamecho eidem tradidit parent, quod jam tenuerat ipse annos DCCCCLXIX. Lamechus pariter Principatum reliquit Noe filio, post quam regnasset annos DCCLXXVII. No denique verum summam tenuit annos nongentos & quinquaginta; Lamecho annos 382. aetatis habenti genitus. And Noah, the last of the Ten Patriarches, and the surviving Patriarch of all Mankind, was declared by God the Universal Monarch of the World, as soon as he came out of the Ark, to whom he granted the Dominion over all things, as appears by those words of God to Noah, 
V. 2▪ 3. F. O. G. p. 47. L. 1. C. 4.  Gen. 9 whereby I conceive, that tho' it hath been thence concluded by Mr. Selden in his Mare Clausum, that there was a general Community between Noah, and his Sons, yet the Text doth not clearly warrant it: For altho' the Sons are there joined with Noah in the blessing, yet it may best be understood, with a Subordination, or a Benediction in Succession; and the Blessing might truly be fulfilled, if the Sons either under, or after their Father enjoyed a Private Dominion: Nor is it probable, that the Private Dominion, which God gave to Adam and by his Donation, Assignation or Session to his Children, was abrogated, and a Community of all things instituted between Noah, 
joseph. Antiq. jud. Lib. 1. Cap. 3. § 4. Oxon. edit.  and his Sons after the Flood. And when Noah was left the sole Heir of the World; why should it be thought that God would disinherit him of his Birth right and make him only Tenant in Common with his Children? And if the Blessing given to Adam, Gen. 1.128. be compared to that given to Noah, and his Sons, Gen. 9.2. there will be found a considerable difference between these two Texts. In the Benediction of A●●m we find expressed a subduing of the Earth and a Dominion over the Creatures; neither of which are expressed in the Blessing of Noah, nor the Earth there once named: It is only said, The Fear of you shall be upon the Creatures, and into your hands are they delivered; then immediately it follows, Every moving thing shall be meat for you, as the green Herb, etc. The first Blessing gave Adam Dominion over the Earth, and all Creatures; the latter allows Noah Liberty to use the Living Creatures for Food: Here is no alteration or diminishing of his Title to an absolute Propriety of all things, but only an Enlargement of his Commons.  F. 
As for the Government of the World before the Flood, I have already acknowledged, that the Scriptures being silent in it, no man can affirm any thing positively concerning it, whether it was Regal, Aristocratical, or Paternal, neither is it any Proof, that because God thought fit for our understanding the Age of the World, or the Genealogy of Noah, from whom all Mankind now takes its Original to set down a Series of the Patriarches from Father to Son, or that because they were no obscure, unregarded Men, that therefore they must all be absolute Princes, or Monarches over their Families. This is, as a Father said long ago, Divinare ●agis, quam scire. But I see, when Prejudice once blinds our Reasons, we easily make good that old saying, Facile credimus quod volumus. But as for your Quotation out of josephus, I grant indeed, that at the first sight it makes for you; but suppose it doth, I cannot see how a Man may can lay any stress upon it, since the Scripture, being silent of any such Monarchy, or Principality in these Patriarches, since this Author writes his History above three sand years, after the time that these Patriarches lived, which he there mentions; and that we are sure there were no Authors then extant, that writ of the Antedeluvian Patriarches, but Moses only, josephus could speak no otherwise than by guess, or from some uncertain Traditions preserved amongst the Pharisees, of which Sect he was: To which Traditions, when not warranted by Scripture▪ how little Credit is to be given, our Saviour himself teaches us. And also the many futilous Traditions of the Rabbins at this day, do sufficiently show us: But I suppose that by this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there used by josephus, (which is rendered by the Latin Version Principatus) is not meant any Monarchical Power, but only that Principality or Eminency, or that Reverence, and Respect which their Posterity paid them, either in regard of their great Age and Experience, or of the Spirit of God, with which they might be supposed to be endued, sufficient to make them to be taken notice of, and reverenced above all other Men living in their time. I have likewise upon better consideration, two other Reasons to add, why by the curam rerum, mentioned in this place, cannot be meant a Regal Power, because josephus' mentions no such thing of Adam the f●rst Father, and as you suppose Monarch of Mankind; which sure he would have done had he believed him endued by God with such a Power.  
The second Reason is, that if you please to observe, he ascribes to Mathuselab, Lamech, and Noah, as many years of Empire, as of Life: So that either this place of josephus signifies nothing at all, or else will make nothing to your purpose to prove these Ancient Patriarches to have been so many Monarches.  
I come now to the next Period of time after the Flood, and whereof I grant we may discourse with more certainty: But I could have wished you would have repeated more particularly the words, whereby you suppose God granted to Noah alone, an absolute Dominion over the whole Earth, and all the Creatures therein contained: But I perceive you thought the words not very favourable for you, or else you would have repeated, or read them to me, which since you omitted, I pray give me leave to do it for you, and then I will leave it to yourself to judge whether there can be any thing drawn from this Text to countenance your Opinion; 
Gen. 9.1, 2, 3.  the words are these: And God blessed Noah, and his Sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and Replenish the Earth. And the fear of you, and the dread of you shall be upon every Beast of the Earth, and upon every Fowl of the Air, upon all that moveth upon the Earth, upon all the Fishes of the Sea, into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green Herb have I given you all things: Where you may plainly see, that Noah hath no Pre-eminence in this Grant above his Children, who were (for as much as I can see) by this Text to be Tenants in Common with him of the Earth, and all its Creatures▪ Nor is there much difference between this Grant to Noah, 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 granted to Noah, and his Sons for Food, which they were not before to Adam.  
But I perceive you yourself are sensible, that this is the most plain, and obvious sense of these words, and therefore you have thought good to wrest them so as may best serve your purpose; and indeed you deal very cunningly to say, that this Grant may be best understood with a Subordination in Succession; 
T. T. G. c. 4. p. 41.  'Tis true indeed, it serves best for your purpose, that it should be so understood, but that will be best understood by any body else, which best agrees with the Plain, and obvious Sense of the Words. Nor will your reason signify any thing, that the Blessing might be truly fulfilled if the Sons either under, or after their Father enjoyed a private Dominion: Since that were to say that a Grant whose express Words, give a joint Title in present (for the Text saith, Into your hands they are delivered) may best be understood with a subordination, or in succession, because 'tis possible that in subordination, or succession it may be so enjoyed, is all one as to say, that a Grant of any thing in present Possession, may best be understood in Reversion, because 'tis possible one may live so to enjoy it. And as for the other parts of this Grant, they are so expressed, that they must needs be understood to belong to Noah's Sons, not with a subordination, or in succession, but as full and equally as to Noah himself: The fear of you, and the dread of you (says God) shall be upon every Beast, etc. Can any body in reason say, that the Creatures were to fear, and stand in awe of Noah only, and not of his Sons without his leave, or till after his death? And are the following words, (into your hands they are delivered,) to be understood, (as you say) if your Father please, or they shall be delivered into your hands hereafter? You do also as wisely to say, that if Adam had a private Dominion given him by God, that he would not now abrogate it: For I grant, that if he had given Adam any such private Dominion, that there had been no reason for him now to have changed it. But I think I have sufficiently proved at our last meeting, that he had no such private Dominion given him any more than Eve, and those Children that were to proceed from them. So that this supposition being false, there will be no such considerable difference as you suppose, between these two Texts. For certainly, (tho' it be not here expressed) Noah's Sons had as much Right to subdue or possess the Earth, as the Posterity of Adam had before the Flood, and likewise to enjoy, or eat the Products thereof; only here is granted to Noah, 
Ib. p. 47.  and his Sons, a Power to kill the Creatures for food, which was not granted to Adam, or those that lived before the Flood: And tho' you will have this Grant to be no diminishing of Noah's Title to a sole Propriety in all things, but only an Enlargement of his Commons; yet methinks it is a considerable Privilege not only to himself, but his Sons likewise, who are hereby impowered to use the Creatures for food, as well as their Father, or else their Case had been very hard, if when the Creatures were sufficiently multiplied, they might not have killed so much as a Hare, or a Partridge without his leave. And if they had a Right thus to use these Creatures, how this differs from an absolute Propriety in them when ever they are taken, my dull understanding is not able to comprehend.  M. 
Well, since you will not admit of this sole Dominion of Noah over all things in the World: I shall not longer insist upon it, but will pass over to those other Authorities I have to produce out of Scripture.  F. 
I pray Sir, do; and to let you see how fair an Adversary I will be, I will for the present admit, that Noah was a Prince or Monarch over all his Posterity; but then pray show me to whom this Power descended after his Decease, for I can see 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 Family, and had an equal share in the Earth, and all its Products, the one as much as the other; so that here it is apparent your sole Monarchy of the World dwindles into a sort of Gavel-kind where all the Sons inherit alike.  M. 
I cannot deny the matter of Fact to be as you have laid down, but then there might be very good reason for it, which might render the sole Principality of Noah's Eldest Son to be not only unlawful, 
F. O. G. p. 49.  but unpracticable, for in the first place Mr. Selden in his Mare Cl●sum (in the place aforecited) tells us, 
L. 1. c. 4.  from the Ancient Tradition of the Jewish Rabbins, That Noah himself, as Lord of all, was Author of the distribution of the World, and of private Dominion, and that by the appointment of an Oracle from God, be did confirm this distribution by his last Will, and Testament, which at his Death he lef● in the hands of his Eldest Son Shem, and also warned all his Sons, that none of them should invade any of their Brother's Dominions, or injure one another, because from thence Discord, and Civil Wars would necessarily follow.  
Nor do I see any reason why Noah might not emancipate his two Younger Sons from the Dominion of the Elder, and likewise give them a separate share of the Earth, and also an independent Power over their own Family, and Posterity. In the second place, it might be impracticable for one Man to Govern all Mankind, when in a little time it became so multiplied and dispersed over the Face of the Earth, and the Languages so confounded by the Act, or Will of God, that it was impossible for the Three Elder Sons, of these three great Patriarches, to govern them. But during the Life of Noah, 
B. P. P. § 10.  we do not read that any of his Children, or Descendants, withdrew themselves from him without his leave, 
Gen. 11.1, 2.  but rather the contrary; for it is said, The whole Earth was of one Language, and of one Speech; and it came to pass as they journeyed from the East, that they found a Plain in the Land of Shinar, &c By which words it appears they kept well enough together; and the very reason why they began to build the Tower, was left, (said they) We should be scattered abroad upon the Face of the whole Earth: So that there was no disunion amongst them, nor so much as a desire of it, whilst Noah lived.  F. 
I pray give me leave to answer what you have said concerning this Distribution of the Earth by Noah's last Will, and also his making all his Sons Lords, or Monarches alike, both which favour so strongly of the Rabbinical Liberty of Invention, that I wonder how any Learned Man can believe such idle Stories, especially when the Scripture, and the most Ancient Histories, and Records that are extant in the World, mention no such thing; and tho' Ios●phus may in the place you have cited suppose that every one of the Patriarches he mentions, were Princes, or Monarches, yet he doth not say any thing like it, concerning the Three Sons of Noah's being Monarches, or of this Partition of the Earth between them, but maketh them to live together in those Mountainous parts, till they descended from thence into the Plain; so that it was impossible for Noah to make a Distribution of those parts of the Earth, which were not yet discovered; and it is apparent by the Scripture itself, that a considerable time after Noah's Death all Mankind lived together, and therefore there was no impossibility (as you suppose) why Noah's Eldest Son could not have commanded his Brethren, and their Descendants, they being not as yet dispersed, or separated from each other, as you may see by the first Verses of 〈…〉 of Genesis, which you cited but now. So that if Noah's Eldest Son was disinherited of his Right of Governing his Brethren, and their Descendants, that could not be the cause of it, which you assign; and if Primogeniture be a Divine Right appointed by God himself, and unalterable by Humane Laws, as you suppose, I cannot see how the Will of a Father▪ which is but a Humane Institution, can ever alter it: For I remember you laid it down as a Maxim, at our last meeting, That the Divine Right of the Right Heir never dies, can be lost, or taken away; so that if there hath been any such thing as a Divine Right of Primogeniture belonging to the Eldest Son of Noah, it is not likely that he would have permitted his two Brothers to have usurped it from him.  M. 
I shall not insist longer on this Tradition, concerning the Distribution of the Earth amongst the Sons of Noah; but certainly it is not a thing to be made so slight of as you do, since Cedrenus a Modern Greek Historian, is very particular in it; besides, so many other Learned Men (and the great Selden among the rest) have given countenance to it. And tho' I grant that Primogeniture is of Divine Right, yet that might very well be altered by Noah's Will, especially, since his Children might be satisfied that he being a Prophet, and Preacher of Righteousness, might make this Division of his Paternal Power by a Divine Command.  
But I shall not dwell longer upon this, but proceed to the next Period of Time; (viz.) that of the Confusion, and Dispersion of Tongues, in which there are more evident Footsteps of this Right of Primogeniture, as also of the Patriarchal Power I maintain: And therefore pray turn to the 10th of Genesis, and there you will find (after the Recital of the Genealogy of every one of the Sons of Noah, whose Descendants are there particularly set down) these words in the fifth verse; By these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands; 
F. P. P. § 4.  every one after his Tongue, after their Families in their Nations: And likewise in the 20th verse; These are the Sons of Ham, after their Families; after their Tongues in their Countries, and in their Nations. And in the last verse; These are the Families of the Sons of Noah, and their Generations in their Nations; and by these were the Nations divided in the Earth after the Flood. So that if we consider the first Plantations of the World, which were after the Building of Babel, and the Confusion of Tongues, we may find the Division of the Earth into distinct Kingdoms, or Nations, by several Families and Languages, 
F. A. MM. p. 275.  whereof the Sons, or grandchildren of Noah, were the Kings, or Governors, by a Fatherly Right: And for the preservation of this Power, and Right in these Fathers, God was pleased upon several Families to bestow a Language on each by itself, the better to unite it into a Nation or Kingdom. So that it becoming impossible (as I said before) for the Elder Sons or Descendants of these Three great Patriarches to Govern all Mankind, who now no longer understood each other's Language, it was absolutely necessary that the Heads of the several Families should take that care upon them, and their Children submit to them; wherein they had the direction of God Almighty, who had commanded them to obey their Parents, and a miraculous declaration of his Will for their Dispersion, by the confounding of their Language, and that so ordered by God too, that the Descendants of the same Person, and Family, spoke one Tongue; was not this a declaring these Father's Princes of these several Families, and Tongues by God himself, who by his Providence had thus confounded their Tongues, and dispersed them by Families, that they could no longer be governed by Three, or Four Patriarches, but must have as many distinct Governments, as there were different Tongues, there being no means at present of any intercourse, or correspondence one with another, or with their former Governors? So that however in this Confusion of Tongues (by which, as josephus supposes, there were Seventy two distinct Nations erected) yet were they not confused Multitudes without Heads, or Governors, and at liberty to choose what Governors, or Government they pleased, but were so many distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them of the same Speech: 
B. P. P. § 10.  Whereby it is manifest, that even in the Confusion, God was careful to preserve Fatherly Authority, and Monarchical Power entire, by distributing the diversity of Languages according to the diversity of Families; which shows that God was still for Government, and that Paternal too, since it is evident that every People followed their Ancestor, or Patriarch, as their Prince or Leader in this Dispersion, who had a Patriarchal Authority over their Posterity; for by what else can you suppose they could have made their Children, and Descendants, to have followed them as far as the utmost Isles of the Gentiles?  F. 
I confess there are many difficulties as well in the time, as manner of this Dispersion, according to our Common Chronology; for if you suppose, that the Building of the Tower of Babel, fell out within two hundred years after the Flood, as most of our Chronologers, who follow the Hebrew account, do, than it is certain, that Noah, and his Sons, were still alive, who lived till above four hundred years after the Flood; so that either Noah, and his Sons, did not travel with the rest of their Descendants into the Plain of Shinar, where they built the Tower of Babel, which yet seems contrary to the Text, which says, All Mankind being of one Language, they traveled, etc. And if these Children, and grandchildren left their Ancestors at home, what become of their Monarchical Authority, when their Subjects were gone? & you yourself do assert, that none of Noah's Posterity divided from him, as long as he lived; so on the other side, if you suppose, that Noah, and his Sons marched along with them in this Expedition, you must make them either to have quitted their Authority over their Descendants, or else to have joined with them in this wicked, and foolish Enterprise of Building a Tower, whose top should reach to Heaven, which is very hard to conceive of Noah, a Preacher of Righteousness, or his Sons, whom the Scripture no where mentions, or blames for having a hand in this Attempt.  
But if you will lay the fault of Building this Tower upon Nimrod, as josephus doth, who makes him a great Tyrant, and a wicked Man, 
L. 1. c. 4.  this will make against your own Hypothesis, which supposes no Rebellion, or Usurpation to have been during the Life of Noah. So that to avoid these Absurdities, and Difficulties that will follow by the placing the Building of the Tower of Babel, within two hundred years after the Flood (as you must do if you follow the present Hebrew 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 Confusion of Tongues to have happened not till about five hundred years after the Flood, which takes away those Absurdities I mentioned, of making Noah, and his Sons to have had a hand in the Building of the Tower of Babel, or else that Nimrod did it, whether they would or not; which is likewise as hard to suppose; all which Difficulties, according to this Account, may very well be taken away; since then, Noah, and his Sons were dead, before ever this Tower began to be built: And for the further proof of this, I refer you to the Learned Isaac Vossius his Vindication of the Translation of the LXX. and his Chronology accommodated to that account, as most agreeable to the Ancient Hebrew Original; but this is only by the by.  M. 
I thank you, Sir, for your solution of this great Difficulty which I am satisfied cannot be better solved, than by this Account of the LXX Version. But I pray answer my Argument, which in my Opinion clearly makes out the Divine Institution, as well as necessity of Patriarchal Power.  F. 
I was just coming to it, and therefore in the first place I must tell you, that I cannot imagine how you can prove from this Text concerning the Dispersion of Nations, and their following certain Leaders of their own Family, and Language, when otherwise they could not have conversed together, that therefore God must be careful in all this transaction to preserve your Imaginary Patriarchal Power entire; of which the Scripture is altogether silent; 
F. T. G. c. 11. p. 177.  and you might as well tell me, that because in Hannibal's, or Darius' Army, there were whole Squadrons of different Languages, who were ranged under Captains of their own Language or Country, that therefore Fathers, or Grandfathers were Leaders of each Squadron, or that Darius, or Hannibal, were careful to preserve Paternal Authority.  
But suppose I grant you the utmost you can ask, yet, since God thought fit at this Confusion of Tongues, that all those of one Tribe should speak the same Language, which was not understood by any other, it is likewise very reasonable to suppose, that they could not travel so far as the utmost parts of Asia, without choosing, and following some Captain Leaders to be their Guides, and Commanders in so long a Journey; and whom could the People sooner choose to follow for this purpose than their Fathers, or Grandfathers, to whose natural Affection, Wisdom, and long Experience, they had from their very Infancy always paid a great respect, and submission: Yet doth it not therefore follow, that such Fathers, or Grandfathers, thus led, or commanded their Children, and Posterity (now grown up to be Men and Women) by any Natural, or Divine Right, or that they followed them otherwise than as an Army of Volunteers, or than as a Caravan in the Deserts of Arabia doth a Captain of its own choosing. But if you will suppose any thing beyond this, you will find yourself involved in greater Difficulties, and Absurdities. For pray tell me, what great Care was there to preserve a Patriarchal Authority in this Confusion and Dispersion, by breaking it into so many parts? Indeed I am so blind I cannot see it. For as I will not deny, but it was God's Will to confound the Language, and disperse the Families of Mankind, both for a Punishment, and also for the better Peopling of the World: So am I not convinced, that God in acting thus, was at all careful to preserve the Patriarchal Authority, derived from Adam. For you cannot deny but that at the same time he destroyed the true Supreme Fatherhood of the Natural Monarch, or Heir of Adam, who could be but one Person, as you yourself have already asserted; or, can it be any reason to say, that God for the preservation of Paternal Authority, let so many several new Governments, with their Governors start up, who must all enjoy this Authority? And is it not more reasonable to say, that God was careful to destroy this Paternal Authority, when he suffered those of Noah's Sons, or Descendants then actually in Possession of it, to have their Monarchy torn in pieces, and shared by so many of their Subjects? And would it not be an excellent Argument for Monarchical Government to say, when any Monarchy was shattered to pieces, and divided amongst many revolted Subjects, that God was only careful to preserve Monarchical Power, by rending a great settled Empire, into a multitude of little Governments. So that it is altogether irrational to conceive, that if any three, or more Right Heirs of Noah had Paternal Authority, or Sovereignty by Right of Fatherhood over Mankind at Babel, that the next moment, (all they yet living) seventy two others should have a like Sovereignty by Right of Fatherhood over the same People, divided into so many distinct Governments; either than these seventy two Fathers were actually Rulers, just before the Confusion, and then they were not one People, but an Aristocratical Commonwealth, and then where was your Monarchy? Or else these seventy two Fathers had Paternal Authority, but knew it not, which is hard to suppose. And if these seventy two grandchildren of the Sons of Noah, had a Right to divide this Supreme Paternal Authority of Adam into as many distinct Governments as there were Heads of Families, why might not their Sons have done so in infinitum? And then there could never be any Common Prince, or Monarch set over them all, but by Force, or Conquest, or else by Election: Either of which destroys your Notion of the Divine Right of Primogeniture.  M. 
'Tis a very pleasant Notion, methinks, this of yours, that the Posterity of the first Planters of the World, should follow their Ancestors, not as Children, or Subjects, but as Volunteers, and from a Reverence (forsooth) and Affection to their Age, 
B. P. P. § 60.  Wisdom, and Experience. Indeed I am thus far of your mind, that these Children followed their Fathers freely, and were not driven afore them, nor dragged after them with Chains: But to infer from hence, that they owed their Father none of this Service, or Attendance, but out of mere good Nature and Gratitude, which are due to Strangers that have obliged us, by being our Benefactors, is a Notion that only becomes one, that owns no Right to be derived from Patriarchal, or Paternal Power; and since there was none of these Patriarches, who were the Leaders of Mankind in this Dispersion, but might be one, or two hundred years old, if not more; can any thing in Nature look more ridiculous, than for the Children, and Descendants of these Old Men to elect them who begat them to be their Leaders, and Governors, at a hundred years of Age?  
And to give you an Answer why Governments might not upon my Principles crumble into new ones, 
Ib. 63.  in infinitum, I think it may be sufficient to tell you, that First, God prevented it, and that for the most part by Monarches, ever since the Creation of the World; and altho' he was pleased to permit many Divisions after this time; yet he would never suffer Mankind to be crumbled into such small Divisions as to make every distinct Household an Independent Government. Secondly, Those Monarches prevented it, who would be sure to reduce to their Subjection, any person that should attempt to divide himself, or Family, from the rest, and set up for an Independent State without his leave, and liking. Thirdly, The necessity of Mankind prevented it, such small parcels of Men not being able to preserve themselves, but by uniting with the rest, for their Support and Protection: So that if you could never so clearly prove that here was no Subordination to the Eldest Son, or Heir of Noah, yet this signifieth nothing, for God ordered it so to be; and if these Grand sons of Noah were Independent Governors of their own Families, with any Subordination to the Eldest Son's Son or Heir of Noah; yet were they still Sovereign Princes, and much less had any dependence upon their own Children and Descendants. So that hitherto the Multitude were kept under Subjection, and could not set up a Commonwealth without rebelling against those Independent Governors.  
Now if in this horrible Confusion of Tongues, the People by the Will of God still fell under the Monarchical Government of these Fathers of Families, I desire to know when they could obtain their Freedom, and in what Age it began?  F. 
I must confess you had some Reasons to look upon my Notion of the Descendants of the Sons of Noah following their Ancestors in this Dispersion, not as Children, or Subjects, but as Volunteers, to be as ridiculous as you are pleased to make it, could you have any way proved at our last meeting, that the Power of Parents over their Children, and grandchildren to all Generations, is as absolute, and perpetual, as that of a Master over his Slaves, and that a Son and a Servant were all one at the first; but since you failed in that Proposition, which is the groundwork of all the rest, I must beg your pardon, if I cannot found the Descendants of Noah, following their Fathers, or Ancestors in the Dispersion, upon any higher ground, than mere Gratitude and Esteem: I mean for all such of them, who were themselves at that time Masters, or Heads of separate Families; and I desire to know of you by what other Motive, or Obligation, a Great Grandson (for Example) was obliged to follow his 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 desire you to show me if they had (as they might very well have) commanded different things, which was to be obeyed? And how Disobedience to a Man's own Father in this case would have consisted with that Law of Nature, which you so much insist upon, of honouring a Man's Father. But indeed all this mistake proceeds from your first false Notion, which I see you cannot yet be quit of, in still supposing the Obedience, and Subjection of Children to their Fathers to be absolute, and perpetual: The contrary to which I have already made out at our last meeting: And therefore I must tell you again, that this Notion of these grandchildren, or Descendants following their Fathers, or Ancestors, not out of Duty, but Choice, is not so ridiculous as you are pleased to make it; and tho' I do not suppose that they Elected these Ancestors of theirs for their Leaders by a Balotting-Box, yet this much I am sure of, that they might prefer, if they pleased, the following of their Father, or Grandfather, rather than their Great Grandfather, if they perceived that he had doted through Age, or else by Weakness, or Infirmities, was unable to lead them, or that his natural temper was so Imperious, and Tyrannical, that there was no living under his Government? Neither doth the Scripture itself any where declare the contrary, only says in general, that by these Grandsons of Noah, the Isles, or Countries of the Gentiles were divided, according to their Families, and Nations, without particularly telling us, who were the Princes, or Leaders of each Tribe, or Family. And to instance, if this Division happened in the time of Peleg, or Phaleg, as the Greek LXX. makes it, than not Arphaxad the Great Grandfather, or Selah the Grandfather, but Heber the Grandson was the Prince or Leader of his Family at this Division: Since it is from him that josephus supposes the Hebrews not only to have descended, 
L. 1. c. 6.  but to have taken their Names.  
Nor do you any better answer the other Difficulty, how all these Seventy two Patriarches, or Great Grandfathers, could all of them claim alike Regal Power from Adam, or Noah, whose Right Heir could be but one Person. Indeed you tell me, that God ordered it so, by appointing every Nation a distinct Language, and to be led by the Ancestor of their Family: This is altogether gratis dictum; for tho' it be true, that the Scripture says, That this Division of Tongues was made according to the different Tribes, or Families of these Descendants of Noah; yet doth it no where mention their being led or commanded by Seventy two Grandfathers Patriarches, and there might be, for aught that you or I know, not only Seventy two, but Seven-score such Captains, or Leaders of them, Nay, every distinct Father of a Family, when this Monarchical Power came to be crumbled into so many parts, might as well have claimed a share in this Regal Power, they being by this Confusion wholly reduced again into a State of Nature.  
Nor are your Reasons sufficient to convince me of the contrary. As for your first Reason, that God hath not suffered it to be so, signifies little; for either he hath hindered it by an express Command, or by the Ordinary Course of his Providence: The former, I am sure, you can no where show me; and as for the latter, when ever any Nation, or People, shall be pressed with the like Necessity of separating themselves from the Government under which they were born, as the several Families of Mankind had at this Division of Tongues: I see no reason why they may not have a like Right of quitting their Country, and becoming Subjects to another Government; or else of setting up one of their own if they can.  
As for your second Reason, that Monarches would be sure to reduce to their Subjection any person that should offer to divide himself, and Family from the rest, and set up for an Independent State without their good leave, and liking. This is a good Argument indeed, tha● they might not be able to do it, but none at all that they ought not to do it if they could, since this were but to exercise that Supreme Paternal Authority with which God hath invested them as much as ever ●e did any of those Seventy two Descendants of Noah, who set up so many New Governments without the Consent of Noah's Heir.  
Your third Reason, I confess, is somewhat better: That the Necessity of Mankind prevented it, but this also makes quite against you, and only proves, that the Heads or Masters of Families being sensible they could not preserve themselves, but by uniting with others for their mutual Safety, and Protection, were fain to submit, (tho' b● their own Consents,) to some Common Power, for their own as well as their Family's Preservation. So that I cannot see from any thing you have said, that God had that great care you suppose of maintaining your Patriarchal Power, much less this Divine Right of Primogeniture.  M. 
I see it is to no purpose to wrangle with you any farther about the Patriarchal Power of these Sons of Noah, and therefore I shall proceed to the Times after the Confusion of Tongues; 
F. P. c. 1. § 8.  in which, the first Instance I shall give you is, that of jacob, who when he had bought his Brother's Birthright, 
Gen. 27.29.  Isaac blessed him thus; Be Lord over thy Brethren, and let the Sons of thy Mother bow down before thee. By which is plainly denoted a Regal Power, or Dominion over Esau his Brother, and the rest of his Brethren, if he had had any. So likewise we find—  F. 
I pray give me leave to interrupt you alittle, for I have a great deal to say to this Instance you have now brought of jacob, and Esau, and therefore I desire I may speak it before you proceed any further. And first by the way, I cannot but observe, that this Divine Right of Primogeniture which you suppose here to be meant by the word Birthright, was capable of being sold for a Mess of Pottage, and all Esau's Heirs disinherited of their Right, because their Father preferred his Belly, before his Honour or Interest. But if your Principles are true, a Divine Right never dieth, nor can be lost or taken away.  
The second thing I must take notice of, 
T.T.G. c. 11. p. 145.  is your unfair dealing, in making Isaac to have presently after this Sale of the Birth right, and as it were in confirmation of it, to have given jacob his Blessing, whereas it is apparent by this story in Gen. 25. that many years past (perhaps twenty or thirty) between Iacob's buying of this Birthright, and Isaac's conferring of the Blessing upon him, as any one that will but read the 26th of Genesis, may easily see. But if you had better observed this Text, you would have found that this Blessing was nor intended for jacob, but Esau for whom Isaac then mistook him; but be it as it will, whether the Blessing was given to jacob, or Esau, it matters not; for from these words I can by no means gather, that any Government, or Superiority, was thereby conferred on Esau over jacob, or jacob over Esau. For first▪ as to jacob this Blessing was never fulfilled, as to be ●ord over Esau, who was Prince of Mount S●ir in Iacob's life time; and as for bowing, or any other token of Superiority, we read indeed that jacob at his meeting his Brother Esau, bowed seven times towards him to the ground, tho' he had before sold his Birthright to jacob; and therefore this Birthright cannot mean any Ruling Power, or Lordship over his Brethren; since it is manifest from the Text, that jacob had no more Brothers than Esau; 
Ib. p. 146.  nor had Isaac any consideration of Iacob's having then bought this Birthright; for when he thus blessed him, he took him not to be jacob, but Esau; nor did Esau understand any connexion between the Birthright, and the Blessing; for▪ says he to his Father, He hath supplanted me th●se two times, he took away my Birth right, and behold now he hath taken away my Blessing. Whereas, had this Blessing, to be Lord over his Brethren belonged to the Birthright, Esau could not have complained of this second as a Cheat, jacob having got nothing▪ but what Esau had sold him long before.  
So that it is plain Dominion was not then understood to belong either to the Birthright, or Blessing. And therefore it is more rational to suppose, that this word Birth right, only relates to the Right of Priesthood, which the Jews supposed always to descend to the Eldest Son, before the Law was given: And that by Blessing, is meant no more, than that double portion of Goods, which by the Jewish Law was due to the Firstborn; and that this is the true sense of this place, I desire you to look in Gen. 21.10. (if you please to give me your Bible I will show you the place, and will read the words to you) where Sarah taking Isaac to be Heir, says, Cast out this Bondwoman and her Son, for the Son of this Bondwoman shall not be Heir with my Son: Whereby could be meant nothing, but that he should not have a Pretence to any equal share of his Father's Estate after his Death, but should have his Portion presently, and be gone: And Farther we read, 
T.T. G. p. 147.  Gen. 25.5, 6. That Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac, but unto the Sons of the Concubines which Abraham had, Abraham gave Gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his Son, while he yet lived; that is, Abraham having given Portions to all his other Sons, and sent them away, that which he had reserved, being the greatest part of his Substance, Isaac as Heir possessed after his Death, but by being Heir he had no Right to be Lord over his Brethren: For if he had, why should Sarah desire to rob him of one of his Subjects, or Slaves, by desiring to have him sent away?  
So likewise, if you look into the first of Chron. chap. 5. v. 12. you will find a place, that plainly confirms this Interpretation, where it is said; 
Ib. p. 148.  Reuben was the Firstborn, but for as much as he defiled his Father's Bed, his Birthright was given unto the Sons of Joseph, the Son of Israel, and the Genealogy is not to be reckoned after the Birthright; for Judah prevailed above his Brethren, and of him came the Chief Ruler; but the Birthright was Joseph's; tho' he was the Youngest Son; and that this Birth right was Iacob's Blessing on joseph, Gen. 58.28. tells us in these words; Moreover I have given thee one Portion above thy Brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorites with my Sword ' and with my Bow. Whereby it is not only plain, that the Birthright was nothing but a double Portion; but the Text in Chronicles is expressly against your Opinion, and shows that Dominion was no part of the Birthright; for it tells us, That Joseph had the Birthright, but Judah the Dominion. So that unless you were very fond of this word Birthright, without considering in what sense it is to be taken, you would never bring this Instance of jacob and Esau, to prove that Dominion belongs to the Eldest Son, over his Brethren: For if this Blessing of Isaac upon jacob signifies any thing more than this, it could not relate to his own Person, who never Ruled over his Brother at all; and therefore it is at most no more, than a Prophecy, showing that the Jews, as being descended from jacob, should in aftertimes Rule over the Edomites, or Posterity of Esau, according to what Rebekah had been foretold from God. Two Nations are in thy Womb, 
Gen. 25.23.  and two manner of People shall be separated from thy Bowels, and the one People sha●l be stronger than the other People, and the Elder shall serve the Younger. And so jacob blessed judah, and gave him (tho' not in his own Person, but in his Posterity) the Sceptre, and Dominion: From whence you might have argued as well, that the Dominion belonged to the Third Son over his Brethren; as well as from this Blessing of Isaac, that it belonged to jacob, they being both but Predictions of what should long after happen to their Posterities, and not declaring any Hereditary Right of Dominion in either jacob, or judah.  M. 
I will not rigorously insist, that Primogeniture is such a Divine Right as cannot be altered by any Humane Act, or Constitution; but yet I take it to be such a Right, that without the Father order it otherwise, 
B. P. P. § 68  in his life-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 consequently to Command over the rest of his Brethren; and therefore Grotius makes a great deal of difference, between Hereditary, and Patrimonial Kingdoms, the former being to descend to the Eldest Son only, but the latter are divisible amongst all the Sons, if the Father please: And hence I suppose it was, that as Mankind increased, one petty Kingdom grew out of another. 
Ibid. § 12.  Thus the Land of Canaan, which was Peopled by six Sons of Canaan, and Philistim the Son of Mizraim, had eight or nine Kings in the time of Abraham, and above thirty Kings in Ioshua's time, which could proceed from no other Cause, but the Father's dividing their Kingdoms in their lifetimes, or at their Death amongst their Sons, and Descendants; for we hear not of one Tittle of Popular Elections in those early days. And I have proofs enough of this in Scripture. Since thus we find it to have been among the Sons of Ishmael, 
F. P. c. 1. v. 16. § 6. v. 40.  and Esau, as appears by Gen. 25 and 26. where it is said, These are the Sons of Ishmael, and these are their Names by their Castles, and Towns, etc. Twelve Princes of their Tribes, and Families. And these are the Names of the Dukes that came of Esau, according to their Families, and their Places by their Nations. And hence it is, that in after Ages, Princes did often divide their Kingdoms amongst their Children, of which you may see divers Examples in Grotius de I. B. L. TWO Cap. 7. which Divisions, 
§ 12.  when made and submitted to by the Eldest 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 Father declared to the contrary, the Eldest Son ought to inherit. And this is the Judgement not only of Christian, but Heathen Writers. Thus Herodotus the most Ancient Greek Historian, 
Herod. Polym.  lays it down for a general Custom of all People, or Nations, that the Eldest Son should enjoy the Empire; and the Romans were likewise of this Opinion; and therefore Livy, when he speaks of two Brothers of the All●broges, contending for the Kingdom, says, The Younger was more strong in Force, than Right. And in another place, he calls this Right of the Eldest Son, the Right of Age and Nature; as also doth Trogus Pompaeius in his Epitome of justine, 
justin. L.XI.  when he calls it the Right of Nations; and in another place, a Right of Nature, when he says, 
justin. L.II.  that Artabazanes the Eldest Son of the King of Persia, challenged the Kingdom himself, which the Order of his Birth and Nature itself appointed amongst Nations. I could give you many other Authorities from more Modern Authors, but I rather choose to give you these, because you cannot except against them, as Writers prepossessed by either Jewish, or Christian Principles. So that if this Right of Primogeniture be not absolutely Divine, yet it is at least most Natural, and Reasonable.  F. 
I see you are convinced, that this Divine Right of Primogeniture, is not to be proved out of Scripture, and therefore you are contented to fall a Peg lower, and to take up with the Right of Eldership by the Law of Nature, or Nations, which howsoever you are pleased to confound them, are for all that two distinct things; for if the Succession of the Eldest Son were by the Law of Nature, it were no more to be altered by the Will of a Father, than the Law of God itself; and therefore notwithstanding all your Quotations, your Right of Primogeniture amounts to no more than this, that it hath been a Common, and received Custom in many Kingdoms, or Nations to observe it; and therefore Herodotus, whom you have now quoted, calls it very rightly a Custom of Nations, that the Eldest Son should enjoy the Empire: Which yet is not true amongst all Nations, or People by your own confession: For then there would have been no difference between Hereditary, and Patrimonial Kingdoms; but the Eldest Son should have inherited alone in the one as well as in the other. Unless you can suppose (as sure you will not) that some Kingdoms are to be disposed according to the Law of Nature, and others not. But if you would have considered Grotius (whom you have now made use of) he would have instructed you better. For in the Chapter you have now cited, he makes the difference between them to depend upon the manner of acquiring the Kingdoms he speaks of; if you please I will show you the words; Said in Regnorum Successione distingui debent Regna quae pleno modo possidentur, 
G. I. B. Lib. II. Cap. 7. § 12.  & in Patrimonio sunt, ab his quae modum habendi accipiunt ex populi consensu, de quo discrimine egimus supra. Prioris generis Regna dividi possunt etiam inter Mares, & foeminas ut in Aegypto, & Britannia: olim factum vidimus. 
— Nullo discrimine Sexus, 
Lucan.   
Reginam scit far Pharos,  ait Lucanus; de Britannis Tacitus, Neque enim Sexum in imperio discernunt. But look a little farther, and you will find the reason of the difference be-between them: At ea Regna quae populi libero consensu facta sunt haereditaria, 
§ 14.  ex praesumbia populi voluntate deferuntur. Praesumitur autem populus id voluisse quod maxime expedit: And of this you may see he giveth divers Examples, which we need not particularly recite: But this much is apparent, that Patrimonial Kingdoms are divisible among all the Children, because they are supposed to be wholly in the Father's Power, either by Conquest, or the first Plantation of them: But Hereditary ones that descend to the Eldest Son, can only become so, by the free Consent of the People by whom they were Instituted; and therefore both Ishmael, and Esau, whose Territories were wholly Patrimonial, might very well divide them alike, amongst all their Sons; but then your Natural Right of Primogeniture is quite destroyed. The like may be said of other Kingdoms, where this Custom took place: And therefore those places which you have cited out of the Greek and Roman Authors of the Succession of the Eldest Son to be by the Law of Nature, is to be understood according to the sense of those Authors, who often confounded the Law of Nature, or Reason, properly so called, with those commonly used, or received Customs among Civilised People; which they called the Law of Nations, which yet were not Laws properly so called, since they may without any transgression of the Law of Nature be practised different ways.  
And therefore, tho' I allow Primogeniture, as well in Families, as Kingdoms, to have had a just Pre-eminence by the Practice of many Civilised Nations, and look upon it as an excellent sort of Natural Lot (where the Elder Brother is fit to Govern) that he should succeed before the Younger, to avoid Strife among such Relations, and Civil Wars in Kingdoms: Yet that this is still to be understood, according to the Custom of the Country, or Will of the People, that Instituted the Monarchy, I desire to go no farther, than that Example that you have but now brought of Artabazanes, who was the Eldest Son of Artaxerxes, but born before he was King, and Xerxes his Younger Son, but born after his obtaining the Crown; the matter being referred to the People, they determined it in favour of Xerxes; as you will find in Herodotus and justin, whom you have but now quoted. And tho' I grant, that when afterwards in the same Kingdom the like Controversy was started between Cyrus and Arsicas (who was afterwards called Artaxerxes Mnemon) i● was judged just the quite contrary way, whether by Right, or Favour, I will not determine; yet this may let you plainly see, that this Ancient, and Wise Nation, had no settled ●aw, either Natural, or Municipal concerning this matter. I could give you several other Instances of the same kind, which you may consult at your leisure in Grotius, and other Authors; only this much may be certainly gathered from what yourself, as well as I have said concerning it, that there is no certain Rule, or Law, either of Nature, or Nations concerning this matter: And therefore your Instances of the Sons of Esau, and Ishmael, are so far from making out your Hypothesis, that if their Fathers could divide ●heir Kingdoms into as many parts as they had Sons, without any Subjection to the Elder Brother, I can see no reason why every one of their Children, or Descendants, might not have done the like if they had pleased, till their Principalities had become as small, as those of the Prince's Ashalt, or Dukes of Saxony are at this day; so that I cannot see, to what purpose you have brought these last Instances out of Scripture, unless it were to make against yourself, and to prove, that there were then, as there are now in the World, a sort of Princes, who may be lawfully so, without claiming any Title from Adam, or Noah, much less by any Right of Primogeniture.  M. 
It is sufficient for my purpose to be able to show you from these Examples of the Sons of Esau, and Ishmael, that as well Hereditary as Testamentary Kingdoms, did Anciently commence according to the Law, or received Custom amongst Nations without any consent of the People, or Descendants of those that were to be Governed by them, and as long as the Succession to such Kingdoms were by any certain, or known Rule constantly practised among Mankind, the matter is not much whether the Eldest Son succeed to his Father alone, or that his Brethren shared with him in the Inheritance. For since it was God's will to institute Civil Government amongst Mankind, it must be also his Will to make the Succession to it clear, and certain to all the Subjects that were to submit to it, as he hath done, whether one Brother or many succeed, since the Will of the Father is as certain a Rule of Succession, as that by Inheritance and therefore what you have said in answer to my last instances of the Sons of Esau and Israel signifies not much.  F. 
I did not then deny, but grant at your last meeting, that Families might at first grow up into Kingdoms, but yet I do still (as I did then) assert that such Governments could not be instituted by any Father, or Grandfather alone, without the express or tacit consent of his Children and Descendants, supposing them once Married and separated from their Fathers or Ancestors Families; but it is needless to repeat what I then said only, give me leave to mind you, that at the beginning of this Discourse, you maintained that not only Kingly Power in General, but also the succession to it by the Eldest Son, or his next Brother is of Divine Right or Institution, or else all that you urged concerning the Natural right of Dominion of Cain over Abel was to no purpose; But now you insist that succession by a Testament, or Will of the Father, is also as much by the Law of Nature as the other, in which I think you are very much mistaken, since the right of bequeathing Kingdoms, or any thing else by Testament is neither prescribed by the Revealed Will of God, nor the Laws of Nature, since all settled Property in Lands or Goods, before the institution of a Civil Government, proceeding only from occupancy or possession, must cease in the State of Nature, with the life of the occupant or possessor. Therefore in that state a Testament cannot take place by the Testators Death; since as soon as he Dyeth, his right in the thing bequeathed is quite lost and extinguished; so that the Dead not having an interest in any thing, the Legatee cannot sustain the person of the Testator, whose Right ceases before that of the Legate can take place? And therefore the Testament or Disposition of such things, may then without any Crime be neglected or altered by the Survivors, unless all those who pretend an interest in it do agree to it, or swear to see it fulfilled, during the Testators Life time: And for this cause we find Abraham binding his Servant that ruled over his House with an Oath not to take a Wife for his Son of the Daughters of the Land; 
Gen. 24.2, 3.  And jacob taking an Oath of joseph, 
Gen. 49.29.  not to bury him in Egypt, because they doubted whether they could oblige their Sons or Servants to do it by their Testaments; So that it appears evident to me that the Power of making Testaments, and bequeathing Lands or Goods, is but a consequence of that Propriety, in Lands, Goods, or Dominions, which arises from compact or common consent in a Kingdom or Commonwealth, after it is instituted as I think I am able to prove whenever you please to discourse with me farther about it. But as for the Right of bequeathing Crowns or Kingdoms by Testament, as I will not deny, but that some Kingdoms may have been bequeathable by their Original Constitution, and others become so by Custom, yet I cannot grant that this Right belonged to the Prince or Monarch by the Laws of God or Nature; but proceeded purely from the received Law or continued Custom of that Kingdom, so that you must either confess, that there is no such thing as a Divine Right of Succession, or else it is such a one as signifies as much as nothing, since humane Laws or Constitutions can alter it or take it away. So that after all this Pother about this Divine Right, it is not so good as an old Estate Tail, which formerly no fine could bar; And I must farther tell you, that I cannot assent to your opinion, that succession by a Will or a Testament is so certain as that by Inheritance, since all such Testaments must depend upon the Credit of the Witnesses, whose Credit may often be questioned by the Subjects, and who may very well for their own ends make a Younger Son to have the whole, or at least a share in the Kingdom to whom his Father never intended any; and which was likewise more easy to be done before such time as Written Wills or Testaments, solemnly published according to forms of Law, came in use.  
But because you suppose that the Natural Laws of Succession to Kingdoms are so plain and certain, that I may a little convince you of your mistake in this matter, I shall for the present suppose that the Succession of an Elder Son or Brother is sufficiently easy to be known; Yet I doubt it will not prove so in many other Instances; And therefore to let you see, I do not make this Scruple without cause, suppose Abel (for example) to have left a Son or a Daughter behind him, when his Brother murdered him, pray tell me who was to succeed after the Death of Adam, this Son or Daughter of Abel, or Seth their Uncle?  M. 
We do not read of any Children that Abel had, and therefore I cannot tell what to say to it.  F. 
Well but since it is probable he might have had Children pray tell me (supposing he had) whether this Child were it Son or Daughter, or Seth the Uncle was to succeed?  M. 
Since you will needs have me speak my opinion in a thing so uncertain, I think this Child were it Son or Daughter ought to have succeeded 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 must confess God hath prescribed nothing expressly concerning it; more than what he says, Numb. 27. that if a man dies leaving no Sons, 
ver. 8.  ye shall cause his Inheritance to pass unto his Daughter, with divers other Rules of Succession to Inheritances there specified, and besides it is more suitable to the Laws of Nature, that the Children of the Elder Brother should inherit before their Uncle, there being no reason that they should be punished for their Misfortune in having their Father Dye before he could succeed to the Government.  F. 
I doubt the place of Scripture you have cited doth not reach this Case of Kingdoms, for first this being a Municipal Law of the jews, could only concern that Commonwealth; and secondly, it only relates to Private Inheritances: and that this is so, may be proved from the next verse, where it is said, that a Man's Brethren shall be his Heirs, that is, all of them were to be Heirs alike, only the Eldest was to have a double portion; And if this Law concerning Daughters were to reach the Succession of Kingdoms at this day, the Laws of France and other Countries, where Women are barred from succeeding to the Crown, would be against the Laws of God and Nature: And the like may also be said concerning the Succession of the Nephews before their Uncles, or of Uncles rather than the Nephews, whose Fathers never enjoyed the Crown; divers Nations having different Customs, and that with a like appearance of reason concerning it. For on the one hand, if the Son of Abel might have pleaded, that he was the first born of the Eldest Son of Adam, and so ought to represent his Father; Seth the Uncle might likewise with as good reason urge, that he was more nearly related in Blood to Adam, as being his Son, than the Son of Abel who was but his Grandson, and besides being older than he, was endued with more Wisdom and Experience, and consequently was ●itter to Govern; But if Abel left only one Daughter or more, I doubt not, but the question would have been harder to be decided, since if Women are not permitted to Govern in Private Families, they will not (especially amongst Warlike Nations) be admitted to Govern Kingdoms, especially since it would be left in her Power, not only to govern herself, but by marrying to choose a King for her Subjects, whom they do not approve of. And therefore we read that in divers of the Ancient Kingdoms of the World, Women were excluded from the Succession.  
Nor are these the only questions, that either might then, or else have in latter Ages been started concerning Succession in Kingdoms, 
TT. G. c. 11. p. 157, 158.  and Principalities, and have been the cause of great disputes between Pretenders to Crowns, where a King Dies without Lawful Issue, as whether a Grandson by a Younger Daughter, shall inherit before a Granddaughter by an Elder Daughter? Whether the Elder Son by a Concubine before the Younger Son by a Wife? From whence also will arise many Questions concerning Legitimation, and what by the Laws of Nature is the difference betwixt a Wife and a Concubine? All which can no ways be decided but by the Municipal or Positive Laws of those Kingdoms or Principalities. It may further be enquired whether the eldest Son being a Fool or Madman, shall inherit this Paternal Power before the Younger a Wise Man? And what degree of ●olly or madness it must be, that shall exclude him? and who shall be the Judges of it? Also whether the Son of a Fool so excluded for his Folly shall succeed before the Son of his Wiser Brother who last Reigned? Who shall have the regal Power whilst a Widow Queen is with Child by the Deceased King, until she be brought to Bed? These and many more such difficulties might be proposed about the Title of Succession, and the Right of Inheritance to Kingdoms, and that not as idle speculations, but such as in History we shall frequently find examples of, not only in our own, but likewise other Kingdoms. From all which we may gather, that if the Laws of God or Nature had prescribed any set rules of Succession, they would have gone farther than one or two cases; as concerning the Succession of Elder Sons or Brothers, where an Elder Son dies without Issue; and would also have given certain infallible rules in all other Cases of Succession, besides these, and not have left it to the Will, or particular Laws of divers Nations, to have established the succession so many several ways, as I am able to show have been practised in the World.  M. 
I must confess you have taken a great deal of pains to perplex the Succession to Adam, which seems designed for nothing else, but to make me believe, that if Adam, or any of his Sons were Kings or Princes, it must have been by the Consent, or Election of their Children, or Descendants: which is all one as to say that those Ancient Princes derived their Titles from the judgement or Consent of the People, the contrary to which is evident as well out of Sacred as Civil History.  F. 
Since you appeal to History, to History you shall go, and to let you see, that I have not invented these doubts about Succession of my own Head, and that there might have very well been a real dispute about the Succession to Adam in the Cases I have put, may appear by the many disputes and quarrels, that have been in several Nations concerning the Right of Succession between the Uncle and the Nephew, of which Grotius is so sensible, 
G. I. P. L. 11. c. 7. § 30, 31.  that he confesses in the latter end of the Chapter last cited, that where it could not be decided by the People's judgement, it was fain to be so by Civil Wars, as well as private Combats, and therefore he is forced ingenuously to confess, that this hath been practised divers ways according to the different Laws and Customs of Nations: and he gives us here a distinction between a direct Lineal Succession and a transversed; and acknowledges that amongst the Germans, as also the Goths and Vandals, Nephews were not admitted to the Succession of the Crown before their Uncles; the like may be said of the Saxons and Normans, and therefore we find in our Ancient English History, that before the Conquest the Uncle, if he were Older, always enjoyed the Crown before the Nephew, which I can more particularly show you if you think fit to question it. The like manner of succession was also amongst the Irish-Scotch for above 200 years after ●●rgus their first King. The like Custom was also observed among the Irish as long as they had any Kings amongst them, and is called the Law of Tanistry. The same was also observed in the Kingdom of ●astile, where after the death of Alphonso the fifth, the States of that Kingdom, admitted his Younger Son Sancho to be King, putting by Ferdinand de la Cerda the Grandson to the late King by his Eldest Son, tho' he had the Crown left him by his Grand-Father's Will. So likewise in Sicily upon the Death of Charles the Second, who left a Grand Son behind him by his Eldest Son, as also a Younger Son named Robert▪ between whom a difference arising concerning the Succession, it being referred to Pope Clement V. He gave Judgement for Robert the Younger Son of Charles, who was thereupon Crowned King of Sicily; and for this reason it was that Earl john Brother to King Richard the second was declared King of England by the Estates, before Arthur Earl of Britain Son of jeoffrey the Elder Brother, and Glanvil, who was Lord Chief Justice under Henry the second, in that little Treatise we have of his, makes it a great question who should be preferred to an Inheritance, the Uncle or Nephew.  
But as for Daughters, whether they shall inherit at all or not, or at least be preferred before their Uncles is much more doubtful, since not only France, but most of the Kingdoms of the East at this day, from Turkey to japan do exclude Women from the Throne: And it was likewise as much against the Grain of the Ancient Northern Nations, and hence it is that we find no mention of any Queen to have reigned amongst the Ancient Germans, or Irish-Scots, and never but two among the English-Saxons, and those by Murder or Usurpation, and not by Election as they ought to have done. And upon this Ground it was that the Nobility and People of England put by Maud the Empress, and preferred Stephen Earl of Blois to the Crown before her, for tho' he derived his affinity to the Crown by a Woman; yet as being a Man he thought himself to be preferred before her. So likewise in the Kingdom of Arragon, Mariana in his History tells us that Anciently the Brother of the King was to inherit before the Daughter, examples may also be given of divers of the other instances, but these may suffice.  M. 
I Pray give me leave to interrupt you a little, for by these examples you would seem to infer, that these Laws about settling the succession of Crowns in several Kingdoms depended upon the Will of the People, whereas I may with better reason suppose, that if such Laws and Alterations have been in such successions they were made by the sole Will of the first Princes, in which the People had no hand, for in the most Ancient Monarchies, 
B. P. P. § 71.  there was a time, when the People of all Country's were Governed by the Sole Wills of their Princes, which by degrees came to be so well known in several instances, that inferior Magistrates needed not resort to them in those cases, and the People being for a considerable time accustomed to such Usages, they grew easy and Familiar to them, and so were retained, though the Memory of those Princes, who first introduced them was lost, and after Kings, finding it better to continue what was so received, than to run the hazard and trouble of changing them, were for their own ease, and the good of their Subjects contented they should be still from Age to Age so continued. Which custom may hold as well in Laws about Succession as other things: And therefore we find that even in those Monarchies, where the People have nothing to do in making Laws Women are excluded, which could proceed at first from nothing else, but the declared Will or Law of the first Monarches. So likewise the Original of the Salic Law is wholly ascribed to Pharamont the first French King, and Mariana (whom you lately cited) tells us that Alphonso King of Arragon made a Law, that where Heirs Male were wanting, the Sons of a Daughter should be preferred before the Aunt, which Law is wholly attributed to the King, for he adds presently after, Sic saepe ad Regum arbitrium jura regnandi commutantur.  F. 
Granting all this true that you have said, you cannot but confess that the Laws of God and Nature have established nothing in this matter, or else it could not be in the Power of Kings to make or alter Laws concerning the succession, as your last Quotation intimates they may; yet even in the most absolute Monarchies, the Laws about the Succession of the Crown, must wholly depend upon the Consent of the People, who are to see them observed, or else every Monarch might alter these Laws of Succession at his pleasure, and the Great Turk, or King of France (now the Assembly of Estates is lost) might leave the Crown to a Daughter if either of them pleased, and disinherit the next Heir Male.  
But as for the Original of this ●alique Law in France, you'll find yourself much mistaken if you suppose that that Law was made by the Sole Authority of Pharamont, 
Vid. Hotoman Franco-Gallia. cap. 1.  for the Ancient French Histories tell us that the Body of Salic Laws which are now extant, were made by the Common Consent of the whole Nation of the Francs, who committed the drawing of them up to three Judges or Commissioners, and which Laws Pharamont did only confirm; and any one that will but consult those Histories may see, that Kings were so far from having the Sole Legislative Power in their own hand, that they were frequently Elected by the Estates, nor is it truer that you suppose from Mariana, that the Kings of Arragon had Power alone to make Laws, it appears quite contrary from the Constitutions of that Kingdom▪ where the King could do nothing of this kind without the Consent of the Estates, and was not admitted to the Crown without taking an Oath to the Chief Justice in the name of the People, that he would observe the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom, otherwise that they would not be obliged to obey him.  
But at once to let you see, that about the Succession of the Sons or Descendants by Daughters, the Cases are much more nice and intricate, and that when such Cases happen in limited Monarchies where there is an Assembly of Estates, 
P. N. M. Ib. 55.  they are the Sole judges of such differences, may appear by two famous examples in modern History; The first is in Scotland, about four hundred years ago, 
VI Hect. Both. L.  when after the Death of King Alexander III▪ who died without Issue, when two or three several competitors claimed a Right to the Crown, as descended from several Daughters of David Earl of Huntingdon, great Uncle to the last King, the Chief of which being john Bayliol, and Robert B●u●●, the Estates of the Kingdom not being able to decide it, they agreed to refer it to Edward I. King of England, who adjudged the Crown to Bayliol; yet did not this put an end to this great controversy, for not long after Bayliol being deposed, Bruce revived his Title, and the States of Scotland declared him King, whose Posterity enjoy it at this day.  
A like Case happened in the last Age in Portugal, after the Death of Henry, surnamed the Cardinal without Issue, when no less than four Eminent Competitors, put in their Claim; some claiming from the Daughters of Don Durate, youngest Brother to the last King Henry: But the King of Spain, and other Princes as Sons to the Sisters of the said King; Henry dying without Issue, 
Vid. Marian Hist. Hisp.  left ten Governors over the Kingdom to decide together with the Estates the Differences about the Succession, who quarrelling among themselves, as also with the Estates before it was decided, Philip the second King of Spain raised an Army, and soon conquered Portugal: And yet we have seen in his Grand son's time, that the Estates of Portugal declared this Title void, and the Crown was settled in the Posterity of the Duke of Braganza, who still enjoy it.  
And how much even Kings themselves have attributed to the Authority of the Estates in this matter, 
P.N.M. Ib. p. 59  appears by the League made between Philip the Long, King of France, and David King of Scots, 
Vid. Mezeray in the Reign of Philip de Long.  wherein this condition was expressed; That if there should happen any Difference about the Succession in either of these Realms, he of the two Kings, which remained alive, should not suffer any to place himself on the Throne, but him who should have the Judgement of the Estates on his side, and then he should with all his Power oppose him, who would after this, contest the Crown. To conclude, I cannot see any means, how if such Differences as these had arisen in the first Generation after Adam, I say, how they could ever have been decided without a Civil War, or else leaving the Judgement thereof to the Heads or Fathers of Families, that were then in being: Which how much it would have differed from the Judgement, or Declaration of the States of a Kingdom at this day, I leave it to yourself to judge.  M. 
I shall not trouble myself to determine how far Princes may tie up their own hands in this matter of the Succession, and leave it to the States of the Kingdom to limit, or determine of it, but from the beginning it was not so; and therefore give me leave to trace this Paternal Government a little farther: 
F. P. C. 1. § 7.  For tho' I grant that when jacob, and his twelve Sons, went into Egypt together with their Families, they exercised a Supreme Patriarchal Jurisdiction, which was intermitted because they were in Subjection to a stronger Prince: Yet after the return of these Israelites out of Bondage, God from a special care of them chose Moses▪ and joshuah successively to Govern as Princes in the Place, and ●●ead of the Supreme Fathers: And after them likewise for a time, he raised up Judges to defend his People in time of Peril. Yet that all these were endued with Regal Authority, may appear in that Moses is called in Deuteronomy, a King in jeshurun, (that is, 
Deut. 33.5. B. P. P. § 35. Numb. 27.16, 17.  over Israel) And when Moses saw that he was to die, he besought God, to set a Man over the Congregation, that the Congregation of the Lord be not as Sheep which 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 Cases of Appeal, insomuch that whosoever would not hearken to the Priest, 
Deut. 17.11, 12.  or to the judge, even that Man should die. But when God gave the Israelites Kings—  F. 
I pray give me leave to interrupt you a little, for I have a great ●eal to say against your Notion of the Government of the Israelites before they had Kings actually nominated by God; for notwithstanding all you have said, it doth not appear to me that either Moses, joshuah, or the Judges, were any more than figuratively, or in a larger sense to be styled Kings: For as for Moses his being called King in jeshurun, he only calls himself so Poetically, in that excellent Hymn of Blessing, which he bestoweth upon the Twelve Tribes: For certainly God did not suppose him to have been a King, when in Deut. 17.14. he speaks of the Children of Israel setting a King over them, as a thing that was to happen many years after, and there lays down Rules how he should Govern himself, which had been needless if they had had a King already: And that Moses was not a King, josephus himself shows us in his Antiquities, Lib. 4. where he makes Moses to have instructed the Children of Israel at the time of his Death to this purpose; Aristocracy is the best Form of Government, and the life that is led under it the most happy, and therefore let not the desire of any other sort of Government take Possession of you, owning no other Master than the Laws, and doing every thing according to it. For God is your King, and that is sufficient for you; and if Moses was no King, then certainly joshua was none neither.  M. 
Pray give me leave to answer, what you have now said against the Kingly Power of Moses, and joshua; for if you will please to remember, 
B. P. P. § 36.  that tho' the Sanhedrim had been constituted before this time, yet Moses esteemed them as Sheep without a Shepherd, if a Man was not set over them which might go out before them, and which might lead them out, and bring them in; and God approved his desires, and appointed joshua to succeed him, and the People received him accordingly, and told him; All that thou commandest us we will do and whithersoever thou sendest us we will go, 
josh. 1.16, 17.  according as we harkened unto Moses in all things, so will we hearken unto thee. If this were not Kingly Power, then is there no such thing. So that this Discourse which josephus puts into Moses his Mouth, seems directly contrary to Moses his Thoughts, and Practice. And whereas he makes Moses to have opposed Obedience to the Laws to Kingly Government, it is a pure Greek Notion: For whilst the Grecians lived under Kings, they had ●ew, or no Laws; but when they set up Commonwealths, they then found the necessity of having Laws, and then the Dominion of Laws was opposed to the Government of Princes: But this was contrary to the Practice of Israel; for they were to live according to their Laws as well under Kings as without them, in all Estates and Conditions; and their Kings were bound to Govern them by the Law, and not by their Wills contrary to the Law. So that in this josephus clearly made the Ancient Customs of his Country to comply with a Greek Notion that had no being for some hundreds of years after Moses was dead.  
And as for the time of the Judges, even in the Intervals between them, when every one did that which was right in his own Eyes, even than the Israelites were under the Kingly Government of the Fathers of the particular Families over whom the Prince, or Head of it had likewise a Supreme Power.  F. 
But pray give me leave to speak a little farther; Let me ask you, what is an Aristocracy if this be not? (viz.) an Assembly of the Elders, or Chief Fathers of Families of each Tribe meeting, consulting, and resolving of the Public Affairs of the Commonwealth, under their Head or Precedent the Chief of the Tribe; and this is the Government for which josephus makes Samuel so much afflicted, when the People would quit it for a Monarchy.  M. 
I think you are much mistaken in this Point, for it is no where declared that these Fathers of Families Governed their own Families independently; for then there would have been no Public Government at all: Nor yet is it said, that these Fathers Governed by Majority of Voices chosen out of themselves, 
B. P. P. § 31.  for than I grant it would have been a Democracy; nor yet doth it appear, that a few of the better sort of Fathers of every Tribe Governed it by a Counsel, and Magistrates, or that there was such Counsel of the several Tribes; but on the contrary, every Tribe was Governed by the Prince, or Head of it; and these Princes Moses calls the Heads of the House of their Fathers, in Numb. 7.2. and who were over those that were numbered and made their Offerings. And Moses tells us particularly what every Man's Name was; 
V. 12.18.  as Nashon the Son of Aminadab of the Tribe of Judah, and Nathaniel the Son of Zuar, Prince of Issachar, etc. Now if there was in those days any Government at all in Israel, then were these Princes the Governors of the several Tribes, and so every Tribe was under a Monarch, tho' the whole State of Israel was not under any one Person, or constant standing Council, and consequently was a System of little Monarchies.  F. 
I am not at all better satisfied with your last Reply; For in the first place I have josephus on my side, who must needs know what the Government of his Country had been, better than you or I; and he expressly calls it an Aristocracy, in which the Judge (when there was one) was only in the nature of a General, or Statholder, to whom the last Appeal was to be made in all Causes; and it is also as plain, that neither Moses, joshua, nor the Judges had Monarchical Authority: F●r tho' it be true, the two first could make War, and Peace, yet this was also with the Consent of the Princes of the Congregation, as plainly appears by the Story of the Peace made with the Gibeonites, which the Princes of the Congregation confirmed by an Oath: 
josh. 9  Neither could they raise Taxes upon the People, or take any thing from them without their Consent; 
1 Sam. 1.3.  and therefore Samuel appeals to them how little he had oppressed them, whose Ox or whose Ass have I taken? whom have I defrauded? whom have I oppressed? Neither could they, nor the Judges their Successors, make any new Laws for the People; God himself being their King, and Legislator; and therefore what you urge as to the Regal Power of Moses, and joshua, after the Sanhedrin had been constituted, amounts to no more, but that both of them were Heads, or Captains of the People, to lead them out to War, and bring them back again, which is expressed by going in and out before them, and their Obedience to their Military Orders, as also to such things, which God hath expressly commanded, is understood by these words; All that thou commandest us, we will do; and whithersoever thou sendest us, we will go: Yet still this was with respect to their obtaining the Land of Canaan, for otherwise if either Moses, or joshua should have gone about of their own Heads to have Led them again into Egypt, I suppose you will not say, the Israelites were bound either to have followed them, or submitted to them; but rather might have resisted them in such cases.  
And therefore josephus his Speech which he makes Moses to deliver, is not so ridiculous as you are pleased to make it; for the Laws here mentioned by him, and here set in opposition to Monarchy, were not such Laws, as were made by the Greek Commonwealth, as you suppose, but the Law given from God by his hand, and these he might well think were sufficient with such Power, as he and joshua enjoyed, without having any recourse to a Human Monarchical Government, since God himself was their King; and as for the Judges that succeeded them, they had much less Power, than either Moses, or joshua: Since it is apparent by the Story of Deborah and Barak, judges the 4th, who were the Princes or Generals of the Tribes of Zebulun, and Naphtali, that they had no power to force the People to go out to fight against the Canaanites, whether they would, or no. And therefore you will find in the next Chapter, in the Song of Victory, which they sung, that many of the Tribes came not in to their Assistance; therefore it is there said, That for the Divisions of Reuben there were great thoughts of heart; therefore they ask, Why abidest thou among the Sheepfolds, etc. And presently after it is said, Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in the Ships? Asher continued on the Seashore, and abode in his breaches. And so they conclude with Curse ye Meroz, curse ye bitterly the Inhabitants thereof, because they came not to the help of the Lord against the Mighty. So that I am persuaded, it was the want of this Power in the Judges of making Laws, of imposing Tributes, or Taxes, and of forcing Men to serve in the Wars against their Enemies, (which they did before only as Volunteers,) that made the Israelites the more desirous to have a King over them, like those of other Nations, who were endued with these Prerogatives. And therefore the best Commentators do interpret the Prediction of Samuel concerning the manner of the King, 
1 Sam. 8 11, 12.  that should Reign over them, and would take their Sons for his Chariots, and his Horse men, and to be Captains over thousands, etc. to relate to his Royal Power of enrolling, and making them serve in his Army, either as Officers, or Soldiers, and the taking of their Fields and their Vineyards, and the Tenth of their Seeds etc. to give his Officers, and Servants; to signify no more than his Power of imposing Public Tribute, and Impositions on the People, to maintain his Royal Splendour, & the Necessities of the State, as other Neighbouring-Kings were wont to do; all which they not being used to before, they should cry unto the Lord by reason of them as a great oppression: And that Saul, when he came to be King used this Prerogative of forcing the People to come, and serve in the War, in a higher manner than Samuel, or the Judges had done before, appears by the 11th Chapter of this Book, when Nahash the Ammonite came to make War against jabesh, Saul took a Yoke of Oxen, and hewed them in pieces, and sent them throughout all the Coasts of Israel by the hands of Messengers, saying, Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul, and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his Oxen; and the fear of the Lord fell on the People, and they came out with one Consent.  
And it seems evident to me that the Power which Samuel▪ had before the Children of Israel desired a King was not Monarchical, but mixed of Aristocracy and Monarchy together, in which Samuel as Judge had a Judicial Authority, and likewise a Supreme Military Power of leading them out to War against the Philistines and other Enemies, and yet notwithstanding, the Supreme Power in all other things remained wholly in the Principal Heads or Fathers of the Tribes, which whether they were chosen by the People, or enjoyed it by Right of Inheritance, I confess the Scripture is silent, and therefore I am not at all satisfied with your Notion, that the Government of these People when they had no Judges, consisted of Twelve petty Monarchies, under the Heads or Princes of the Tribes, for there is no Authority in Scripture to countenance any such opinion, the place you bring for it out of the 1st and 7th of Numbers, not at all proving it. For tho' I grant, there were twelve Princes of the Tribes whose names are there set down, and who are called Heads of the Houses of their Fathers, yet is it no where said, that these were endued with Civil Power, or were Chief Rulers over the Tribes: for it is apparent all Civil Power remained then in Moses and the Sanhedrim, who under him decided all controversies: So that it is most natural to suppose that these Heads of the Tribes were not Civil Magistrates, but the Military Leaders or Captains of each Tribe, when they went out to War, and are the same who in this Chapter, are called the renowned of the Congregation, etc. and Heads of the Thousands of Israel.  
Nor doth it follow, that because there were such Officers in Moses his time, that they must continue the same after, under the Judges, so many Slaveries and oppressions that this People had undergone, or that if they did still continue, that their Power was Monarchical; or that they could do any thing without the consent of the Heads, or Fathers of Families, of each Tribe, in whom I suppose the 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 House of Millo made Abimelech King, that is, not over all the Tribes of Israel, but over Ephraim and half Manasses only, which is to be understood by Israel in this Chapter, where it is said v. 18. by jotham the Son of Gideon speaking to the Men of Shechem, that they had made Abimelech the Son of a Maid Servant, King over the Men of Shechem, because he is your Brother.  
So likewise after Abimelech was Dead, the Children of Ammon made War against the Children of Israel, as appears by the 10th of Judges, and they encamped in Gilead, which was a Country on the other side of jordan, which was inhabited by the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the other half of Manasses, who by themselves consulted for their own safety; for it is said in the last verse of this Chapter, And the People and Princes of Gilead said one to another, What man is he that will begin to fight against the Children of Ammon? He shall be Head over all the Inhabitants of Gilead. From which assembly and consultation, it plainly appears that they looked upon themselves to have a Right of setting a Prince or Head over them, distinct from the rest of the Tribes of Israel; And in the next Chapter you will find that jephtha was made Prince, or Judge by the Elders of Gilead, and tho' it is said that jephtha went with the Elders of Gilead, and that the People made him Head and Captain over them, yet that cannot be meant of all Israel, but only of the two Tribes, and a half, which inhabited the Land of Gilead, for we find chapter the 12. the Men of Ephraim making War upon jephtha, because he had not called them out to sight against the Ammonites, and you will find verse the 4th. that jephtha gathered together the Men of Gilead, and fought with Ephraim, and that the Men of Gilead smote Ephraim. In all which story it appears, there was none concerned in this War but the Gileadites only: that is, those Tribes that inhabited that Region.  
I have likewise another Authority for this separate Power of each Tribe, when there was no common Judge over them, as may appear from the Story of the Danites in the 18th chapter, who wanting a Country to dwell in, it is there said the Children of Dan, sent five men of their Family to Spy out a Country for them; which thing could not be done, without an Assembly of the Chief of the whole Tribe: Neither is there any mention in all this Story of any such Chief or Prince of the Tribe, as you suppose, only that six hundred men went by common consent, who made War, and Conquered the City and Country of Laish, which they called Dan.  
But that all the Children of Israel, during the Intervals of the Judges, did meet in one Common Council or Assembly, upon any great accident or emergency, appears by the twentieth Chapter of this Book of judges▪ where after the Rape and Murder committed upon the Levite's Wife, it is said in the two first verses, Then all the Children of Israel went out, and the Congregation was gathered together as one man from Dan even to Beershebah, with the Land of Gilead, unto the Lord in Mizpeh. And the Chief of all the People, even of all the Tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the Assembly of the People of God, four hundred thousand footmen that drew Sword: Who being thus met, the Levite, the Husband of the Woman that was slain, having told them the Story, concludes thus, Behold ye are all Children of Israel, give here your Advice and Counsel, and the result is, All the People arose as one Man, saying, We will not any of us go to his Tent, neither will we any of us turn into his House, etc. Now if this were not as Democratical an Assembly, as you can any where meet with in either the Roman or Greek Hist. I leave it to you yourself to Judge: tho' I grant the chief of the People, or Tribes of Israel might preside in it. To conclude, I think I may with very great reason maintain with josephus, that the Government of the Tribes of Israel, was Aristocratical before their setting a King over them: for had Samuel been endued with an absolute Monarchical power (as you suppose) it had been a very needless request of the Children of Israel, to ask him to make them a King, to Judge them, as other Nations.  M. 
You have made a very long (I had almost said a tedious) discourse, to prove that the Government of the Children of Israel was not Monarchical, before the time of Saul: and tho' I cannot now well remember all the particulars of your discourse, yet this much I can gather from it, 
F P. C. 2. § 10.  that you are fain to confess that during the Intervals of the Judges, and when there was no King in Israel, but that every Man did that which was Right in his own Eyes: Even then, the Israelites were under the Kingly Government of the Fathers of particular Families; For in the Consultation after the Benjamitical War, 
judg. 21.16.  you mentioned, for providing Wives for the Benjamites, we find the Elders of the Congregation bore the only sway: To them also were Complaints to be made, as appears by Verse 22. And though mention be made of all the Children of Israel, all the Congregation, and all the People; yet by the Term of all, the Scripture means only all the Fathers, and not all the whole multitude, 
ver. 1, 2.  as the Text plainly expounds itself, in the second of Chronicles, where Solomon speaks unto all Israel, viz. to the Captains, 
1 King. 8.12. 2 Chron. 5.2.  the Judges, and to every Governor the Chief of the Fathers; So the Elders of Israel are expounded to be the Chief of the Fathers of the Children of Israel.  
But I am less edified with your Notion, in making any of the Tribes to have set a Judge or Captain over themselves distinct from the rest of the Tribes of Israel. For the example you quote of Abimelech makes directly against you, it being said, verse the 22d of that Chapter, that Abimelech Reigned three Years over Israel, and in the next chapter it is said, there arose to defend Israel, Tola the Son of Puah, and that he Judged Israel, that is, all the twelve Tribes, twenty years; and if Gideon the Father of Abimelech was Judge over all Israel, as it appears by the Story he was, it will likewise follow, that Abimelech his Son succeeded (though by Force and Murder) into the same power. It is likewise as plain (notwithstanding what you have said to the contrary) that the Elders of Gilead did not alone make jephtha their Head or Captain: For tho' I grant Jephthah tells them, that if he fought, and delivered them from the Children of Ammon, that he would be their Head; Yet it is plain by the 11th verse of that Chapter, that Jephthah went with the Elders of Gilead, and it was the People (viz. of all Israel) made him Head and Captain over them: and it appears that Jephthah uttered all these words before the Lord in Mizpeh, where it appears by the seventeenth verse of the former chapter, the Children of Israel were then assembled and encamped.  
Nor am I yet satisfied, but that tho' God out of a special love, and care to the House of Israel, did choose to be their King himself, yet did he Govern them at that time, by his Viceroy Samuel, and his Sons; And therefore God tells Samuel, They have not rejected thee, but me, that I should not reign over them; It seems they did not like a King by Deputation, but desired one by Succession, like all the Nations. All Nations belike had Kings then, and those by Inheritance, not by Election, for we do not find the Israelites Prayed that they themselves might choose their own King; they dreamt of no such Liberty, and yet they were the Elders of Israel gathered together: If other Nations had elected their own Kings, no doubt but they would have been as desirous to have imitated other Nations as well in the electing, as in the having a King: And therefore I am sure there is nothing to be found in Scripture that Countenances your Notion of the People's having a Right to Elect their own King. But this only by the by.  
But to prosecute the matter in Hand, when God gave the Israelites Kings, 
F. P. c. 1. § 7.  he re-establisht the Ancient, and Prime Right of Lineal Succession to Paternal Government. And whensoever he made choice of any special person to be King he intended that the Issue also should have benefit thereof, as being comprehended sufficiently in the person of the Father, altho' the Father only was named in the Grant. Which Lineal Right of Succession continued in the Family of David until such time as his Successors by their Idolatry so far provoked Gods anger as to deliver them up to the King of Babylon, under whose and his Successors Power, they, and their Posterity continued Subjects for many Ages.  F. 
I shall not dispute any farther with you (since I see it is to no purpose) concerning the Government of the Israelites, whether it was Monarchical or Aristocratical before the Reign of Saul; nor yet shall I positively assert, that Abimelech or Jephthah and other of the Judges were Rulers of some particular Tribes only. Yet 
Vid. Io●an. Marshami Chron. Can. Sect. XI. p. 291, 292, & 293.  very Learned Men are of this Opinion, since they can find no other way, but by a Synchronism in the times of the Judges, as also of the years of Rest, and Servitude, as may appear from judg. 10. v. 6, 8. compared with judg. 13.1. to reconcile that great Difference that will be found in the Sacred Chronology, from the time of the Children of Israel's coming out of Egypt, to the fourth year of Solomon, in which the Temple was begun to be built, which doth amount to four hundred and eighty years; 
1 Kings 6.1.  whereas if you please to take the pains to cast up the years from the Children of Israel's coming out of Egypt, to the beginning of Saul's Reign, according to the common Account of the years of the Judges, reckoned with the Reigns of Saul, and David, to that time, etc. it will amount to 600 years, which is more by 120 years than all the time from the said Epocha to the fourth year of Solomon taken altogether.  
But as for the several Tribes alone consulting and ordering their own affairs, it is so plain from the Examples of the People, and Princes of Gilead, as also from that of the Danites, that you have nothing to object against it: And so likewise in the Instance of all the Children of Israel meeting, and consulting, what to do with the Benjamites, where since you cannot deny the matter of Fact, you have no way to evade it, but by supposing I know not what Kingly Authority in the Fathers of particular Families, whom you do suppose to have then bore the only sway, because it is said in that Chapter you quoted, that in the consultation after this War, the Elders of the Congregation proposed it to them, saying; How shall we do for Wives for them that remain, seeing the Women, are destroyed out of Benjamin? And then follows the result of the Congregation in the next verse; And they said, (viz. all the Congregation agreed) that there must be an Inheritance for them that be escaped out of Benjamin, etc. all which amounts to no more, than what I granted at first, that the Heads, or Elders of the Tribes presided in this Assembly, and put the question to them: Which is so necessary in all great Assemblies, that without such Officers they cannot come to any resolution; and therefore you should do well to prove the Monarchical Power of these Elders by some better Authority than this Text.  
But if the Judges had Monarchical Power as you suppose, notwithstanding all you have said, against the People's Electing them, it plainly appears by the Examples of Abimelech, and jephthah, that the People did often Elect a Judge, or Captain over them, without any Nomination by, or Inspiration from God.  
But to return to that which is most material, your supposed Restauration of Patriarchal Government under Moses, and joshua, after the Israelites returned from the Egyptian Bondage, I cannot but here by the way take notice, that the Truth will sometimes slip from you before you are aware; for if it be true what you at first asserted, at our last meeting, That a Servant, or Slave, and a Subject, were all one at the first; and also that all Monarches are endued with Fatherly Power, then if Pharaoh was a Monarch, the Children of Israel were not, according to your Principle, brought into Bondage by Pharaoh, but they were only Adopted into another Fatherly Power. But you should have done well to have shown more clearly than you have hitherto done, that this Patriarchal jurisdiction was exercised by Abraham, Isaac, or jacob before the Descent into Egypt, since all the Instances you have yet given of such a Power, have proved very unlucky: For tho' I read in St. Stephen's Speech in the Acts, 
Acts VII. 9  that the Patriarches moved with Envy sold Joseph into Egypt; yet is it no where mentioned, (nor I believe will you yourself affirm) that these Patriarches ever had a Monarchical Power. For till jacob went into Egypt, that Power was solely in him, according to your Principles, and after that in Pharaoh as King of Egypt: So that tho' I can find the word Patriarch (but once) in Scripture, yet I can see no ground for your Patriarchal Authority, or jurisdiction; and therefore that could suffer no intermission, which never had any beginning in Nature.  
But after this you tell me, that God chose Moses, and joshua successively to Govern as Princes, in the place of those Supreme Fathers, or Patriarches; which is easily, I confess, affirmed, only it wants proof. For tho' you endeavour to prove that all Paternal Power was Regal, yet it still remains unproved that all Regal Power is Paternal. It is true that God did appoint Moses, and joshua, to be the Rulers of his People under him, but that doth not at all make out that they succeeded in the stead of Supreme Fathers, much less that they succeeded, as Heirs, or Successors to the Patriarchal Power of Adam. For Moses, and joshua, being chosen by God to be Rulers of his People, 
TT. G. p. 201.  will no more prove that Government belonged to Adam's Heir, as to his Fatherhood, than God's choosing Aaron of the Tribe of Levi to be Priest, will prove that the Priesthood belonged to Adam's Heir, or the Prime Fathers, since God could choose Aaron to be Priest, and Moses Ruler over Israel, tho' neither of those Offices, were settled on Adam's Heir, or the first Patriarches. So likewise for what you say concerning God's raising up the Judges to defend his People, proves Fatherly Authority to be the Original of Government just after the same rate; and cannot God raise up such men unless Paternal Power give a Title to the Government?  
But to come to your darling Instance, the giving of the Israelites Kings, whereby you suppose God re established the Ancient Prime Right of Lineal Succession 〈◊〉 Paternal Government. This I can by no means understand; for if by Li●●●l Succession you mean to Adam, I desire to know how you will make it out that either Saul, or David could be Heirs of Adam's Power? or how the Power that those Kings were endued with by God, was the same Power, which Abraham, Isaac, and jacob enjoyed before. For if you please to consider it, your Hypothesis consists of two Propositions; the first is, that all Paternal Power is the same with Regal Power; which if it be proved not to be true, the other convertible Proposition (which is but the Conversion of this) will likewise be as false; viz. that all Regal Power is Paternal. Nor is what you said last of all any truer than the rest, that whensoever God made choice of any person to be King, he intended that the Issue (I suppose you mean his Issue) should have the benefit thereof: For either Moses, and joshua, and the Judges, were no Kings, (tho' you have asserted the former to be so) or else they had not the benefit of this Grant: But certainly Saul was a King, and yet his Issue never succeeded; but you speak very warily to suppose this Grant to be made to the Issue in general, without specifying in particular, who should enjoy it, because I suppose you are sensible, that Solomon, whom God expressly appointed to be David's Successor, and jehoahaz, 
2 Chron. 26.1.  whom the People of the Land made King in the room of josiah, were neither of them Eldest Sons of the Kings their Fathers. To conclude, I desire you would show me, what Relation or Title all Kings, or Prince's nowadays have, or can claim as Heirs to Adam, or Noah; or how that Power with which God endued those Fathers of Mankind, is the same which you say all Princes, or Monarches, may now claim to be given them by God: For I confess I can see no likeness, or Relation at all between them.  M. 
It may indeed seem absurd to maintain, that Kings now are the Fathers of their People, since Experience shows the contrary. It is true, 
F. P. § 8.  all Kings are not the Natural Parents of their Subjects, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Progenitors, who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People, and in their Right succeed to the exercise of Supreme Jurisdiction; and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children, but also of their Brethren, and all others that were subject to their Fathers. And tho' I have all along supposed, that Paternal Government was at first Monarchical; yet I must likewise grant, that when the World was replenished with People, that this Paternal Government by Succession ceased, 
F. D. O. p. 67.  and a new kind of it started up either by Election Conquest, or Usurpation; yet this was still Paternal Power, which can never be lost, or cease, tho' it may be transferred, or usurped; or it may be ordained a new in a person who otherwise had no Right to it before. Thus God, who is the Giver of all Power, may transfer it from the Father to the Son, as he gave Saul a Fatherly Power over his Father Kish.  
So that all Power on Earth is either derived, 
Ib. p. 70.  or usurped from the Fatherly Power, there being no Original to be found of any Power whatsoever; for if there should be granted two sorts of Power without any subordination of one to the other, they would be in perpetual strife, which should be Supreme for two Supremes cannot agree; if the Fatherly Power be Supreme, than the Power of the People must be subordinate, and depend on it; if the Power of the People be Supreme, than the Fatherly Power must submit to it, and cannot be exercised without the Licence of the People, which must quite destroy the frame and course of Nature.  F. 
If this be all you have to say for the proof of so weighty an Hypothesis, I confess I wonder how you, or any rational Man can lay so great stress upon it: For tho' I should grant you, that some Fathers of Families at first became by the tacit, or express Consent of their Children, and Descendants, to be Kings, or Princes over them; doth it therefore follow that all Kings Govern by Right of Fatherhood at this day?  
'Tis true you tell me, that all Kings, though they are not now the Natural Fathers of their People, Yet are still to be esteemed as such by them, as Succeeding either as Heirs, or Successors to those that were so. I grant indeed if any Kings now adays could prove themselves right Heirs to Adam, or Noah, this were somewhat to the purpose, but to talk of a Paternal Power proceeding from Election, Conquest, or Usurpation, is perfect jargon to me; for pray tell me, can a Man become endued with Paternal Power over me, by my Electing him to be my King? or can a Man by Conquest, or Usurpation oblige me to yield him a Filial Duty, and Obedience? for if this were so, if a Father of a separate Family (such as Abraham was) should be conquered by the head of another separate Family, nay though he were a Thief, or a Robber, if once the true Father were Killed, or destroyed, all the Children, and Descendants of the Family must pay the same Duty, and Obedience, to this unjust Conqueror, or Robber, as to their true Father; and the same may be said in Usurpations, in case, after the death of such a Father of a Family, a Younger Brother or Nephew, should get possession of the House, and Estate, and force all his Brethren, and Kinsmen to Submit to him, they must then all own him to be endued by God with the same Paternal Power, which their Father, or Grandfather had; and consequently must Honour and Obey him as their true Father: Both which examples, being contrary to the Common sense, and reason of Mankind, may show you, how absurd this Hypothesis is; whereas indeed Fatherhood being a Relation of Blood, and the Duty and Respect we owe to him, that is our Father, proceeding from that Piety, and Gratitude we owe him both for our Generation, and Education; how can this Relation, or these Obligations be ever transferred to, or usurped by any other, so that any other man can become my Father, or I owe him that Filial Duty, and Respect, as to him that begot me and brought me up?  
And tho' I grant that God may confer a Regal Power on whom he pleases, either by his express Will, or the ordinary course of his Providence; yet when such a person who was not a King before, doth become so, I utterly deny that the Power he hath then conferred upon him, is a Paternal Power in relation to his Subjects; which is evident from your own Instance of Saul's becoming a King over his Father Kish. For tho' you say that God then conferred a Fatherly Power on Saul over his own Father, this is a great mistake: For then Saul would have been immediately discharged from all the Duties of Piety, and Gratitude, which he owed his Father; and they were all transferred from Kish to Saul; so that after he became King, he might have treated his Father with no more Respect, or Deference, than any other Subject; which is contrary to God's Commandment, that bids all Men, Honour their Father, and Mother. And I know not how Kings can be excepted out of this Precept. So that your mistake arises from this preposterous confounding of Paternal Authority with Regal Power: And because Adam, Noah, or any other Father of a separate Family may be a Prince over it in the State of Nature, that therefore every Monarch in the World is also endued with this Paternal Power: Which that they are distinct may farther appear from your own supposed Monarchical Power of Adam, who though granting him to have been a Prince over his Posterity, yet did not this discharge any of his Descendants from their Duty and Obedience to their own Father: And tho' I confess you talked at our last meeting of a Fatherly Power to be exercised in subordination to the Supreme Fatherly Power of Adam; yet this is a mere Chimaera: for Filial Honour, and Obedience, being due by the Commandment only to a Man's own Natural Father, can never be due to two different persons at once, since they may command contradictory things, and then the Commandment of Honour (that is, obey) thy Father, cannot be observed in respect of both of them; and therefore granting Adam, or Noah, to have exercised a Monarchical Power over their Children, and Descendants, it could not be as they were Fathers, or Grandfathers, when their Sons, or grandchildren were separated from them, and were Heads of Families of their own, for the reasons already given; so that if they were Princes in their own Families, whilst their Sons, or grandchildren continued part of them, it was only as Heads, or Masters of their own Families, but not by any such Patriarchal, or Paternal Authority as you suppose. But as for the Conclusion of your Discourse, it being all built upon this false Foundation, that all Power on Earth is derived, or usurped from the Fatherly Power; I need say no more to it: For if that be false, all that you argue from thence concerning the subordination of all other Powers to this, will signify nothing.  M. 
I think I can yet make out my Hypothesis, notwithstanding all you have said against it: For tho' I grant the Paternal Relation itself can never be usurped, or transferred; yet you may remember, I at first affirmed, 
F. P. A. P.  that Adam was not only a Father, but a King and Lord over his Family, and a Son, a Subject, a Servant, or a Slave, were one and the same thing at first; and the Father▪ had power to dispose of, cell, or Alien his Children to any other; whence we find the Sale, and Gift of Children, to have been much in use in the beginning of the World, when Men had their Servants for a Possession, and an Inheritance, as well as other goods; whereupon we find the Power of Castrating or making Eunuches much in use in old times. And as the Power of the Father may be lawfully transferred, or aliened; so it may be unjustly usurped. And tho' I confess no Father, or Master of a Family, aught to use his Children thus Cruelly, and Severely, and that he sins mortally if he doth so; yet neither they, nor any Power under Heaven can call such an Independent Father, or Monarch to an account, or punish him for so doing.  F. 
I am glad at last we are come to an Issue of this doughty controversy, and though I forced you at our last meeting to confess, that Fatherly Power was not despotical, nor that Fathers upon any account Whatsoever, were absolute Lords, over their Children and all their Descendants in the State of Nature: Yet now I see to preserve your Hypothesis, You are fain to recur to this Despotical Power of Fathers in the State of Nature: Because without supposing it, and that it may be transferred, or usurped, Princes at this day (whom without any cause you suppose to be endued with this Paternal, Despotic Power) could never claim any Title to their Subject's Allegiance. And then much good may do you with your, and Sr. R, F's excellent discovery: For if, as you yourself acknowledge, Princes are no longer related in Blood to their Subjects, any nearer than as we all proceed from Adam our Common Ancestor, that relation being now so remote, signifies little or nothing, so that the true Paternal Authority being lost (as you confess) the Despotic Power of a Lord over his Servants, or his Slaves only remains; since therefore you make no difference in Nature, between Subjects, and Slaves, than all Subjects Lie at the mercy of their Kings to be treated in all things like Slaves, when ever they please; And they may exercise an absolute Despotic Power over their Lives, and Estates as they think fit: So that I can see nothing that can hinder them from selling their Subjects, or castrating them as the King of Mingr●lia, doth his Subjects at this day; and as the Great Turk, and Persian Monarches do use those Christian Children whom they take away from their Parents to make Eunuches for their Seaglios, and then I think you have brought Mankind to a very fine pass to be all created for the Will, and Lust of so many single Men, which if it ever could be the Ordinance of God, I leave it to yourself to judge.  M. 
I was prepared for this objection before, and therefore I think it will make nothing against this Absolute Power, with which I suppose God to have endued Adam, and all other Monarches at the first: So that I am so far from thinking that this Doctrine, will teach Prince's Cruelty towards their Subjects, that on the contrary nothing can better inculcate their Duty towards them: 
B. C. P. § 3.  For as God is the Author of a Paternal Monarchy; so he is the Author of no other. He introduced all but the first Man into the World, under the Subjection of a Supreme Father, and by so doing hath shown that he never intended there should be any other Power in the World, and whatever Authority shall be extended beyond this is accountable to him alone, so that Princes are bound to treat their Subjects as their Children with Mercy, and Lenity as far as they are capable of it, and not as their Brutes. And granting that Subjects and Servants or Slaves were at first all one, yet I think even they ought to be treated only as Younger Children, yet as Children still: Nay even conquered People that are in some Countries treated as Slaves, and but a little better than brutes, have certainly a very good appeal to the Tribunal of God against their Princes, who will undoubtedly right them in another World if they suffer patiently in this. If it be the Character of a good Man that he is merciful to his Beast, I doubt not but the very Brutes have a Right to be Governed with mercy and Justice, and that God who is their Creator as well as ours will punish cruel men if they Tyrannize over them, and much more if any man shall exercise Cruelty on another man who is of the same, not only Nature, but Blood.  
Whereas all other Hypotheses leave the Prince at Liberty to make his Bargain with his Subjects, as well as he can; and if they be brought by force, or fraud, to an entire Submission at Discretion, they may then be treated accordingly, and must stand to their Compact, be the terms never so unequal, and then the Case of a Man, and a Brute, may differ very little; and if the Subject may resist, the Prince may take care to prevent it, and the War may be just on both sides, which is impossible.  
I could likewise show you many other Benefits that would accrue both to Princes, and Subjects, were this Hypothesis but once generally taught, and believed by both of them.  F. 
I pray Sir, spare the giving yourself that trouble, for I will not dispute how honestly this Hypothesis may be designed, or what mighty Fea●s it might do, were it once universally received. But this neither you, nor I can ever expect will come to pass▪ because neither Princes, nor People will ever believe it to be true: For in the first place, the People will never be convinced of it, it being above a vulgar understanding, that their Princes whom they are very well assured are not their Fathers, nor yet right Heirs to Adam, or Noah, should notwithstanding 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 same Reason: I grant indeed, that they may be very willing to believe one half of your Hypothesis, that they are Absolute Lords, and Masters over them, and so would be willing upon that account, to use their Subjects like Slaves, but that they should look upon themselves as Fathers of their People, and the Heirs or Assigns of Adam, or Noah, I think no Prince in Christendom can be so vain to believe. So that whatever Power Adam, or Noah, or any other Father might be entrusted with by God, because of that Natural Affection which they were supposed to bear toward their Children; yet sure Princes at this day, can lay no claim to it, since none but true Fathers can be endued with this Paternal Affection.  
And whereas you suppose, that Princes ought to treat their Subjects, nay even those that are conquered like Children, and not like Slaves, or Brutes: This can have very little effect 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 Monarches, to treat their Subjects like Children, and therefore Since the Despotical or Masterly Power only remains, which is ordained Principally for the good, and Benefit of the Master, and not of the Servant, or Slave: Who can blame Princes, if they exact the utmost of their due Prerogatives, and so treat their Subjects like Slaves, whenever it serves their humour, or interest so to do; nor are they any more to be blamed for thus exerting their Power, than a Master of Negroes in the West-Indies is for making the best of the Service of those Slaves whom he hath bought with his Money, or are born in his House: Whom though I grant he is not to use like Brute Beasts, for the Reasons you have given: Yet doth it not therefore follow, that he is obliged to use them like his Younger Children; for then sure he could not have a Right to keep them for Slaves as long as they lived, & to let them enjoy nothing but a bare miserable Subsistance; and there is very good reason for this, for almost every Planter in Barbadoes knows very well, the difference between the Relations of a Father, a Master, and a Prince, and that the one is not the other; and it is from your jumbling together these three different Relations of a Son, a Slave, and a Subject, that hath led you into all these mistakes. For tho' it should be granted, that the right of a Master over his Slaves, may be acquired by Conquest, or assigned to, or usurped by another; yet certainly the Authority, or Relation of a Father, and the Monarchical, or Civil Power of a Monarch can never be acquired by Conquest, nor yet usurped without the Consent, and Submission of the Children, and Subjects.  
And therefore to conclude, I do not think your Hypothesis one jot the better, by your founding it upon an Imaginary Paternal Power, rather than upon Compact, which I am sure can never be made upon so unequal term●, as to render the Case of a Man, and a Brute, very little different; since it would be to no purpose for any Subject to make a Bargain with their Monarch, or Conqueror; and yet to leave themselves in as bad, or worse condition than they were in the State of Nature: So that however convenient your Hypothesis may be either for Prince, or People, it signifies no more than the Popish Hypothesis of the Infallibility of the Pope, and General Council, which because they suppose necessary, and is indeed very beneficial for the Church; therefore God hath conferred it upon them: But how false a way of reasoning this is, hath been sufficiently demonstrated. The Application of this Comparison is so obvious, that I leave it to you to make.  M. 
I cannot but think, for all you have yet said, that God hath endued all Princes with a Paternal Authority, and for this, I have the Church of England on my side, which in its Catechism, in the Explanation of the Duties contained in the 5th Commandment, Honour thy Father, etc. doth comprehend under that Head, 
F. P. § 10. F. O. G. p 254.  not only to Honour, and Secure our Fathers and Mothers, but also to Honour, and Obey the King, and all them that are put 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 Obedience to Parents be immediately due by a Natural Law; and Subjection to Princes but by the Mediation of an Human Ordinance, what reason is there, that the Laws of Nature should give place to the Laws of Men? As we see the Power of the Father over his Child, giveth place, and is subordinate to the Power of the Magistrate. And that this is not the Doctrine of Christianity alone, but was also believed by the best Moralists amongst the Heathen, may appear by this remarkable passage out of Seneca de Clementia, which is so put to this purpose, 
Lib. 1. Cap. 14.  that I took the pains to translate it into English in my Common-place-book: Some of which I will now read to you. What is the Duty of a Prince? That of kind Parents, who use to chide their Children sometimes sweetly, and at other times with more sharpness, and sometimes correct them with blows. And after having shown that a good Father will not proceed to disinherit his Son, or inflict any more severe punishments upon him till he is past all hopes of amendment; He proceeds thus. No Parent proceeds to Extirpation, till he hath in vain spent all other Remedies. That which becomes a Parent, becomes a Prince who is styled without flattery, The Father of his Country; in all our other Titles we consult their (i. e. the Emperors) Honour. We have called them the Great, the Happy, the August, and heaped upon ambitious Majesty, all the Titles we could invent, in giving th●se to them: But we have styled him, The Father of his Country, that the Prince might consider the Power of a Father, was given him: Which is the most temperate of all Powers, consulting the Welfare of the Children, and preferring their Good before its own.  
And as for your Objection, why Princes should not be loved, and reverenced, as if they were our Fathers, because not being our Natural Fathers, they may possibly want that Natural, and Fatherly Affection to their Subjects, and consequently may Tyrannize over them; I think this is easily answered: For  
First, God, who is, and ever was the True Disposer of Kingdoms, hath in his hands the hearts of all Princes, and endows them with such Affections, as he thinks fit not only towards the People in general, but towards each particular person: And therefore as he was the Author of all Government, and is still the Preserver of it; so no inconvenience can happen, but he is able to redress it.  
2. That there was as great, or rather greater Inconveniencies which sprung at first from the too great Lenity of these Natural Princes, for want of Power, or Will to punish the Disorders of their Subject Children, as have ever sprung since, from the Tyranny, and Cruelty of the worst Princes: And I believe to this was owing that excessive wickedness, which forced as it were God Almighty, to put an end to the first World, by that time it had stood about 1600 years. And we see afterwards Eli, and Samuel, good men, and severe Judges towards others, were yet too indulgent to their own Children; which shows the weakness of your Reasons, and the greatness of the Wisdom of God, in making all Government to spring from Paternal Power, which is the mildest of all Powers, and to descend by degrees to Hereditary Monarchies, which are the Divinest, the most Natural, and the best of all Governments, and in which the People have the least hand.  F. 
I see plainly that you think the Laws of Nature, or Reason are not on your side and therefore you are forced to recur not to the express words of Scripture, but to the Paraphrase, or Explanation of them in our Church Catechism, which certainly never was intended to have that consequence drawn from it, which you have made, for though you are pleased to omit one part of the Commandment, with an, etc. Yet the Words are as you yourself must 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 same Argument, that it must have been as Originally in the Mother too: Father, and Mother, or Parents, being mentioned together, in all Precepts in the Old, and New Testament, where Honour, or Obedience is enjoined on Children; And if these Words, Honour thy Father, must give a right to Government, and make the form also Monarchical, 〈◊〉, if by these Words must be meant Obedience to the Political Power of the Supreme Magistrate, it concerns not any Duty we owe to our Natural Fathers, who are Subjects: Because they by your Doctrine are divested of all that Power, it being placed wholly in the Prince, and so being equally Subjects, and Slaves with their Children, can have no Right by that Title to any such Honour, or Obedience, as contains in it Civil Subjection. But if Honour thy Father and thy Mother, Signifies the Duty we owe our Natural Parents. (as by our Saviour's interpretation Matth. 15.4. and all the other places 'tis plain it doth,) than it cannot concern Political Ob●dien●●, but a Du●y that is owing to Persons who have no Title to Sovereignty, no● any Political Authority as Monarches over Subjects. For Obedience to a Private Father, and that Civil Obedience which is due to a Monarch, a●● quite different, and many times contradictory, and inconsistent with each other. And therefore, this Command, which necessarily comprehends the persons of our Natural Fathers and Mothers, must mean a Duty we owe them distinct from our Obedience to the Magistrate, and from which the most absolute Power of Princes cannot absolve us. And to make this yet plainer, suppose upon your Hypothesis, that Seth, as Eldest Son of Adam, was Heir of all his Patriarchal Power, how could all his Brethren, and Sister's Honour, that is, Obey Eve their Mother at the same time, supposing Seth, and her to have commanded them things contradictory at the same time●  
So that, tho' I grant the Compilers of our Church Catechism, did intend in this Explanation to comprehend all the great Duties towards our Governors: Yet it is plain, they never dreamt of this farfetched inference, that you have drawn from their Explanation of it, for though under this Command of Honour thy Father, and thy Mother, they do indeed comprehend Obedience, and Honour to be due to the King, etc. this no more proves that they believed all Kingly Power to be Paternal, than that because they likewise there Infer from this Command, a Submission to be due to all Governors, Teachers, Spiritual Pastors, and Masters, that therefore all these Parties, here named, do likewise derive their Authority from Adam's Fatherhood, or that because under the Command against bearing False-Witness we are taught to refrain our Tongues from Evil Speaking, Lying, and Slandering, that therefore all Lies, and Evil Speaking whatsoever is downright bearing False-Witness against our Neighbour, Since nothing is more certain than that a man may commit either of the formerr without being guilty of the latter. And to Answer your Query, if Obedience to Parents be immediately due by a Natural Law, and Subjection to Princes but by a Humane Ordinance, what reason is there that the Laws of Nature should give place to those of Men? I can easily reply, that the Power of a Father over his Child gives place, and is Subordinate to the Supreme Powers, because they are both ordained so by God, in the Law of Nature, it being highly reasonable, that the good of a private Family should give place to the common good of the Commonwealth, which is a sufficient reason, and extends to all Nations, which never so much as heard of the Ten Commandments.  
But to come to your Quotation out of Seneca, I think this hath a great deal less weight in it, than your Argument from the Fifth Commandment: For tho' this Philosopher writ to the Emperor, to persuade him to Clemency; yet this I am sure of, that as he never dreamt of this Notion of Adam's Sovereignty, or believed that every Prince was endued with Paternal Authority, because amongst other Titles, he was styled Pater Patriae. And therefore what this Author here says, is to be looked upon, only as a Rhetorical flourish, or at the most, to be understood but in a Metaphorical sense, the Arguments of this Author not being to be always taken strictly as a Logician, but only as an Orator, who was to make use of all appearances of Reason to persuade a young Prince to Mercy, and Clemency; and yet all this was not sufficient, as Seneca himself found before he died, by woeful experience. And Seneca very well knew, that Tully was styled Pater Patriae by the Senate, tho' he was never endued with your Imperial, or Paternal Authority.  
But, to reply a little to your Answer, against my last Argument, that Princes not being our Natural Fathers, must often want that Natural, and Fatherly Affection towards their Subjects, and therefore may Tyrannize ove● them: I think the first part of your Reply will make nothing in confutation of what I have said: For tho' I will not deny, but God, who hath the hearts of Princes in his hands, may sometimes endue them with such Affections, as he thinks fit, not only towards the People in general, but towards each particular person; yet this may be as well evil as good Affections: As God is said in judg. 9 To have sent an evil Spirit between Abimelech, (one of your usurping Monarches) and the Men of Sichem, his Subjects: And therefore God may as well send the one for the punishment, as the other for the benefit of a Nation: And that God is more likely to incline the hearts of Princes to such evil, than good Affections towards their Subjects, may appear from Mankind's more often deserving God's Anger, for their evil deeds, than Favours for their good ones.  
And I desire you would show me in how many Absolute Monarchies now in the World, God Almighty is pleased to declare this wonderful Operation of these Fatherly Affections towards their People. I pray deal ingenuously, and tell me, is it to be found in our European Monarchies, where most Princes do not only miserably harass, and oppress their Subjects, by intolerable Taxes, and standing Armies, till they reduce them to the Lowest condition of Beggary, and Desperation; and where for the least differences in Religion they take away their Subjects lives by that Cruel Tribunal of the Inquisition, without any Fair, or Legal Trial, or else where notwithstanding all Edicts, Oaths, and Vows to the contrary, they seize upon, and spoil their Subjects of their Estates, and imprison, and torment their persons by those Booted Apostles the Dragoons; because Faith is not to be kept with Heretics; or else in another Country, where the Prince took upon him a Prerogative to dispense with all Laws at his pleasure, and to imprison, and turn men out of their Freeholds, contrary to the known Laws of the Kingdom? Or to conclude, must we look for these Divine Operations amongst the Eastern Monarchy, where they treat their Subjects like Slaves, and allow them no Property either in Lands, or Goods, farther than they think sit, and to have their persons, and lives wholly at their mercy to be castrated, made Slaves of, or killed, as often as it shall please their humour, or passion? And I doubt, if you will but read Ancient, as well as Modern Histories, and also survey the State of Mankind in all the Absolute Monarchies between France, and japan; you will find more frequent Examples of the evil, than good Affections of these your Artificial Fathers towards their Adopted Children.  M. 
I cannot deny, but you have given a very Tragical Account of the Tyranny, and Oppressions under divers Absolute Monarchies now in the World; yet this is not the fault of the Government, but of the Evil Principles, b●d Education, or Temper of those Monarches, as also often times from the unquiet, and rebellious disposition of their Subjects, from the distrusting of which, 
B. C. P. § 3.  they place all their security in standing Armies, and Guards, so that I must grant, that all those Governments that are maintained by Armies too strong for the Subjects in general, are 〈◊〉 and degenerate into Despotic Monarchies, and are unsafe both to the Prince and People. And to let you see, that it is not my intention 〈◊〉 maintain, 
F. P. § 6.  or defend Oppression, or Tyranny, I must freely assert, with Sir R. F. (whose Principles I here take upon me to maintain) that all Princes are bound to treat their Subjects as their Children, and that it is contrary to the Nature of Mankind, to make their Offspring Slaves; and that all Kings, (nay Conquerors too) are bound to preserve the Lands, Goods, Liberties, and Lives of all their Subjects not by any Municipal Law, but by the Natural Law of a Father, which binds them to ratify the Acts of their Fore fathers, and Predecessors in things necessary for the public good of their Subjects: But yet you have not done fairly, not to take notice of the great Oppressions, that are exercised in some Commonwealths likewise, towards their Subjects, which if you would please to consider, and weigh the fewness of these against the great number of Monarchies now in the World, I believe you will have good cause to confess, that there are many more good Monarches, 
B. P.P. § 12, 13.  than Equal Commonwealths; and I do believe there was as much Tyranny exercised in these Three Kingdoms during our late Civil Wars, and afterwards under the Government of the Rump, and Cromwell, till the return of the late King Charles, as in all the Absolute Monarchies between France and China, or from the North to the South Pole. And it is very remarkable, that when Oliver Cromwell set up the most Absolute, and Tyrannical Government, that ever was in this Island, there was yet no noise of any Fears, or Jealousies of it in all his times.  F. 
I am very well pleased to find you so heartily agree with me, in condemning of Tyranny, and oppression in all sorts of Governments whatever, and I do assure you, I do as little approve of it, if it be any where exercised in Commonwealths, as you can do in Monarchies, only I must needs tell you, I am not at all of your Opinion, that the Oppressions, or abuses committed by the Magistrates in Commonwealths, are to be compared with the Tyrannies, and Cruelties exercised by absolute Monarches, and their Subordinate Ministers. For tho' I grant they often lay very severe Taxes, and impositions, upon their Subjects, especially such as they have acquired by Conquest, and so act like absolute Monarches over them, Yet are these oppressions not at all to be compared to those under Arbitrary Monarchies; for tho' perhaps divers Commonwealths may impose greater Taxes upon their Subjects than some Neighbouring Monarches; yet doth it not follow that their Government is more severe for all that; since the People having an opportunity by free Trade & Liberty of Conscience in such Commonwealths, to acquire a greater share of Riches, are also thereby enabled to Contribute more to the maintenance of the Government, by which they reap so great Benefits. Thus we see a Citizen of Amsterdam is able to pay six times the Taxes of one of Antwerp, and Therefore I dare for all that, appeal to any Common Subject (tho' a Papist) of the United Provinces, whether he had not rather live under the States of Holland, than under the French King, or to any Subject of the Common Wealths of Venice, Genoa, or Luca whether he doth not prefer his Condition, as bad as it is, to that of any of the Subjects of the Pope, Duke of Florence, or any other Italian Prince, not to go over into Turkey, and those other Eastern Monarchies, where the Yoke of Slavery lies yet more heavy upon the Subjects, than in Europe.  
And as for what you say in the comparing of those Illegal Arbitrary Proceedings, that were exercised in England, during the late Civil Wars, and afterwards till the Kings coming in, I must beg your pardon if (besides the great Hyperbole in your expressions on that occasion, which I am sure are very far from Truth) I impute those Miscarriages not as the fault of this or that ●ort of Government, but rather to a Powerful Faction Backed by a Standing Army, which was more like a Tyranny or corrupt Oligarchy, than any Settled Government. Nor is what you say concerning Oliver's Government more true than the former, for all men except his own Faction, were not only afraid, but really sensible of the lo●s of their Liberties under his Tyrannical Usurpation: Tho' indeed there was a very good reason, why there should be fewer fears, or Jealousies of it than in his late Majesty's time, when his Government began to grow uneasy through the People's fear of Popery, and Arbitrary Government, which the former People had no Jealousy of in Cromwel's time, and as for the latter they had no occasion to fear that which was already happened.  
But that you may not mistake me for a Commonwealths Man, I must so far agree with you, that to condemn Monarchy as such, were to repine at the Government of God himself, so that I also grant that the fault lies not in the form of Government but in the Frail Nature of Men, which can rarely administer that great Trust committed unto them, as becomes what they take upon them to be, God's Vicegerents upon Earth, And I must own, that I esteem Monarchy limited by known Laws, as the best, and most Equal Government in the World; and under which both Prince, and People may live most happily, and easily, if each of them will be but contented with their due share.  
But I beg your pardon for this digression; and to come to a conclusion, I must freely tell you, it is not a Straw matter, what yours or 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 expect that either Princes or People will ever believe you; neither is it true that Princes as Fathers are bound to treat their Subjects in all things like their Children, for then Princes ought to maintain their Subjects, and not Subjects their Princes; since it is the Apostles Rule, That Children ought not to lay up for the Parents, but the Parents for the Children: And tho' you pretend not to plead for Tyranny, 
2 Corinth. 12.14.  or Arbitrary Government, yet I cannot at all understand, why if it were not for this end, you should assert not long since, in your answer to me, that God thought fit to change Paternal Government, into Hereditary Monarchy, because of the excessive Wickedness of Mankind before the Flood proceeding from though too great Lenity of those Patriarchal Princes, in not punishing the disorders of their Subject Children, which is a very bold assertion; Since you know no more than I, what that wickedness was in particular for which God drowned the World, much less what was the occasion of it. And therefore if God thought fit to change Paternal Power into Hereditary Monarchies which (as I have proved) do not at all proceed from Paternal Power, it will also follow that the Government of your Patriarches was not sufficient for the well-being, and happiness of Mankind, or else God would never have thought fit to have altered it, for a more Cruel and severe way of Government.  
But as for what you say, concerning those Princes that place all their security in Guards, and Armies too strong for the Subjects, that they are uneasy, and degenerate into Despotic Monarchies, (you might better have said Tyrannies) and that they are unsafe both for Prince and People, is very true, and I altogether agree with you in it. But those of your Principles have no reason to find fault with Princes for so doing; for since they do but use their just Prerogative over their Slaves, or Vassals, it is but fit that they should be made to undergo that Yoke, whether they will or no, which they would not bear willingly, and as long as Princes look upon themselves to be (what they really are upon your Principles) the Masters and not the Fathers of their People, as they suppose the Goods, and Estates of their Subjects to be wholly at their disposal, So can they never command them as they please, without the Assistance of Standing Armies; nor have you any reason to complain of those Princes for keeping them too strong for the Subjects, since upon your Principles be they Strong, or Weak, the Subjects are not to resist them; but if Princes, without your extraordinary fondness of using their People like Children, would but always use them like Subjects, with ordinary Justice, and Moderation; and not oppress them with excessive Taxes, and unnecessary Penal Laws about Religion, you would find there would be no need of Standing Armies to keep the People in awe, who would themselves be the best defence not only against Domestic, but Foreign Enemies, and this I'll assure you is a much better receipt against Rebellion, than all your new Recipes of Paternal Power in Monarches, which is not only without all ground of reason but above common apprehensions.  M. 
You have made a long Speech in answer to my Hypothesis, which since you are not satisfied with, I can likewise show you another very good reason, why the People should love, and reverence their Princes, and that is those great Liberties, and Concessions, that all the Monarches of Europe have granted their Subjects, which are now past into the settled Laws and Customs of those Kingdoms with which the People ought to be very well contented; nor ought they to rebel or resist, tho' they may sometimes out of wantonness, and necessity, infringe, or entrench upon those Privileges which they or their Ancestors have conferred upon them; since they can never forseit that Power they have originally over them.  F. 
I do not very well understand what you mean; for I have hitherto supposed that all Subjects have a Property in their Estates, and a Freedom for their Persons by the Laws of Nature; and which no Civil Power whatever could deprive them of, without their Consent: And therefore I desire you would show me, that if Children, Subjects, and Slaves, were all one at the first, how we in this side of the World, came to be in a better condition, than those in Asia, and Africa? Or that we Englishmen can claim a Property in our Estates, and a Right to our Lives, which the Prince cannot take away but according to some known Laws?  M. 
I think I can easily do this, not only in Relation to England, but any other Kingdom, which is now governed by known Laws and that upon Sir R. F's Hypothesis; which I shall do as near (as I can remember) in the words of that excellent person the late Earl of Clarendon in his Survey of Mr. Hobbs Leviathan, 
Chap. 20. p. 69, 70.  who suppose● according to this Hypothesis, That some one of Noah 's Descendants was an Absolute Monarch, at first over all his Posterity, which might continue in his Line for some Ages, till at last their Relation by Blood to their Subjects was removed at so great a distance, that the Account of their Kindred, or Relation to each other, was scarce remembered, whereby they who had the Sovereign Power, still expressed less Paternal Affection in their Government, looking upon those they Governed as mere Subjects, and not as their Kinsmen or Allies, till by degrees, according to the Custom of Exorbitant Power, they (considering only the extent of their own jurisdiction, and what they might, rather than what they should do) treated them who were under them, not as Subjects, but as Slaves, who having no Right to any thing, but what they permitted them, they would allow them to possess nothing, but what they had no occasion to take away; Estates they had none, that they could call their own, because when their Prince called for them, they were his; their Persons were at his command, when he had either occasion, or appetite to make use of them; and their Children inherited nothing but their Father's Subjection; so that they were happy, or miserable, as he who had the Power over them pleased to exercise it with more, or less Rigour, or Indulgence; yet they submitted alike to both; acknowledging his Dominion to be naturally as absolute as their Subjection, and Obedience.  
These Princes might for some Ages have pleased themselves with this Exorbitant Exercise of their Power, which tho' it had been always the same, yet the exercise of it had been very moderate, whilst there remained the tenderness, or memory of any Relation. But these Princes began at least to discern, and be convinced that the great strength they seemed to be possessed of, would in a short time degenerate into weakness, and the Riches they seemed to enjoy, would end in want, and necessity, as well in themselves, as in their Subjects; since no Man would build a good House, that his Children could not inherit, nor cultivate their Land, with any good husbandry, and expense, since the profit thereof might be given to another Man; And that if the Subjects did not enjoy the Conveniences of Life, they could not be sure of their help, and affection, whenever they should have War with another Prince, as absolute as themselves; but they would rather choose to be subject to him under whose Government they might live with greater Liberty, and Satisfaction. And lastly, That if they engrossed all the Wealth, and Power into their own hands, they should find none who would defend them in the possession of it: And that there was a great difference between that Subjection, which Love and Duty pays, and that which results only from Fear, and Force, since Despair often puts an End to that Duty, which Reason, and it may be, Conscience, would otherwise have persuaded them still to continue: And therefore, that it was necessary that their Subjects should find ease, and profit in Obeying, as well as King's pleasure in Commanding; these wise, and wholesome Reflections might prevail with Princes, for their own, as well as Subject's benefit, to restrain their Power, and to make it less absolute, that it might be more useful, and, to give their Subjects such a Property in their Goods, and Lands, as should not be invaded, but in such cases, and on such occasions as the necessities of the Government really required. But as they found the benefit arising from these Condescensions, highly tend to the Improvement of the Riches, and Civility of their Subjects, with all those additions of pleasure, and industry, which render Man's Life, as well as the Government easy, and pleasant, they still in several Generations enlarged these Graces, and Concessions to their Subjects, yet reserving all in themselves that they did not part with by their voluntary Grants or Concessions. And if we take a View of the several Kingdoms of the World, we shall see another face of things, both of Power, and Riches in those Governments, where these Condescensions and Concessions have been best observed; than in those Kingdoms where the Sovereigns either retain, or resume to themselves all those Rights, or Prerogatives, which are invested in them from the Original Nature of Government; so that there still remains enough in the Prince's hands to be made use of, for the preservation of his own Power, and the defence of his Subjects, for whose benefit it was entrusted with him by God. So far the late great Chancellor.  
And these Privileges, and Condescensions, being once past into constant, and standing ●aws, by the Princes that gave them, and also solemnly sworn to by their Coronation Oaths, do for the future bind, not only those Princes that granted them, but also their Successors, to their observation: And I then look upon them bound, under pain of Damnation, not to break, or infringe them, without very great necessity.  
But however, if they shall happen so to do, since they were matters of mere Grace, and Favour at the first, and not of Right, the Princes that thus transgress them, are only accountable to God, and punishable by him, and not by their Subjects, for any Breaches, or Infringements of such Liberties, and Immunities: And this may serve against the Fancies of all those who think Princes have nothing, but what the People have given them; and likewise against such as Mr. Hobbs, who maintain so much is conferred on them, that they have a Right to leave no body else any thing to enjoy, that they have a mind to take from them. And this I take to be a much better Security for the People's Liberties, to leave it to the Honour, and Conscience of their Princes, and that Fear they ought to have of the Divine Vengeance, in case they oppress their Subjects contrary to Law, than your heady, and violent Methods of Resistance for the Oppression, or Tyranny of Princes, which would but give the common people a pretence of taking Arms, and Rebelling against their Princes upon every slight provocation.  F. 
You have made a very plausible Discourse, whether of your own, or from the Author you quote, is not much material; for I doubt when it comes to be examined, it will appear much more like a Romance than a true History: And therefore granting at present your Principles to be true, (tho' they are not) I desire you to show me, how you can make it out, either from Sacred, or Profane History, that any Limited Kingdom now in the World, ever had its Original from those gracious Condescensions, or Concessions of Princes, as you here mention: For by all that ever I can read, or observe, either from our own, or Foreign History, all the Liberties, and Privileges which Subjects enjoy at this day, proceeded at first, either from the Original Contracts, Customs, or Constitutions of those Kingdoms, or Nations, at the first Institution of their Government; or else were forced from Princes by their Subjects, who would no longer endure the severity of their Yoke, or else were granted by some of them, who believing they had worse Titles than their Competitors to the Crown, were willing to▪ engage the People to their side, by granting them greater Privileges, than they before enjoyed.  
And tho' I grant the Reflections you make upon the exercise of Arbitrary Power, and the Miseries it brings both upon the Prince, and People, are very true: Yet I am sure the practice of most Absolute Monarches throughout the whole World, hath run quite contrary to your suppositions. For Princes are so far (by what I ever read, or observed) from being willing to part with any of their Power, that they have still endeavoured by degrees to enlarge it, and render it more absolute than it was left them; as you may observe in the Government of France, Spain, Denmark, and Sweden in this last Age; and what Encroachments were made in this Kingdom by the Prerogative upon the People's Liberties, during the Reigns of our last Princes, he is a stranger to the History of the Country, that hath not read of, if he do not remember them. And how much higher they would have been carried, if this strange, and sudden Revolution had not put a stop to it, I had rather you and I should understand in Idea than by Experience.  
But if such grave Reflections as these of yours, were able to work upon the first Monarches, I desire to know the reason why those of Turkey, Persia, Russia, and the African Emperors of Morocco, and of the Abyssines (who sure have been as wise as any you can name) should not in so many Ages as they have Governed, see these Inconveniences you mention, and restrain their Exorbitant Power within some moderate Limits: Nay, to the contrary, one of the most ambitious and aspiring Monarches in Europe, is making what haste he can to reduce his Kingdom into the same Model. And what do you think would the Princes, and Councillors of these Empires say to such a one as you, or I, who should offer to preach this strange Doctrine to them, That they ought under pain of Damnation to use their Subjects as their Children, and not as Slaves, or mere Vassals? I doubt they would make us pay dear for publishing such false Doctrine in their Dominions, or at least would despise us for half-witted fellows, without any true Notions in Politics, since they believe, that the true Security, and Glory of a King, consists in vast Standing Armies, Great Fleets, and a power to take from their Subjects, and Neighbours, whatever they please, thereby to enjoy their own pleasures and humours in all their hearts can desire, and to extend their Empires (per fas & nefas) as far as ever their Conquering Swords will give them leave. And if you should tell them, that their Subjects could not love them, nor live happily, nor contentedly under such a Government; I suppose their Answer would be (if they could speak Latin) Oderint dum metuant, or in the Language of their own Country, that they would rather trust a Standing Army, than the Affections of their People; and that it is better to take from their Subjects what they have a mind to▪ than to leave it to their good will what they will give them. These are all the Ancient, and Modern Politics that I can observe in most Absolute Monarchies, or in those Kingdoms, where Kings have taken upon them so to Govern their Subjects, at this day: But I defy you to show me any one Kingdom in the World, where the People owe all their Liberties, and Privileges merely to the good will, and favour of their Princes▪ who granted them only out of those wise considerations you have now mentioned.  
But as for the Expedient at the latter end of your Speech, that these Privileges, and Condescensions, when once granted by Kings to their Subjects, and past into constant, and standing Laws, and also solemnly sworn to by Princes at their Coronation, do not only bind those Princes that granted them, but also their Successors under pain of Damnation; I so far agree with you, tho' I must beg your pardon if I cannot think this a sufficient Security, for several Reasons I can give you at a more convenient time when I shall, when you please, more fully discuss this point.  M. 
I must freely tell you Sir, I am not yet satisfied neither with the Instances you have brought, nor yet with your replies to my answers, and I think I can show you as to this Kingdom, that they are false in matter of Fact. For if that the first and most ancient Kingdoms and Monarchies began by Conquest at first, and that perhaps for the most part by Wars unjustly made, as I may also Instance in England, if this were a proper season for it, so that indeed the greatest Liberty in the World, (if it be duly considered) is for a People to live under a Paternal Monarchy. It is the Magna Charta of this Kingdom, all other shows, or Pretexts of Liberty are but several degrees of Slavery, and a Liberty only to destroy Liberty.  
So that I think I may very well keep my first opinion, that Paternal Government is the Foundation of all other, and I have ever thought God's Love, and Kindness 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 jurisdiction. That all Princes might look upon the meanest of their Subjects, as their Children: And all Subjects upon their Prince as their Common Father: And upon each other as the Children of one Man; that Mankind might not only be United in one common Nature, but also be of one Blood, of one Family and be habituated to the best of Governments from the very Infancy of the World.  
Were this well considered as there could be no Tyrants, so neither would there be any Traitors; and Rebels: But both Prince and People would strive 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 see if either he, or I have ascribed one Dram of Power to Princes which will not Naturally Spring from this Supream-Paternal Power.  
So that upon the whole, I think reason itself would conclude, that this way of Solving the first Rise of Government is true, and that it is the Duty of all, who by the Blessing of God are under Paternal Monarchies, to be very thankful for the favour, and to do the utmost that in them lies to preserve, and transmit that best form of Government to their Children after them. And surely there is no Nation under Heaven hath more reason for this than the English, who are under a Paternal Monarchy, which has taken the best care, that can be to secure them not only from oppression, and wrong, but from the very fear of it.  F. 
Since you lay the chief stress of your assertion, upon the Original of most of the Kingdoms and Monarchies now in the World, and of our own in particular, I think I may safely join issue with you on both points, and in the first place affirm that an unjust Conquest gives the Conqueror no right to the Subjects Obedience much less over their Lives, or Estates, and if our Norman William and his Successors had no more right to the Crown of England than mere conquest, I doubt whether they might have been driven out, after the same manner they came in: But I believe you will find upon second thoughts that Unjust Conquests and Usurpations of Crowns be no firm Titles for Princes to rely on; lest the Old English Proverb be turned upon you, viz. That which is Sauce for a Goose, is Sauce for a Gander; but I Shall defer this discourse concerning Titles by Conquest, and in particular that of our Kings to this Kingdom to some other time when I doubt not but to show, that it is not only false in matter of fact, but also that it will not prove that for which it is brought.  
And therefore what you say in your conclusion in exaltation of God's Love, and Kindness to Mankind, in Creating one Man, and out of him only one Woman; that Adam might be a kind of Father to his Wife, is a very pretty and indeed singular Notion, and you would do very well to move the Convocation next time it sits, that this explanation may be added to the fifth Commandment, that Women may be taught in the Catechism that Obedience to Husbands, is due by the Precept, of Honour thy Father and thy Mother.  
And therefore I need give no other Answer to all the rest you have said however Specious the Hypothesis may seem (as you have dressed it up,) for Princes, and People; yet till you have proved that all Paternal Power is Monarchical; and that all Monarchical Power is derived from Fatherhood, it signifies nothing.  
Nor can these Piae Frauds do any more good in Politics than Religion: For as Superstition can never serve to advance the True Worship of God, but by creating false Notions of the Divine Nature in Me●s Minds, which doth not render it, as it ought to be, the Object of their Love, and Reverence, but Servile Fear: So I suppose this asserting of such an unlimited Despotical Power in all Monarches, and such an entire Subjection as Sir R. F. and you, yourself exact from Subjects, can produce nothing but a flavish Dread without that esteem, and affection for their Prince's Person, and Government; which is so necessary for the quiet of Princes, and which they may always have, whilst they think themselves obliged in Conscience, and Honour, to protect their Lives and Fortunes from Slavery, and Oppression, according to the just and known Laws of the Kingdom, and not to dispense with them in great, and Essential Points, without the Consent of those who have a hand in the making of them: And all false Notions of this Supreme Power as derived from I know not what Fatherly, (but indeed Despotic) Power are so far from settling in People's Minds, a sober and rational Obedience to Government, that they rather make them desperate; and careless, who is their Master, since, let what Change will come, they can expect no better than to be Slaves.  
Nor are Subjects put in a better condition by this Doctrine of Absolute Non Resistance, since all Princes are not of so generous a Nature, as not to Tyrannize, and Insult the more over those whom they suppose will not, or else dare not resist them; and therefore I cannot see how such a submission can soften the hearts of the most Cruel Princes in the World, as you suppose, much less how Resistance in some cases can enrage the mildest Princes to their People's Ruin, since all Resistance of such mild, and merciful Princes I grant to be utterly unlawful; nor do I hold Resistance ever to be practised, but where the People are already ruined in their Liberties and Fortunes; or are just at the brink of it, and have no other means left but that to avoid it.  
To conclude, I so far agree with you, that I think it is the Duty of all that are born under a Kingly Government Limited by Laws, to be very thankful to God for the Favour, and to do the utmost that in them lies to preserve and transmit this best Form of Government to their Children after them, without maintaining such unintelligible Fictions as a Paternal Monarchy derived from Adam, or Noah. And tho' I own that some of our former Kings have taken the best care they could, to secure this Nation from Popery, and Arbitrary Power; yet whether the Method of our three last Kings have been the readiest way to secure us from the fears of it, I leave it to your own Conscience (if you are a Protestant) to judge.  
But since you defy me to show you out of Sir R. F's Patriarcha, that he hath ascribed one Dram of Power to Princes, which doth not naturally arise from a Supreme Paternal Power, and that this is no Exorbitant height; I think I am able to prove from many passages in his Patriarcha, as well as other Works, that no Author hath made bolder Assertions to render all Mankind Slaves, instead of Subjects, and all Prince's Tyrants, instead of Kings; and that his Principles are so far from being safe, that if they are duly looked into and weighed, they will prove destructive as well to the Rights of Princes, as to the Liberties of the People.  M. 
I should be very glad to see that proved, for I must always believe till you show 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 Subjects as Children, and not as Slaves; and therefore waving this last Controversy, which we have argued as far as it will go; pray make out what you say from his own words, and I will give up the Cause.  F. 
I wonder how you can be so partially blind, as not to see this, since you yourself have already made use not only of a great deal of his Doctrines, but also of his very words: And therefore pray see his Obedience to Government in doubtful times, as also in his Preface to the Observations upon Aristotle's Politics, where you will find he asserts, 
page 4th.  That Adam was the Father, King and Lord over his Family; a Son, a Subject and a Servant, or a Slave were one, and the same thing at first: The Father had power to dispose of, or sell his Children, or Servants: Whence we find, that at the first reckoning of Goods in Scripture, the Manservant, and the Maidservant are numbered among the Possessions, and Substance 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 Power is Despotical, the Consequence is also as evident, that all Subjects are also naturally Slaves, unless their Princes shall please to lay an easier Yoke upon them.  M. 
Perhaps Sir R. F. may have carried this matter a little too far; yet if you please to look into his Patriarcha, Chap. 3. Par. 1. you will find, that he hath this passage, which plainly speaks the contrary: The Father of a Family Governs by no other Law, than by his own Will, not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons, and Servants. There is no Nation that allows Children any Action, or Remedy for being unjustly Governed; and yet for all this, every Father is bound by the Law of Nature to do his best for the preservation of his Family; but much more is a King always tied by the same Law of Nature, to keep this general Ground, That the Safety of his Kingdom be his Chief Law. Whence you may observe, that tho' he takes away all Remedy from Children against their Parents, for being ill Governed, yet doth he not set the Father free from all Obligation to preserve the Good of his Family, of which sure a Man's Children are a principal part.  
And if you please to look back to the second Chapter, Par. 3. you will find these words. To answer in particular to the first Text, it may be said the sense of these words, By the Law of Nature all Men are born free, must needs mean a Freedom only, that is opposite to such a Subjection as is between Father, and Son. This is made manifest by the Text of the Law: For Ulpian in this place speaketh only of Manumission, which is a setting at Liberty of Servants from Servitude, and not of Emancipation, which is the freeing of Children from the Father's Tuition. Servitude, as the Law teacheth, is a Constitution of the Law of Nations, by which a Man is subject to the Dominion of any other Man against Nature. So not every Subjection is Servitude, but Subjection contrary to the Law of Nature. Yet every Man is born subject to the Power of a Father. This the Law itself saith; In Potestate nostra Liberi nostri sunt. So that you see here be maketh a difference between Servitude, and that Subjection that is due to Fathers.  F. 
Give me leave to answer these two Instances before you proceed any farther, and I shall in the first place make bold to answer your last Instance first, because I shall be much shorter upon it. But pray take notice by the way, that this Author is very high, and rigorous for the Absolute Power of Life, and Death in all Fathers, over their Children in the State of Nature, and that they may exercise it for very slight Offences; and therefore in this Chapter you have last quoted, he seems very well satisfied with the Example of Cassius▪ who threw his Son out of the Consistory for publishing the Agrarian Law, for the Division of Lands; and I think this was no such great Crime, for which a Father might justify the putting his Son to Death. And in the Section before this, he justifieth the Power of Fathers amongst the Romans, as being ratified, and amplified by the Laws of the XII Tables, enabling Parents to sell their Children two or three times over. So that these things considered, I cannot see, how this Distinction of Sir R. F. out of the Civil Law, will do him any service. For tho' I grant indeed that Manumission, and Emancipation are two different words, yet do they both signify the same thing; and tho' for the greater respect which they would show to the Condition of Children, above that of Slaves, they were pleased to make use of different expressions; yet, whoever will look more closely into the Nature of the Subjection, that Children were in, under their Parents, by the Roman Law, will find, that the Condition of Children, was no better than that of Slaves. For First, The Father had such an Absolute Power over the Person of the Son, that he could sell him three times, whereas he could sell a Slave but once. Secondly, He had such an Absolute Power over his Life, that he could take it away whenever he pleased. Lastly, A Son could have no Property in any Goods without his Father's Consent, till he was emancipated, or made free: So that if his Father were harsh, and ill natured, the Condition of a Son was worse than that of a Slave, as long as his Father lived.  
And therefore I am still of the Opinion of the Ancient Civil Lawyers, which assert the Natural Freedom of Mankind, according to the Maxim you have now cited. And they acknowledge that the Servitude, or Absolute-Subjection of Children to their Fathers, was not by the Law of Nature, but by the Civil or Roman Law, peculiar to themselves; as I have already proved at our last meeting.  
But to come to your first Quotation, whereby you would justify Sir R. F. for maintaining any unjust Severity in Fathers, or Tyranny in Princes, because they are both to endeavour the Common Good of the Family, and Kingdom, 'tis very true he says so; but of this Common Good they themselves are the sole judges: So that if the Father please to sell one or two of his Children, whom he least loveth, to provide Portions for the rest, he may lawfully do it for any thing I see to the contrary. So likewise immediately after he asserts the Superiority of all Princes above Laws, because there were Kings long before there were any Laws. And all the next Paragraph is wholly spent, in proving the Unlimited jurisdiction of Kings above Laws, as it is described by Samuel, when the Israelites desired a King: So that it signifies little what Laws Princes make, or what Privileges they grant their Subjects, since they may alter them, or abrogate them when ever they please.  M. 
But pray take along with you, what he says in the next Paragraph you quote; where you may see these words; It is ●here evidently showed, that the scope of Samuel, was to teach the People a dutiful Obedience to their King, even in those things which themselves did esteem Mischievous and Inconvenient: For by telling them what a King would do, he indeed instructs them what a Subject must suffer; yet not so, as that it is Right for Kings to do Injury, but it is Right for them to go unpunished by the People if they do it: So that in this point it is all one, whether Samuel describe a King, or a Tyrant; for patient Obedience is due to both: No Remedy in the Text against Tyrants, but in crying, and praying unto God in that day. And that Sir R. F. is very far from justifying Kings in the unnecessary Breach of their Laws, may farther appear by what he says, Chap. 3. Par. 6. of this Treatise, where pray see this passage. Now albeit Kings who make the Laws, be (as King James teacheth us) above the Laws; yet will they Rule their Subjects by the Law; and a King Governing in a Settled Kingdom, leaves to be a King, and degenerateth into a Tyrant, so soon as he leaves to Rule according to his Laws; yet where he sees the Laws rigorous, or doubtful, be may mitigate and interpret them. So that you see here he leaves the King no Power or Prerogative above the Laws, but what shall be directed, and employed for the general Good of the Kingdom.  F. 
But pray, Sir, read on a little farther, and see if he doth not again undo all that he hath before so speciously laid down, and if you will not read it, I will: General Laws made in Parliament, may upon known respects to the King, by his Authority, be mitigated, or suspended upon Causes only known to him. And altho' a King do frame all his Action to be according to the Laws, yet he is not bound thereto, but at his good Will, and for good Example: Or so far forth as the General Law of the Safety of the Common-Weal doth naturally bind him; for in such sort only, Positively Laws may be said to bind the King, not by being Positive, but as they are naturally the best, or only means for the preservation of the Commonwealth.  
So that if the King have this Prerogative of mitigating, interpreting, and suspending all Laws, in Cases only known to himself, and that he is not bound to the Laws but at his own good will, and for good example. I desire to know what greater Prerogative a King can desire, than to suspend the Execution of any Law, as often as he shall think fit. For tho' I grant the Suspension of a Law differs from the Abrogation of it, because the former only takes away the force of it in this or that particular case, whereas the latter wholly annuls the Law; yet if this Suspension be general, and in every case, where the Law is to take effect, it amounts to the same thing with an Abrogation of it; as may be plainly seen in the late King's Dispersing Power. For tho' it be true he pretended to no more, than to dispense with this, or that Person, who should undertake a public Employment, either Military, or Civil, without taking the Oaths, and T●st; yet since he granted this Dispensation generally to all Papists, and others, that would transgress this law, it amounted to the same thing during his pleasure, as an Absolute Abrogation of it. And therefore I do very much wonder why divers who are very zealous for the Church of England, and the King's Prerogative, should be so angry with him for erecting that Power, which not only this Author, but all others of his Principles have placed in him: And if the King may suspend this, and all other Laws, upon Causes only known to him, I do not see how he differs from being as Absolute and Arbitrary a Monarch, as the Great Turk himself, and may when he pleases, notwithstanding all Laws to the contrary, take away Men's Lives without any due Forms of Law, and raise Taxes without Consent of Parliament.  M. 
But pray read on a little farther, and you will find that he very much restrains this Absolute Power, in these words: By this mean, are all Kings, even Tyrants and Conquerors, bound to preserve the Laws, Goods, Liberties and Lives of all their Subjects, not by any Municipal Law of the Land, but by the Natural Law of a Father, which binds them to ratify the Acts of their Forefathers and Predecessors in things necessary for the public good of their Subjects.  F. 
Were I a Monarch limited by Laws, I would desire no greater a Power over them, than this you have here brought out of this Author. For he says▪ Positive Laws do not bind the King, but as they are the b●st or only means for the preservation of the Common Wealth. In the next place you see that all Kings are bound to preserve the Lives and Estates of their Subjects, not by any Municipal Law of the Land, but by the Natural Law of a Father, which binds them to ratify the Acts of their Predecessors in things necessary for the public good of their Subjects. Now this Paternal Power is large enough of all Conscience to discharge Princes from any Obligation to the Laws farther than they please. For it before appears that the Father of a Family governs by no other Law than 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 please: Nor can his Subjects, who are all one with Sons and Servants, have any reason to find fault with it For he says, There is no Nation that allows Children any Remedy for being unjustly Governed. And tho' it be true, that he restrains this Prerogative both in Fathers and Kings to the public good of their Children and Subjects; yet as long as he is left the sole and uncontrollable Judge of what is for the public good, all these fine Pretences will signify nothing. For he is bound to observe or ratify no Laws or Acts of his Predecessors, but what he is satisfied tend to this End: So that if he thinks fit to Judge, that Magna Charta, for example, for the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo, or any Liberty we enjoy, are not necessary, or contrary to the common good, he is not tied to observe them: And upon this Principle it was that the Judges in the Reign of King Charles the First founded the King's Prerogative for Ship money: For they supposed that the King in case of necessity (that is, for the public good of the Subjects) might lay a Tax upon the Kingdom, tho' without Consent of Parliament. So that upon this pretence▪ the King being the sole judge of the Necessity, he might quickly have raised what Taxes, and as often as he had pleased  
But, lest our Kings should think themselves too strictly bound by their Coronation Oaths, to observe the Laws, pray see in the next Paragraph, how this Author endeavours to help the King to creep out of that Obligation too. Therefore pray read on. Others there be that affirm, that altho' Laws of themselves do not bind Kings, yet the Oaths of Kings at their Coronations tie them, to keep all the Laws of their Kingdoms: How far this is true, let us but examine the Oaths of the Kings of England at their Coronation, the words whereof are these: Art thou pleased to cause to be administered in all thy Judgements indifferent, and upright Justice, and to use Discretion with Mercy, and Verity? Art thou pleased, that our upright Laws, and Customs be observed; and dost thou promise, that those shall be protected and maintained by thee? These two are the articles of the King's Oath, which concern the Laity, or Subjects in general; to which the King answers affirmatively; being first demanded by the Archbishop of Canterbury: Pleaseth it you to confirm, and observe the Laws, and Customs of Ancient Times granted from God, by just and devout Kings unto the English Nation, by Oath unto the said People, especially the Laws, Liberties and Customs granted unto the Clergy and Laity, by the Famous King Edward? We may observe in these words of the Articles of the Oath, that the King is required to observe, not all the Laws, but only the upright, and that with Discretion and Mercy. The word upright cannot mean all Laws, because in the Oath of Richard the Second, I find Evil, and Unjust Laws mentioned, which the King swears to abolish; and in the Old Abridgement of Statutes set forth in King Henry the Eighths' days▪ the King is to swear wholly to put out Evil Laws, which he cannot do, if he be bound to all Laws.  
Now what Laws are Upright, and what Evil, who shall judge but the King? since he swears to administer Upright justice with Discretion, and Mercy; (or as Bracton hath it) aequitatem praecipiat, & Misericordiam. So that in effect the King doth swear to keep no Laws but such as in his judgement are Upright, and those not literally always, but according to the Equity of his Conscience, joined with Mercy, which is properly the Office of a Chancellor rather than of a judge: And if a King did strictly swear to observe all the Laws he could not without Perjury give his Consent to the Repealing, or Abrogating of any Statute by Act of Parliament, which would be very mischievous to the State.  
But let it be supposed for truth, that Kings do swear to observe all the Laws of their Kingdoms; yet no man can think it reason, that Kings should be more bound by their voluntary Oaths, than common persons are by theirs. Now if a private person make a Contract, either with Oath, or without Oath, he is no farther bound than the Equity, and justice of the Contract ties him; for a Man may have Relief against an unreasonable, and unjust Promise, if either Deceit, or Error, Force, or Fear induced him thereunto; or if it be hurtfuls or grievous in the performance; since the Laws in many Cases give the King a Prerogative above common persons, I see no reason why he should be denied the Privilege which the meanest of his Subjects doth enjoy.  
I need not make any long Paraphrase upon these words; it is sufficient that the King is here left sole judge of what Laws are Upright, and what Unjust, and consequently what Laws he pleases shall be observed, and what not▪ So that no Laws, tho' thought never so just, and necessary by the Parliament at the time of making of them, shall signify any thing, if he thinks sit afterwards to judge otherwise. And lest this should not be sufficient, he hath found out another way whereby Princes may absolve themselves of this troublesome Obligation of Oaths; and therefore he would have them no more bound up than common persons, who because they may have Relief in Public Courts of Justice, against an unjust Promise, if either Error, Deceit, Force, or Fear, induced them thereunto; nay more, if it be hurtful or grievous in the performance, Kings who have a Prerogative above common persons, and who acknowledge no Tribunal above themselves, may absolve themselves of their Oaths whenever they think good; by saying it was extorted from them by Deceit Force, or Fear; or if they cannot satisfy themselves without it, they might have had formerly the Pope's Dispensation for Money, which we read King john, and Henry the Third obtained to be absolved of the Oaths they had taken to observe Magna Charta; but this Author hath found out a shorter cut, and hath made Kings both Judges, and Parties, and to absolve themselves by a Fundamental Right of Government. And what hath proved the Conclusion of such Princes who have taken this Author's Liberty of breaking their Coronation Oath at their pleasure? it hath only taught their Subjects to imitate their Example, and to make as light of their Oath of Allegiance.  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 honestly towards the Common weal, in all this, I pray see the 8th Section of this Chapter, where you'll find these words: Many will be ready to say, It is a slavish, and dangerous Condition to be subject to the Will of any one M●n, who is not subject to the Laws But such Men consider not, 1. That the Prerogative of a King is to be above all Laws, for the good only of them, who are under the Laws, and to defend the People's Liberties, as His Majesty graciously affirmed in his Speech after his last Answer to the Petition of Right; howsoever some are afraid of the name of Prerogative, yet they may assure themselves the Case of Subjects would be desperately miserable without it. So that you see here he asserts no Prerogative in the King to be above all Laws, but only for the good of the people, and to defend their Liberties, which I think is a sufficient restraint of Prerogative.  F. 
But read a little lower, and the People will have no such great cause to thank him, as you may see by these words: In all Aristocracies the Nobles are above the Laws; and in all Democracies the People. By the like reason in a Monarchy the King must of necessity be above the Laws; there can be no Sovereign Majesty in him that is under them. That which gives the very being to a King, is the Power to give Laws; without this Power he is but an Equivocal King.  
And most part of what follows in this Treatise is only to prove▪ that the Parliament, or Assembly of Estates was a Creature wholly of the King's Creation, and consequently that he alone makes the Laws in it. And he hath also written a whole Treatise called, The Freeholders' Grand Inquest, to prove that it is the King's Authority alone, that makes the Laws, and therefore that he can interpret, and dispense with them at his pleasure. So that Richard the Second, had this Author lived in his time, might have made him a Judge as we●l as Tre●illian and Belknap, since they all maintained the same Principles. But, lest we should mistake him, see what he says at the conclusion of this Treatise: For the confirmation of this Point, Aristotle saith, That a perfect Kingdom is that wherein the King Rules all things according to his own Will; for he that is called a King according to the Law, makes no kind of Kingdom at all. This it s●ems also the Romans well understood to be most necessary in a Monarchy; for 〈◊〉 th●y were a People most greedy of Liberty, yet the Senate did free Augustus from all necessary of Laws, that he might be free of his own Authority, and of absolute Po●●r over himself, and over the Laws to do what he pleased, and leave undone what he li●t, and this Decree was made while Augustus was yet absent. Accordingly we find that Ulpian the great Lawyer delivers it for a Rule of the Civil Law; Princeps Legibus solutus est▪ The Prince is not bound by the Laws.  
So that upon these Principles all Kings are not only discharged from the Penalty, but also the very Obligation of observing Laws farther than they shall think sit. And indeed this Author carries this Prerogative beyond what the most moderate Roman Emperors ever pretended to, as I can easily show you from your own Civil Law-Books; and therefore pray reach me down your Volume of the Code, and fee here what the Emperor declares on this matter de Testamentis. 
L. 3. Lib. 6. T. 23.  Ex imperfecto Testamento nec Imperatorem haereditatem vindicare posse, sape constitutum est, licet enim Lex Imperii Solennibus juris Imperatorem solverit; Nihil tamen tam proprium Imperii est, quam Legibus vivere. See likewise in the Theodosian Code, these words; Digna vox est Majestate Regnantis, 
C. de Legibus l. 4. Lib. 1. T. 14.  Legibus alligatum se Principis prositeri, aded de Authoritate juris, nosira pendet Authoritas, & re vera majus Imperio est submittere Legibus Principatum, & oraculo praesentis Edicti quod nobis licere non patimur, aliis indicamu●, (viz. Successor●bu● Theodosio & Valentino.)  
So that you may here see, that even the Roman Emperors were more modest than to declare themselves discharged by their Prerogative, or thought of any of these subtle distinctions of this Author from their obligation to the Laws, however they were from the Penalty; which is the true sense of this phrase of being Legibus solutus.  
But God be thanked, most of our own Kings have been more conscientious than to maintain that they were not bound by their Coronation Oath farther than they pleased. For you may see in the Preamble to the Statute of Provisours made in the 25th of Ed. 3d. 
Rastal, s. 99  where it is declared and acknowledged by the King himself, and both Houses of Parliament, that the Right of the Crown of England, and the Law of the Realm is such, that upon the Mischiefs and Damages which happen to the Realm, he ought, and was bound of his said People in his Parliament thereof to make Remedy, and Law, in voiding the Mischiefs which come thereof: And the King seeing the Mischiefs, and Damage aforesaid, and having regard to the said Statute (scil. the former Statute of Provisours) he here farther acknowledges, that he is bound by his Oath to do the same to be kept, as the Law of his Realm, tho' by sufferance and negligence it hath been hitherto attempted to the contrary.  
So likewise King Henry the fourth declares in full Parliament, (as appears by the Parliament Roll) that whereas the Commons in Parliament had granted, 
Rot. Parl. H. 4. n. 108. Act pour garder, les leys.  that the King should be in as great Liberty as any of his Noble Progenitors: on which our said Lord of his Royal Grace, and tender Conscience, hath granted in full Parliament; that it is not his intent, nor will he alter the Laws, Statutes, and good Usages, nor take any Advantages by the said Grant, but will keep the ancient Laws, and Statutes ordained, and used in the times of his Noble Progenitors, and do Right to all People in Mercy and Truth Selon● son Serment, i. e. according to his Coronation Oath.  M. 
I will not affirm, but Sir R F. observing how much the King's Prerogative was run down by the long Parliament and how the least Slips, and Miscarriages 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 best defence he could for such Miscarriages, and this Treatise of Patriarcha being a Posthumous piece, perhaps he would have altered many things in it, had he lived to publish it himself; but I doubt not, but he was a very honest Man, and meant well to the Kingdom for all that. And therefore I hope you will not be too rigorous in your Censure of him.  F. 
I'll assure you Sir, I shall not, because he hath been dead many years, and therefore I had much rather censure his Writings, than his Person, which I never knew. But, if I may Judge from his Works, he was certainly no Friend to Parliaments, or the Power of the Laws above the Prerogative: But that I may also show you how dangerous, and Derogatory his Opinions likewise are to the Titles of all Sovereign Princes, and Monarches, now in the World, however he may seem to write in their defence; pray turn to his Patr. Chap. 1. Par. 9 and to a Question, 〈◊〉 becomes of the Right of Fatherhood in case the Crown escheat for want of an H●ir; he thus replies, which pray read. It is but the Negligence, or Ignorance of the People to lose the Knowledge of the true Heir: For an Heir there always is; If Adam himself were still living, and now ready to die, it is certain there is o●● Man, and but one in the World, who is next. Heir, altho' the Knowledge who should be that one man be quite lost. The which he likewise repeats to the same Effect, in his Treatise of the Anarchy of a limited, or mixed Monarchy. Pray see the place, and read these words. It is a truth undeniable, 
Miscel. p. 273.  that there cannot be a Multitude of Men whatsoever, either great or small, tho' gathered together from the several Corners, and remotest Regions in the World; but that in the same Multitude considered by itself, there is one Man amongst them, that in Nature hath a Right to be the King of all the rest, as being the next Heir to Adam, and the other Subject unto him; every Man by Nature is a King, or a Subject. So that I think no Kings in the World being able to deduce their Pedigree from Adam (of whom there can be but one Right Heir) they all (or at least all but one) are only Kings de Facto, and not the jure, and Usurpers upon this Heir of Adam. So that, if God would but be pleased to reveal, who this next Heir is, all the Kings of the Earth were bound in Conscience to lay their Crowns at his Feet: tho' he were but a Cobbler, or a Linkboy. 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 effect, unless any Prince by virtue of this Title of Adam's Right Heir should pretend a Right to an Universal Monarchy, and then I think it were but reasonable, he should be put to make out his Title; but seeing no body doth so, to the best of my Knowledge, it is but reasonable that all Princes should in the mean time enjoy what they are in lawful Possession of, till this Heir of Noah hath made out his Title, and then they may consider farther of it.  F. 
And it is very well, that this Right Heir is not to be found, for if he were, all Princes would be Usurpers, who did not immediately resign to him. But this Doctrine is of more fatal consequence than you imagine: For it doth not only concern Princes in respect of Adam's Right Heir only, but also of any other Right Heirs to Princes, who have lost their Right to a Crown, never so many Ages ago: For look into his Directions for Obedience in doubtful times, and read this Passage: By humane Positive Laws, a Possession time out of Mind takes away, or Bars a former Right, to avoid a general Mischief of bringing all Right into a Disputation not decideable by proof, and consequently to the overthrow of all Civil Government in Grants, Gifts, and Contracts between Man and Man; but in Grants, and Gifts that have their Original from God, or Nature (as the Power of a Father hath) no Inferior Power of Man can limit, nor make any Law of Prescription against them. Upon this ground is built that Nullum tempus occurrit Regi, no time Barrs a King. And a little before, he gives us this reason of it. For tho' by humane Laws a long Prescription may take away Right; yet a Divine Right never dies, nor can be lost or taken away. By which Principle, he renders the Titles of most (if not all) of the Princes of Europe at this day very weak and disputable; whenever any other Person shall set up a Title against them.  M. 
But Sir R. F. hath found a very good Expedient for this, for he tells us, in the last cited Discourse that the Paternal Power cannot be lost, tho' it may either be transferred, or usurped; and in his Anarchy of a limited Monarchy, 
pag. 273.  he thus more at large expresses it. Many times by the Act either of an Usurper himself, or of those that set him up, the true Heir of a Crown is dispossessed, God using the Ministry of the wickedest Man for the removing, and setting up of Kings, in such Cases, the Subjects Obedience to the Fatherly Power must go along, and wait upon God's Providence, who only hath right to give and take away Kingdoms, and thereby to adopt Subjects into the Obedience of another Fatherly Power. And Lastly in his Discourse of Obedience, etc. he more clearly f●●tleth this Point in answer to an Objection there made, that most Kings now in the World have no other Titles to their Crowns but Conquest, or Usurpation; he replieth, That tho' all Kings were Usurpers, yet still the first Usurper hath the best Tale, being in Possession by the Permission of God; and where an Usurper hath continued so long, that the Knowledge of the Right Heir is lost by the Subjects; in such case the Usurper in Possession is to be taken and reputed by such Subjects for the true Heir, and is to be obeyed by them as their Father. And I think you yourself will not deny, but that Kingdoms may be transferred from one Prince to another by Conquest, or a long Usurpation; and that when there is no other, better Title extant, the King in Possession, or his Heirs may have a good Title by a long Possession, tho' it began by Usurpation at first.  F. 
I have not now time to answer all that your Author hath as falsely, as incoherently said concerning this Subject of Usurpation; and I should be glad to hear you, or any man else that will undertake to defend him, make him consistent, not only with reason, but with himself in this Discourse you quote, concerning Obedience to Government in doubtful times. For to pass by his unintelligible Notion of supposing two supreme Paternal Powers subsisting at once, and each of them laying claim to the Obedience, and Submission of the Subjects, the former that of the Usurper, Who being in Possession of the Crown by the permissive Will of God, who hath thought fit to adopt the Subjects into a Fatherly Power, and the latter, that Paternal Right which he supposes still to remain in the expulsed Prince, and his Heirs for ever. By which means the Allegiance of the Subjects is so divided and perplexed, that they can never be able to tell, when the Allegiance to the Right Heir is to take place before that of the Usurper.  M. 
But if you had been pleased better to observe this Discourse, you would find that Sir R. F. hath very well obviated this Objection, as appears by these Words. 
Ib. p. 68  The Right of Fatherly Government was ordained by God for the Preservation of Mankind; if it be usurped, the Usurper may be so far obeyed as may tend to the Preservation of the Subjects, who may thereby be enabled to perform their Duty, to the true and right Sovereign when time shall serve, in such cases to obey an Usurper is properly to obey the first and Right Governor, who must be presumed to desire the safety of his Subjects. The Command of an Usurper is not to be obeyed in any thing tending to the Destruction of the Governor, whose Being in the first place is to be looked after.  F. 
This is I confess a very pretty distinction to make the Usurper, who governs, whether the right Heir will or no, yet to do it by his Consent, and that the Subjects when they Act thus do but still obey their rightful Governor, which supposition would be contradictory to what your Author hath already laid down of the Subjects being adopted into the Obedience of another ●atherly. Power by the Usurpation; for if it be as he now makes it, they still remain under the Paternal Power of the former Prince and the Usurper governs only as his Deputy w●ich is a very choice refined Notion: By which all men had been obliged in Conscience to yield as full an Obedience to Cr●mwell and the Rump in all things that did not tend to the Destruction of ●he 〈◊〉 King's Person, as to him himself, which I suppose you high Royalists will by no means admit of.  
But this is not the main matter, that I have to except against, for if the Principles I have read out of that Treatise be true, That the Right of a Lawful Monarch, and his Right Heirs is a Divine Right, and that no length of time or Prescription can bar it, because a Divine Right never dies, can be lost, or taken away; till the Knowledge of the Right Heir be lost by all the Subjects; and till when Usurpers and their Heirs can never acquire an absolute, and indefeasible Right in the Kingdoms they possess; it will certainly follow that the Title that most Princes of Christen●om have to their Crowns, will be hereby rendered disputable, and uncertain, for since this Author acknowledges, that the Titles of most Kings at this day begun by unjust Conquests or Usurpations at first: The Right Heirs of many of which expulsed or deposed Princes are still, or wore lately in being, they might upon this pretence make War upon the Prince in Possession, and his Heirs, to the World's end; and tho' I grant, he says, that an Usurper is to be fully obeyed when the Knowledge of the Right Heir is lost by all the Subjects, it is extremely uncertain, and doubtful, what he means by it: For if he means a personal Knowledge, few ordinary Subjects, but those that have personally known all the Royal Family, can thus know who was the Right Heir; and so consequently, as soon as ever his Father, or Ancestor that held the Throne, is turned out, or dead, few private Subjects can have any personal knowledge of this Heir. But if he means a Moral, or Traditional Knowledge, such as is conveyed down to Posterity by History, Authentic Records, or Genealogies; I know not how such a knowledge can ever be said to be lost, as long as such Histories or Memorials remain in being: And that this is so, is apparent, many Princes in Europe having upon this ground better Right to the Crowns of some Neighbouring Kingdoms, than those that wear them: And we know that by virtue of such an old Title from Charles the Great, the King of France looks upon himself to have a good Title to Alsatia, Flanders, and all the Low Countries, and as much of Germany as he can get: So that I will leave it to yourself to judge whether these Principles do not only render the Titles of most Princes doubtful, and uncertain, but the Subjects Allegiance too.  M. 
I cannot deny but Sir R. F. may have carried this Point of Obedience, and Submission to Usurpers, and of a concurrent Right in the Lawful Monarch, and his Heirs, a little too far. For I think it were much better to suppose with Grotius, and other Writers, that after the third Generation, or Succession of the Crown in the Family of the Usurper, they may have a good and perfect Title to their Crowns against the Right Heirs of the Lawful Monarch;) and this I take to be highly reasonable for the Peace, and Welfare of Mankind (than that they should not be always divided in their Allegiance between two opposite Princes; but till then I suppose the Subjects are bound to assist, and stand for the Lawful Heir, and his Posterity, as far as is possible, without their own apparent Destruction.  F. 
I confess this supposition is much more reasonable, than the former, but I should be glad to know by what Law of God, or Nature, the peaceable possession of a Crown by an Usurper, and his Heirs, just for three Generations, or Successions, should give a Prince a better Title than Three, or Four years' Possession; for God may have declared his Will as sufficiently in that time, as in three or four hundred: And if your reason be good, that it is for the Peace, and Safety of Mankind, that the Title of the Right Heir, should be lost, and extinct after such a time; I cannot see why it should not be more for the Good of Mankind, that their Allegiance should be settled, and ascertained in a far less space, that is, as soon as the Conqueror, or Usurper is quietly settled in the Throne, and hath received the Consent or Submission of all the Subjects. But I do not desire at present to enter any farther into this knotty Dispute, about Conquest, or Usurpations, but I rather desire to refer it to our next meeting.  M. 
Well, since you will have it so, I yield to it, but in the mean time, I cannot but smile at your great partiality to the People, who upon your Principles, if they have but once given their Consent to the Usurper, he shall presently have as good a Title as the most Rightful Monarch in the World: So that Cromwell having had this Consent of the People in his Mock-Parliament, had as good a Title as King Charles II. So that notwithstanding whatever you may pretend to the contrary, you are no such Enemy to Usurpers, as you would make yourself: But however, you have no reason in the World (even by your own Principles) to except against this Author's Hypothesis of transferring the Subjects Allegiance by a Conquest, or Usurpation.  F. 
I do not deny what you say, but then the Conquest must be in a Just, or Lawful War, or else if the Great Turk, or French King, should without any provocation given, make War upon, and Conquer this Kingdom, and use the People with the highest Tyranny, and Cruelty, they must be all bound, in Conscience, not only to become, but continue absolute Subjects, nay Slaves to such a Conqueror, without any Resistance. But let the Power of Usurpers, or Conquerors, be what it will, I am sure it cannot be that of Paternal Authority, for the reasons already given, nor can it be the Usurpation, or Acquisition of the Power of a Master of a Family, for then the Subjects not being the Children of the Conqueror, or Usurper, must be all Slaves instead of Subjects: So that I must again tell you, that it is from your want of distinguishing between Paternal, Masterly, and Rega● Authority, which hath led you into all these mistakes in this matter: For the Relations of a Father, a Master, and a King, are all really distinct, and different, so that one of them is not the other, as any Man may easily perceive that doth but hear the three names pronounced to him, and consider their signification: And therefore quitting this Subject for the present, if you have any better Arguments to prove your Divine Institution of Monarchy, pray produce them, for it grows late.  M. 
I shall readily obey your Commands, but pray Sir, in the mean time remember, that we reassume this Question the next time we meet. But to come to the matter in hand, I think there are yet some material Arguments behind, to prove Monarchical Government of Divine Institution. For in the first place you may please to remember, that you yourself have acknowledged, that all Civil Government proceeds from God. Secondly, You have likewise admitted, that the Government of Fathers, or Heads of Families, was the first and most Ancient Government of any in the World after the Fall; when some Government became necessary for the punishment of offences, and the restraining of the inordinate Appetites, and Passions of Mankind. And lastly, That this Government having absolute Power of Life, and Death, in some cases over the Wife, Children and Servants of the Family; and that if this Power is conferred upon them by God (which you likewise granted) and doth not depend upon the consent, or compact of the Wife, Children, and Servants: If these things were so, I leave it to yourself to consider, from the Premises, whether this Power in Heads, or Fathers of Families (call them which you please) is not a Monarchical Power, or the Government of one Man, and that ordained by God; and that this was the only Government in the World, before the Institution of Commonwealths, you yourself cannot deny.  F. 
I shall show you plainly, that you would impose a Fallacy either upon yourself, or me in this Argument, and such a one which I have likewise already answered at our last meeting. For I then told you, that the Government of such Heads or Fathers of Families, was only an Oeconomical, and not a Civil Power; and this I proved by divers Arguments against what you then argued to the contrary; and therefore I think I may yet safely affirm, that Kingly, or Monarchical Power, cannot be proved to be of Divine Institution, by this Argument: And I have a greater Man than Sir R. F. viz. the Judicious Mr. Hooker on my side, who makes a plain distinction between such a Head, or Master of a Family, and a King, as appears by these words in his Ecclesiastical Policy, which I desire you would read with me; It is no improbable Opinion therefore, 
Hooker's Eccl. Pol. lib. 1. § 10.  which the Arch-Philosopher was of, That the Chief person in every Household was always as it were a King; so when numbers of Households joined themselves in Civil Societies together, Kings were the first kind of Governors amongst them; which is also as it seems the reason why the name of Fathers continued still in them, who of Fathers were made Rulers; as also the Ancient Customs of Governors to do as Melchisedeck, as being Kings to exercise the Office of Priests, (which Fathers did at the first) gr●w, perhaps by the same occasion. Howbeit this is not the only kind of Regiment, that hath been received in the World; the inconveniences of one kind have caused sundry others to be divised. So that in a word all Civil Regiment, of what kind soever, seems evidently to have risen from the deliberate Advice, Consultation, and Composition, between Men judging it convenient, and helpful, there being no impossibility in Nature considered by itself, but that Man might have lived without any Public Regiment. So that you may see, that though he places the Original of all Governments in the Heads, or Fathers of Families (which Opinion I shall not oppose;) yet it is plain▪ that he makes a clear distinction between Oeconomical Government, and that Politic or Civil Power which arises from Compact between Men. So that this will not serve the purpose you bring it for. You may now proceed to what other Arguments, and Instances you please; but pray do not make use any more of the Examples of the Patriarches either before, or after the Flood; since they are either altogether uncertain, or else as to those after the Flood▪ I have proved them to have been not Kings, but only Masters of separate Families. And you may likewise omit Moses, joshuah, and the Judges, as Instances of Monarchical Power by Divine Institution; since I have so lately proved their Authority, not to have been at all Absolute, or Regal.  M. 
I shall not any longer insist upon them, since you will not admit of those Instances, tho' I think there may be a great deal of weight in them. But this much I suppose you cannot deny, as well from the Testimony of Sacred, as Profane History, that Monarchy is the first and most ancient Government in the World, as appears by those remains we have left concerning the Egyptian, and Assyrian Monarchies. And as for the Government of Gods own People the Jews, he was pleased to be King over them himself, tho' to Govern by his Viceroys, till such time as he was pleased to make Saul, and David Kings over them. Now what can be a greater argument than this for the Divine Institution of Monarchical Government.  F. 
I suppose you will not urge the Antiquity of a Government to be a mark of its Divine Institution; it may indeed be an argument to prove that Monarchy was the most Natural Government, because the most simple, and easy for Men to light on; and so no doubt it was, in the first Ages of the World, before Ambition, Avarice, and Luxury had debauched the Minds of Monarches, the best sort of Government. And so on the other side, there is this to be objected against it, that the setting up of so many Commonwealths upon the Ruins of Monarchies, showed that Men found great Mischiefs, and Inconveniences in that sort of Government when once it grew Tyrannical, or else they had never departed from it. And this made them, as Brutus said, at the beginning of the Roman Commonwealth, to invent other sorts of Government which might partake of all the Benefits without the Inconveniences of Absolute Monarchy.  
But as for your Instance of God's being himself King over the People of Israel, this touches not the Question in hand, since that being a Theocratical, and not a Civil Commonwealth, could concern no other Nation but themselves. And as for your other Instance of God's making Saul King, I hope you will not bring that for an Argument of his Approbation, which it appears he was so angry with the Israelites for desiring. And though it is true, he did, at their Request, make them a King; yet it is apparent, God would have been much better pleased, had they still continued without one. So that I think there can no Conclusive Argument be drawn from any Examples in the Old Testament, to prove Monarchical Government to be of Divine Institution.  M. 
Well; However slight you make of my Authorities out of the Old Testament; yet I hope I shall be able to show more cogent ones out of the New, to prove, that Monarchy is the only Power Instituted; or so much as taken Notice of by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles. And therefore when he would Command the Pharisees to yield Obedience to the Supreme Power then in Being, He bids them, upon their showing him a Piece of Money, To render to Caesar the things that are Caesar ' s. Not taking any notice of the Senate, 
Matt. 22.21. F. P. O.  or People, whose Authority these Caesars had Usurped. And if St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, had only said, Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers, and said no more; then Men might indeed have disputed, 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 Doctrine of Obedience to be given by all Men to the Higher Powers, he proceeds next to charge it home upon each particular Man's Conscience, under pain of Damnation, saying, Wilt thou not be afraid of the Power? which Power he expounds in the Singular number, restraining it to one Person; He is the Minister of God to thee, etc. It is not, They are the Ministers: And then again▪ He beareth not the Sword in vain; And a third time, in the same Verse, lest we should forget it, he says, for he is the Minister of God, etc. So St. Peter also doth the like; for the selfsame word that St. Paul useth for higher, in St. Peter is Translated Supreme: So that though in our English Bibles the words differ, yet in the Original they are both the same; And St. Paul might have been Englished, Let every Soul be subject to the Supreme Powers; or St. Paul might have been also Translated, whether to the King as to the Higher. Yet there is this difference; That whereas St. Paul useth the word in the Plural number, St. Peter hath it in the Singular, and with Application to the King only, without taking any notice of any Governors but Kings, and those sent by them. And it is farther to be noted, that St. Peter and St. Paul Wrote their Epistles at a time when the Roman Senate had some share in the Government; and that it was (in appearance at least) a Commonwealth. So that some Authors suppose, that notwithstanding the Emperors, by strong hand, had Usurped a Military Power, yet a great share of the Government was, for a long time, nay even then in the Senate and People. But for all this, neither of the two Apostles take any Notice of any such Popular Government. No nor our Saviour himself, who divideth all between God and Caesar, and allows nothing, that we can find, for the People, or Commonwealth.  F. 
I think your Quotations out of the New Testament will prove of no more weight than those from the Old, and that they will not make out Monarchy to be of Divine Institution, any more than the former. For our Saviour's Answer to the jews signifieth no more, than that Tribute, and all Lawful Dues were to be paid to Caesar, as the Supreme Power then in being; to Answer those jews, who doubted, whether any Obedience were to be given to a Foreign Prince of another Religion than their own. The like Answer may be given to what St. Paul says in the Romans Let every Soul be subject to the Highest Power; which was chiefly directed to the Newly-converted jews, who might doubt as well as their Countrymen in judea, whether they were bound in Conscience to be subject to Heathen Magistrates; As also against the Sect of the Gnostics (than newly sprung up) who, though they called themselves Christians, yet looked upon themselves to be thereby discharged from all Subjection or Obedience to Civil Powers; being those whom St. jude expressly speaks against, 
jude 8.  Who despise Dominion, and speak evil of Dignities. And therefore when St. Paul speaks of such Higher Powers, it is not in the Plural, but Singular Number; Terming him, the Minister of God; because, that at that time, there was no such thing as a Common wealth (as he knew of in the World) the two greatest Empires, the Roman, and the Parthian, being then Governed by Monarches. The like I may say to that other Text you have quoted out of St. Peter; which may very well be reconciled with that place of St. Paul, though the one called the Higher Powers, the Powers ordained of God; and the other calls them, an Humane Ordinance, or Creature (as it is in the Original) since they certainly derive their Authority from God, though by the Mediation, or Consent of Men.  
And I believe you will prove mistaken, in affirming, that the Senate, or People had any Power when St. Peter and St. Paul Wrote these Epistles. For it plainly appears that whether these Epistles were Written in the Reigns of Claudius or Nero the Government was then wholly in the Roman Emperors; For though I grant, that during the time of Augustus, the Senate had some shadow of Power, and that divers Provinces were under their Government; yet by that time Tiberius 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, mere Ministers of his Tyranny, and obliged to verify all his Edicts; and the Compliance and Flattery of these Senators was so servile, that they passed whatsoever Decrees he sent them, without the least Hesitation; till it became so fulsome even to himself, that it made him cry out, O Gens in servitute●● natapunc; So that all you have said on this Subject, signifies no more, than that our Saviour and his Apostles did not come into the World to dissolve, or alter the Civil Governments, or the Policies of Kingdoms, but to Command Obedience to them▪ as they found them settled in the World, as the Moderate Mela●cthon very well observes, Christus non venit mutaré Politias.  
And I doubt not, but if our blessed Saviour had thought sit to come into the World about half an Age sooner, and to have been Born, and Preached the Gospel in the time of the Roman Commonwealth, but he would have commanded the jews to have paid Tribute to the Senate, and People of Rome, as well as he did to Caesar. And S. Peter would have enjoined all Subjection, and Obedience to be given them; and might have said with greater Reason of them, than of those Subordinate Magistrates they sent to Govern their Provinces, that they were the Ministers of God▪ And if your Arguments for the Divine Right of Kings be true, it would be no Rebellion at this day for Subjects to rise up, and destroy the Supreme Powers in all Commonwealths, because they are not Monarchical; And consequently those in Relation to whom God hath left us no Rules of Obedience. Which Doctrine, if any Man 〈◊〉 offer to Preach in the Territories of Venic●, or Holland; I think, in the 〈◊〉 the Preacher might very deservedly be sent to the Galleys: and, in the lat●●r, they would, at least, send him a pair of Shoes. But if you have any thing farther to urge for the jure Divinoship of Monarchy, pray will you let me hear it, for I am weary with Answering such Trifles.  M. 
I confess I have not much to object against what you have now replied 〈◊〉 therefore I shall insist no farther upon it; only thus much I am satisfied of; That God, by his own Example, as well as Institution among the jews, seems more particularly to have approved of Kingly Government (and that absolute too) than any other; not that I will condemn all Common wealths, as unlawful but that as being Sovereign Powers, they may be also Ordained of God.  
But I have another Objection to make against your Hypothesis, and that is, you have in your former Conversation supposed a Natural Property in things, Precedent to Civil Government, which can scarce be understood. For by what Rig●t can any Man lay claim to any Property, but by the Laws of the Government in which he lives? 
S. P. P.  And how can there be any such Laws before there was some Supreme Legislator to make them? So that the only way (I know of) to solve this difficulty, is to suppose. That the Sole Dominion of things was in Noah after the Flood; And that whatsoever Property, in any thing, his Posterity possessed in Several, they enjoyed it by his Grant and Allotment; and, in virtue thereof, Transmitted the same to their Posterity, without waiting for the Election, or Consent of the People, or entering into any Articles of Capitulation with them, whom they were to Govern; as you suppose was necessary for the Institution of Civil Government. And the Texts, in the Tenth of Genesis, 
Vers. 5.32.  seem to import as much. By these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands, every one after his Tongue, after their F●●ilies in their Nations. T●ese 〈◊〉 the Families of the Sons of Noah, 
Vers. 32.  after their Generations in th●ir Nations; and by these were the Nations divided in the Earth after the Flood. That is, not only the Nations themselves, but the Isles or Countries of the Earth were divided by these Patriarches, amongst their Posterities, into particular States and Territories.  
And so likewise in all the Absolute Monarchies in the World; all the Property that Men enjoy either in Goods or Lands, is either Actually in the Prince, or else was at first derived from him; though I do not deny, but when such a distinct Propriety in Goods, or Lands, is once Instituted by the Monarch in any Kingdom, that he cannot again alter it, or take it away without manifest Violence and Injustice.  
And hence it is that our Common Lawyers maintain, That all the Lands in England are held of the King, either mediately, or immediately. For upon the Conquest by William the Conqueror, all men's Estates were thereby Vested in him: So that there is no way so natural, and easy to solve all those Difficulties that do arise concerning the Original of Civil Government and Property, than to make them begin together in the Persons of Adam, and Noah, and thence derived to all their Posterity. So that whatsoever absolute Dominion Princes or States have claimed in those Countries, and Places which they have either seized upon themselves, as the first Occupants, or else have Conquered from others, they enjoyed them merely as they represented Adam or Noah, the First Monarches of the World. Nor can we other way avoid these several other intolerable Inconveniences, and Absurdities that will follow from supposing an Original Community of things, or that every Man at first might take what quantity of Land he pleased, without the Authority or Assignment of any Supreme Power.  
As to what you say, concerning God's approving Monarchy above all other Governments, by his Instituting it among the jews; that way of Arguing is very uncertain and fallacious; since one may, by the same reason argue, That the Ceremonial part of the Mosaical Law was the best that God could have contrived, because he was pleased to prescribe it to the jews, during the time they should be under the Government of it: no doubt God prescribed them such a Government both in Church and State, as he thought fit for their present occasion, and Inclinations; but whether that were the best, or of perpetual Institution, is no where said. But as for the other part of your Argument;  F. 
I thought you had been very well satisfied by what I said at our first Meeting, That neither Adam, nor Noah, had by Grant or Donation from God, a Sole right to the Earth and all things therein. But since you are not yet satisfied with what I there said, I shall Answer this Objection more particularly, and I doubt not but I shall make it so plain to you, that you yourself shall confess, That there is no such great Mystery, or Difficulty in the Tracing of Property, as also Civil Government to their first Origina's, without supposing any such Absolute Dominion, or Property in Adam and Noah, or in any other Supreme Power, as their Successors. I shall therefore first of all remove the main Obstacle you have laid in the way, and show you, that the places of Scripture you have cited to this purpose, do not prove the thing you intent them for: I did before show 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 Assignment; nor that any of Noah's Sons, when separated from their Father's Family, could have any Property in any thing but by their Father's Donation; Scripture and Ancient History being altogether silent in these matters. And therefore you are fain to lay hold of the first place of Scripture that you think might serve your turn, which will not do the Business neither.  
For supposing I should grant you, that in the Dispersion, or Division, that was made of Mankind after the Flood, over a great part of the World, the People that then followed their Ancestors, or Leaders, after this Dispersion (though the Text doth not mention any such thing) followed them as Princes or Monarches. Yet this will not prove what you would have, That these Fathers of Nations made this Division of the Earth, in Right of that Dominion, which God conferred at first on Adam and Noah. Since (as I have already proved) if this Division had been made in Right of the Dominion that descended upon Noah, it ought to have been performed by the Authority of only one Man, and him the Eldest Descendant of the Eldest Son of Noah: And I have also sufficiently showed you the absurdity of this Fancy of such a Divine Right. And besides, it plainly contradicts its self; for either this Division you talk of, was made in the days of Noah, or it was not; if the latter, than it is apparent, that from the time of Noah to that of Heber, there was a Community of things, and Properties; though you have asserted the contrary: If the former, and that the Earth was divided before, Then to what purpose was this Division in the days of Peleg▪ And though I grant, that about that time, every Language, or Nation, might, under the Conduct of their Prince, or Leader, seize upon some Territory, or Island, sufficient for them to Inhabit in; Yet doth not the Text tell us, whether the Country they lived in was by them divided into particular shares, or whether they made use of it in common, as the Indians of America do at this day, where the Quantity of Land doth far exceed that of the Inhabitants that live in it.  
Nor last, Supposing that a Division was made of these Countries, they then inhabited, doth it tell us, whether it was done by the Sole Authority of their Prince, or Leader, claiming as his own the whole Dominion of it; so that no Man could have Right to a foot of Ground in it, but himself; or whether this Division was made by the Joint Consent and Agreement of all the rest of the Heads of Families, and other Freemen that went along with him. The Scripture is silent in these Circumstances, that only telling us that the Great Grandsons of Noah mentioned, Gen. 10. The Isles of the Gentiles were divided in their Lands, every one after his Tongue, after their Families in their Nations. And that this Division was in the days of Peleg, but no where declares whether every particular Region, or Country was then divided into distinct Shires, or not.  
And as for what you say, that all Princes and Conquerors of Territories, and Countries, have the like Absolute 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, since I have already proved, and I think you must grant, that no Monarch at this day can claim his Crown as the Right Heir of Adam, or Noah, or as their Representatives, and it will, I think, be much harder to prove, that the Sole Property of an acquired Country, or Kingdom, must be in them by virtue of any such Right: But as for your Instance of William the Conqueror's having a Right to all the Lands in England by Conquest; since it requires somewhat a longer Answer, than the time will now afford, I shall refer speaking farther of it, till another opportunity: But pray Sir, at present, make me see a little plainer what those Inconveniences, and Absurdities are, that will follow from my Hypothesis, that God at first gave the World, and all Creatures therein to Mankind, to be used and enjoyed in common if they thought fit.  M. 
I shall show you some farther Absurdities that will follow from it, than I have done already; For tho' Grotius and Selden indeed maintain, that a Community of things was by the Law of Nature, 
F. O. G. p. 48.  of which God is the Author, and yet that such a Community should not be able to continue, seems to derogated from the Providence of God, to ordain a Community of things, which could not continue. And it seems also an Act of high presumption in the Descendants of Noah, to abrogate the Natural Law of Community by introducing that of a Propriety in things.  F. 
I pray give me leave to interrupt you, that you may not run on in a mistake; for let Grotius, or Selden assert what they please, I am not tied to submit to it; and therefore when I say, that God gave the World, and all the Creatures therein to Men to be used in common if they please, I thereby understood, that God hath by the Laws of Nature commanded nothing in this matter, but hath left the Earth, and all things therein, to be used in common, or in several, as may best consist with the Convenience, Necessity, or Customs and Laws of each particular Nation, or Commonwealth, who God designs should live peaceably together, and make the best use of the Country where they inhabit, and the things therein contained, for their own common maintenance, and safety; according to the expression of the Royal Psalmist; But the Earth hath God given to the Children of Men, i. e. all the Descendants of Adam.  M. 
Well, suppose it were so, the prime Duties of the Second Table are chiefly conversant about this Right of Propriety, but if this Propriety were introduced by Human Laws, 
Ib.  or Agreements, as Grotius, and you yourself suppose, than both the Moral, and Divine Law would depend upon the Will of Men, so that there could be no Law of Nature against Adultery, or Theft, if Women, and all things else had been in common.  F. 
This Objection wholly proceeds from your not having any distinct, or true Notions of the Nature and true Original of Propriety; and therefore if you please to hear my Account of it, I hope you will grant (when I have done) that your Objection against the Community or things, will be to no purpose; I do therefore in the first place distinguish between a Natural and a Civil Propriety: By the former M●n might be guilty of The●t, before Civil Propriety was instituted; But as for Adultery▪ that was always unlawful both by the Laws of God, and Nature, which abhors Community of Women, and Promiscuous Copulations; and God hath particularly, ordained that the Man and his Wife should be one Hesh, and no Man that maintains a Natural Community of things, ever supposed that Women were amongst those things that were to be in common, or that a Man had the same kind of Propriety in his Wife, as in his Horse, so that the Command against Adultery might very well consist with the Community of things.  M. 
Suppose I grant this, I do not understand how there can be a Natural Propriety, and yet a Community in things as you suppose.  F. 
I wonder you should not be able to apprehend this, and have been so often at an Ordinary, and a Playhouse▪ 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 rest. And at 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 himself in it, or sent some body to keep it for him.  M. 
I do apprehend what you mean, but pray explain to me the manner of this Natural Propriety, ● little more at large.  F. 
I would readily do it, since if that were well done, I grant it would be a great step to the clearing of the Original, and Nature of all Civil Power. I would readily do it, were it not now too late to enter upon so long a Subject, and therefore I think we may both be sufficiently 〈◊〉 with Talk, so as to put it off until another opportunity, when I shall give you my thoughts of the 〈◊〉 Original of Civil Government, in what sense it proceeds from God, and yet how far the Consentus the People is necessary to make it obligatory on the Consciences of the Subjects; which when it is once well settled, I hope there will be little need of disputing farther whether this great Alteration hath been brought about by Lawful means or not.  M. 
I thank you for the pains you have taken to inform my understanding in this matter: And therefore since 'tis now very late, I desire we may Adjourn our conversation to another time: And then I desire that you would prepare yourself to discourse with me of the second important Question▪ we agreed on, viz. the irresistibility if all Supreme Powers by their Subjects, not only because Resistance in any case whatsoever 〈◊〉 inconsistent with Supreme Power, and destructive to the Peace of Civil Society, but chiefly as they derive their Authority immediately from God, and are only to render an Account to him of their Actions.  F. 
I will not deny but what you have said is true in some sense, That all Sovereign Power is derived from God, and is also as such irresistible by Subjects. But to affirm generally and absolutely (as most of your Opinion do) that all Commands and Acts of Men endued with this Supreme Authority, whether good, or bad, lawful or unlawful, are part of that Authority derived from God, and therefore irresistible in any cas●, or upon any necessity whatsoever, is so dangerous a Proposition, that I know none that hath contributed more to the encouragement of the R●ng and the Popish Faction we favoured, to make all those Breaches upon our Laws▪ Religion and Liberties which we have suffered since the beginning of his Reign.  M. 
I am so well pleased with the Freeness▪ and Ingenuity of your Conversation, that I desire nothing more than to discuss this important Question with you at our next meeting: But I beg your pardon, if being taken up by Come Business to morrow▪ I adjourn our next meeting to the Day after, when, if you please to come at the same hour at you did to night, you shall here find me ready to wait on you. In the mean time I must bid you good night.  F. 
Your Servant Sir, I wish you heartily good night, I will not fail to meet you at the time appointed.  
FINIS.   

Bibliotheca Politica: Or a DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE, WHETHER Resistances, of the SUPREME POWER by a whole Nation, Or People, in cases of the last Extremity can be Justified by the Law of Nature, or Rules of the Gospel.  
Collected out of the most Approved Authors, both Ancient and Modern.  
Dialogue the Third.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, near the Oxford-Arms; where also may be had the First and Second Dialogues. 1692.   

The Subject of the Third Dialogue.  
Author's whose Words, or Sense, are made use of in this Discourse, and how denoted in the Margin.  

1. Dr. Hicks' jovian, or Answer to julian H. I.  
2. Mr. Bohuns defence of Sr. R. Filmer. B. D. F.  
3. Two Treatises of Government. T. T. G.  
4. A Pamphlet, Entitled, Vindiciae juris Regii. V. I. R.  
5. Dr. sherlock's Case of Resistance. S. C. R.  
6. Plato, Redivivus. P.R.  
7. Mr. L'Estrange's Observator. L. O.    

Advertisement to the READER.  
THE Author in relation to this, as well as the subsequent Dialogue, desires you to be so Candid as to believe, that tho' under the Name, of Freeman, he hath argued against an Opinion, now, or lately much in vogue, viz. That an absolute Irresistibility, is an insepable Prerogative of all Sovereign Powers, as well Monarchies, as Commonwealths. Yet no man more abhors all unnecessary Resistance, or Rebellion against Supreme Civil Magistrates, and is more for an Absolute Submission by all particular Persons, whether Private, or Public in case of the highest Injuries and Oppressions done to themselves alone, and where the Common Good of the Community is not immediately concerned, than himself: And this he owns to be their duty, not only out of a generous regard to the Peace, & Tranquillity of the Commonwealth, whereof they are Members, (& which ought not to be disturbed to revenge, or redress a few Private Injuries,) but also from the express Command of Gods Will Revealed in the Holy SS. expressly forbidding, not only all Revenge, but self-defence too, whilst the Supreme Powers act legally, tho' perhaps contrary to the Strict Rules of Justice, and Equity, in such Particular cases. Yet for all this, the Author must still declare, he doubts whether those Precepts do extend to all Resistance whatever, viz of any whole Nation, or great Body of Men, whose Preservation or Freedom from an intolerable slavery, and Oppression may render it necessary for the good of the Common Wealth, and is no other way to be procured but by a Vigorous Resistance, or else joining with some powerful Neighbour Prince, or State, who shall interpose for their deliverance; So that if such a Resistance be ever Lawful, it can be upon no less momentous an● account, than that of a General Invasion, either of the Lives, Liberties, Religion, or Properties of a whole, or major part of a Nation, as they are established by the Law of Nature, or the Fundamental Constitutions, and municpial Laws of those particular Kingdoms, and Commonwealths, where such an Insupportable Tyranny and Oppressions are then exercised: And if this be not Lawful in such extraordinary cases, it would seem as if God had preferred the unjust Power, or Force, and the outward Grandeur of the Governors before the good and Happiness of the Governed, which is contrary to the main ends of all Civil Government, viz. the common good & Happiness of Mankind, even as those who are most against all Resistance whatever must allow.  
But whether such Resistance be not in these Cases a Lawful (nay only means) for the safeguard; and deliverance of such assaulted, or Oppressed Nations, the Author leaves it to the judgement of the Impartial Reader to determine, upon the perusal of this, and the subsequent Discourse (since all that could be urged on both sides in this important Question, could not be comprised, within the limits of one Evenings conversation which the Author had prescribed to himself) yet will he not be much concerned on which side you give your sentence.  
Since however Criminal some Men have endeavoured to render the Doctrine of Resistance even in the cases proposed; yet the Author must believe (till he is better convinced to the contrary) that the Question being only Moral, or Political, and not about any point of Faith, or Law, may be safely maintained by either party, without any guilt, either of Heresy, or Treason.  
The Author farther desires you to take notice, that tho' he hath in both these subsequent Dialogues, made one of his Disputants to make use, not only of the Arguments, but the very expressions of two Learned, and Reverend Divines, in some late Treatises on this Subject, yet that he hath not acted thus, out of any design of Writing against them, or those Opinions there laid down, as they are theirs, (since it is well known the same Arguments, and Texts of Scripture have been made use of by other Writers on this Subject long before). But as it must be confessed that none have managed this controversy with better Reason, and greater Eloquence, so he hopes that neither they, nor any friend of theirs, will take it amiss, if out of a just value of their Learned Writings, he hath put that part of the Controversy in their Works, as the best be could meet with, and which he dares not pretend to alter, and as for the Answers, he hath put them, either in his own, or else in the expressions of one or two late Writers, who have undertaken to answer what they formerly had Written on this Question.  
To conclude, since the Author does not take all that those have laid down on either side, for clear, and unquestionable demonstrations, (for then there would be no need of publishing any more than the Arguments of one side) he hopes neither party will take it ill, if he hath here fairly represented the strongest and most plausible Arguments, that are brought on both sides for what Doctrine soever is true, such Truth will not look the worse, or lose ground if it appears in its true natural dress) tho' set against its opposite Error: But if a great deal of what hath been laid down by Persons too Violent on either side, appear upon a strict examination to be mere Precarious Opinions; whose best Authority is the great Names of some that have broached them; He hopes no indifferent Person can take it ill, if he endeavours to discover these mistakes, since all men are liable to Errors, and as none can be more sensible of this, than himself, so whenever either of those Learned, and Reverend Persons, or any other shall convince him of any weak or false reasonings in this discourse, he promises to retract them, with he first Opportunity.   

THE Third Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman.  F. 
You are welcome, Sir, I see you are a punctual Man to your Word. Will you be pleased to sit down by the fire, and drink a dish of Tea.  M. 
I thank you, Sir, I assure you, I love to be punctual in small things, as well as in great ones, when I am not hindered, or prevented by business.  F. 
Before we come to the Question, we the last time resolved to make the Subject of our present Entertainment, it will, I think, be convenient for me to look back, and see what I have already proved, at our two former Conferences, viz. 

1. That Adam had not, either by Natural Right of Fatherhood, or by Positive Donation from God, any such 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 Positive Law of God, that determines who is the Right Heir in all Cases that may arise, the Right of Succession, and consequently of bearing Rule, could not have been certainly determined, without the Judgement of the rest of the Children, or Descendants of Adam.  
4. That the knowledge of the Right Heir of Adam, (supposing still there was one,) being now long since lost, no Prince or Monarch in the World can graft any Title upon this Paternal Dominion of Adam or Noah.  
5. That all Authority of inflicting Punishments of Life and Death, or other less Penalties for the Breach of the Laws of Nature, or the Transgression of the Civil Laws of the Commonwealth is originally derived from God, as being that Power with which God in the State of Nature hath entrusted, all Masters, or Heads of separate Families, and this not as Fathers, but as Masters.  
6. That since all Kingdoms and Commonwealths at this day do owe their Original either to the Election of the People, or to Usurpation, or Conquest; God doth not now by the ordinary Course of his Providence confer this Divine Authority on any Persons whatsoever, so as to give them a Right to the People's Allegiance without the People's Consent first had, or else an Owning of their Titles by a Subsequent voluntary Submission to them.    M. 
I grant indeed, that you have with great labour, and some appearance of reason too, endeavoured to prove those Principles you have here laid down; yet however, tho' the five first of them should be true, I have a great deal still to except against the last, if you please to hear me. For I think, I can show you a great many evil Consequences, that will follow from this Principle of making the Consent, or Submission of the People at all necessary to the Conveying of a Supreme Power, or of that Divine Authority which you grant to be derived from God himself on all Monarches, and Supreme Magistrates in Commonwealths.  F. 
I pray give me leave a little to interrupt you. I know very well what this evil Consequence is, of supposing the Consent of the People as a means at all necessary, for the Conveying of this Divine Authority, that is, in plain English, because it will destroy your darling Doctrine of PASSIVE OBEDIENCE and NONRESISTANCE; therefore if it be so, pray let us rather fall presently to the Question itself, than argue by Consequences, which if we should go that way to work, I have my Consequences likewise to urge; some of which I have given you already. Therefore, if you please, let us begin a fairer way, and hear me propose those Heads, in which I doubt not but we do both agree, and then I will bring it to the main Case or Question, in which perhaps we differ.  M. 
I confess, I had somewhat more to say, which would have tended to prove this Doctrine of Nonresistance, but since you are pleased to propose another Method, which you better approve of; I am ready to comply with you. Therefore, Sir, go on, in what way you think fit.  F. 
I shall then in the first place lay it down for a Principle, (which I suppose you will not deny) that all Civil Power being from God, it was principally instituted by him, for the Peace, Happiness and Safety of Mankind; that is, of all the Subjects who are to live together in a Commonwealth, or Civil Society.  
2: That all Kings, or Supreme Magistrates, are likewise secured by God's Authority in those due Rights and Prerogatives which are necessary, for their well discharging this great Trust or Duty which God requires of them, and in Consideration of which the People at first Elected, or Submitted themselves to them.  
If therefore you grant, as I suppose you will, these two reasonable Propositions, the Question will amount to no more than this, whether, if the Supreme Power in any Kingdom, or Commonwealth, so far abuses this Trust, which God by the People hath committed to them, and instead of preserving and defending the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of their Subjects, they manifestly go about to destroy, or grievously to oppress them, by making them, instead of Subjects, mere Slaves, and Vassals; the Question, I say then, is, whether, if such violence or oppressions be committed upon the whole People, or so considerable a part of it, as that the safety and well-being of the whole Commonwealth cannot in any likelihood subsist without it, the People, or such a considerable part of them, may not, (in Case their Lives, Liberties and Persons are unjustly assaulted, and oppress't 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 Estates against such an armed force, and violence. Where, by the way, I desire you to take notice, that I do here asolutely disclaim all Resistance of, or Self defence against Civil Authority, or the Officers Commissioned by it, by any private single Person, whether such Power be exerted according to Law or not, or else abused in some cases to the hurt or destruction of such single Person only: So that I suppose this Resistance to be lawful only in case of a general Destruction, or intolerable oppression of the whole People, or at least a very considerable part of them, and those that are in the chiefest places of the Administration.  M. 
I confess the Doctrine of Resistance, as you have put it; seems at first somewhat plausible, and to tend to the Common Good, and preservation of the People, or Civil Society. But let me tell you, I am of opinion, that when ever it comes to be put in practice, it proves (like the other Speculations of Commonwealthsmen) more hurtful than beneficial to the Common Safety, and Preservation of the People; and consequently more destructive to the main ends of Government, than conducive to the Good and Happiness of Mankind; and last of all, that such Resistance cannot well be maintained, or executed without the deposing, or absolute Destruction of the Prince, or other Supreme Magistrates, whatever may be pretended to the contrary. And indeed it is almost impossible to suppose, that any Monarch or Supreme Magistrates, should ever (unless they were stark mad) purposely go about to kill or destroy their Subjects, in the Multitude and Safety of whom, consists his chief Strength, and Riches. And you may as well tell me, that a Shepherd, whilst he is in his right Wits, should go about to kill, or destroy his Flock, as that a Monarch should wilfully intend to kill, or destroy his People.  
To conclude, since the People must be in all Cases of Tyranny, or Oppression their own judges, and Executioners too, there is no Rebellion so rank, and wicked, that this pretence of a Self-defence of Men's Lives, Estates, and Liberties may not justify; whereas indeed, it is contrary to all Natural, and Civil Justice, for the injured party to be his own Judge, and Executioner too. For then the other side may pretend to the like Right, and the Trial must be referred to Force, and Arms, in which Contention, if the People are overcome they are certainly reduced to a worse Condition, than they were before: But if the Prince, or Supreme Magistrates have the worst on't, the Civil Power then in being is absolutely ruined: So that whether the People, or Magistrate overcome, the state of both of them is very deplorable; besides divers other evil Consequences of this Doctrine, which I shall defer, till I hear what you can say, to what I have now urged against your Opinion.  F. 
You have made a very plausible Speech, in setting forth the dreadful Consequence of this Doctrine of Resistance in any Case whatsoever; and I confess, if what you lay down be true, viz., that such Resistance always brings along with it greater Misery upon a People, than what the utmost Violence and Oppression of Princes can produce, than your Consequence would be also true, that such Resistance is never to be practised upon any account whatsoever. So on the other side, if that be not true, neither will your consequence signify anything.  
I suppose you will not deny, but that there may be such a thing as a Tyrant, and that that part of Mankind who live under him may be sensible of his Tyranny, or else the Definition which King james I▪ gives us of a Tyrant in a Speech which he made to the Parliament in 1603, would be altogether in vain. But the words are so fit for this purpose, that I will read them to you out of his Works. I do acknowledge, that the special, and greatest point of difference that is between a Rightful King, and an Usurping Tyrant, is this: That whereas the Proud, and Ambitious Tyrant doth think his Kingdom, and People are only ordained for the satisfaction of his desires, and unreasonable Appetites, the Righteous and Just King doth by the contrary acknowledge himself to be ordained for the procuring of the Wealth and Prosperity of his People. And so likewise in another Speech he made to the Parliament, he hath this memorable passage, That a King governing in a settled Kingdom, leaves to be a King, and degenerates into a Tyrant, so soon as he ceases to rule according to the Law. So that since it is plain, that the People may judge, when they have a Tyrant, instead of a King to rule over them; and that under such a Tyrant, the Condition of the People may be very deplorable; the Question still remains, what is best for them to do in this Case: Whether it be better for them, or they be obliged, by the Laws of Reason, and Nature, patiently to submit to it, or else, if they can, either by their own force, or the Assistance of a Foreign Prince, to cast off the Yoke. And I think I may still maintain, that they may do it, notwithstanding what you have yet urged to the contrary.  
In the first place therefore, tho' you count it an almost impossible thing to suppose, that a Prince or Monarch would ever go about to murder, or destroy his Subjects, yet as incredible as it is, I can give you several examples out of History both Ancient, and Modern, that some Tyrants have been so brutish as not only to endeavour it, but actually to put it in practice. Of the first kind is that of Caligula, whom Suetonius mentions, to have wished, that all the People of Rome had but one Neck, that he might cut it off at once. The other is of Nero, (in the same Author, as also in Tacitus) who set the City of Rome on fire, and consequently would have burnt all the People in it to please his humour, and that he might sing his Ballad of the Destruction of Troy the more naturally whilst it burned. A third example, I find related in Mocquet's Travels into the East-Indies, of a certain King of Pegu, 
* Vid. Mocquets' Travels, Lib. 4. p. 333.  about an hundred years ago, who, by the persuasion of some of his Diabolical Priests, or Magicians, took such an aversion to his Subjects, that he was resolved to destroy them, and therefore forbid them to sow their Lands for two, or three Years, by which means a great part of them died of Famine, or were forced to devour each other. And in such Cases as these, I suppose, the Laws of Nature, and Reason will justify Self-defence in the People, and sure it had been Lawful for the People of Rome to have resisted Caligula's Guards, if he had gone about to put his wicked Wish into Execution, or likewise to have resisted, or put to death those Incendiaries they found firing the City, tho' they might have had the Emperor Nero's Commission for it. So likewise sure it would have been as lawful for the People of Pegu, to have resisted those whom the Emperor might have sent to hinder them from Ploughing, and Sowing their Lands. And that I am not the only Man of this Opinion, I desire you to consult what Barclay hath in his Treatise, contra Monarchomachos which he writ against Buchanan, de jure Regni apud Scotos, and the Author of Vindiciae contra Tyrannos; where, tho'he be a most Zealous assertor of the unlimited, and irresistible Power of Prince's, Yet in his third Book chap. 8. he speaketh to this effect, the sense of whose words, as near as I can, I will give you in English.  
Now if any one should say, But must the People always yield their Throats to the Fury, and Cruelty of Tyranty ● Must they patiently permit their Cities to be destroyed by Hunger, F●e or Sword, and their Wives and Children to be exposed to the lust of a Tyrant, and also themselves to be brought into the utmost dangers, and Miseries of Life? Must 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 themselves from Injury? To this it may easily be answered, that Self-defence, which is of Natural Right, ought not to be denied to the People: And therefore if the King doth not only exert his hatred against some Single persons, but also shall go about to destroy the body of the Commonwealth, of which he is Head, that is, shall exert his Hatred against the whole People, or some considerable part of them by an horrid, and intolerable Cruelty, or Tyranny, There is a Power in the People in this Case, only of Defending itself, but not of Invading the Prince, or of Revenging the Injury given, neither of departing from their due Reverence, because of the Injury received; in short it hath Right only of repelling a Present force, but not of revenging a past injury, for one of them indeed is from Nature, that we should defend our lives, and Persons 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. Therefore 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 intolerable, may still resist, tho' with Respect.  
In all which this Author hath there said we may easily understand his meaning, unless it be in this of resisting force with Respect, and Reverence. For I cannot understand how a Man may sighed against his Prince with Reverence, or give his Guard, a Knock over the Pa●e, or a Cut in the Face, with Respect to the Prince's Authority. But the reason is plain why the people may act thus, because when a Prince once Goeth about to destroy, and make War upon his People, he doth not act then, as a Monarch, but like a Cutthroat, and Enemy to the Commonwealth; And no man can imagine, a Will to destroy, and to protect the people, can at once subsist in the same Person.  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 Secure the Rights of the Subjects in their Lives, and Fortunes, No Prince, can, 
H. I. chap. 10. p. 203.  or aught to, take away his Subjects Lives, or Estates contrary to Law; Yet by the IMPERIAL LAWS in every Government, and by the Laws of the Gospel, which (As I shall hereafter show) establish those Laws in all perfect Governments (and particularly in the English,) all these Rights Legally belong to the civil Sovereign especially to be accountable to none, but God, to have the Sole Power, and disposal of the Sword, and to be free from all Coercive, and Vindicative Power, and from all Resistance by force. It is by these Common Laws of Sovereignty, that the Gospel requires Passive Obedience, which is but another name for Nonresistance, these Laws are in eternal force against the Subjects in defence of the Sovereign, be he Good, or Evil, Just, or Unjust, Christian, or Pagan, be he what he will, no Subjects or number of Subjects whatsoever, can lift up his or their hands against the Sovereign, and be Guiltless by these Laws. Therefore for the Subjects to bear the Sword against their Sovereign, or to defend themselves by force against him, or his Forces, is against the Common Laws of Sovereignty, and by consequence Passive Obedience even unto Death, becomes a duty in Sovereign Governments, by virtue of those Laws, and we are not to resist them upon any pretence whatsoever, but therefore all Subjects are bound to Suffer Death wrongfully, rather than to resist them upon any pretence or account whatsoever. So that let Popish Writers (though never so moderate) say what they please, concerning the Lawfulness of Resistance in some Cases, Yet We of the Church of England have learned better things from the Scripture and the Examples of the Primitive Christians, which we think ourselves obliged most strictly to observe. And therefore in relation to our own Government, and the present State of Affairs, I shall reduce all that I have to say against Resistance of the King, or those commissioned by him into this Syllogism. Not to be resisted by the Subjects is an Inseparable Right of all Sovereign Power. But the King is here the only Sovereign Power. Ergo the King is upon no pretence whatsoever to be resisted by his Subjects. So that not to quarrel any longer about words, Nonresistance is the same thing with Passive Obedience and Submission, and by consequence these are required by the IMPERIAL LAWS of the Government. Therefore, Whatsoever the Imperial Laws of the Government require of its Subjects, if it be not contrary to God's Laws, they are bound to perform it. But Passive Obedience, or Patient Suffering of Injuries from the Sovereign, is not forbid by God's Laws, And therefore Subjects are bound to perform it, where it is required by the Imperial Laws.  F. 
I Shall forbear to say any thing, as yet, concerning what Doctrines the Scriptures teach, or the Primitive Christians practised concerning this matter, because I desire to discourse that Question apart from this of the Laws of Nature, or Reason, which We are now upon, Therefore I must tell you, that tho' this new Fingle-fangle Term of Imperial Law of Nonresistance may sound very prettily to their Ears who mind words more than sense, Yet I must freely confess, that I am altogether a Stranger to this Notion of Imperial Laws, as also of the distinction you make between the Imperial and Political Laws of this Kingdom; and if by Imperial Laws you mean those of the Roman Empire: I never knew that those Laws had any thing to do in England before, but always supposed the Politic Laws of our Country to be the only measure of the King's Prerogative, as also of the Subject's Obedience and Subjection. Nor do your own Civil Laws, 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 understand such Laws, or Edicts, of the Emperors which with the Approbation of the Senate were made for the Peace and Well government of the Commonwealth, 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 Rome, or that they believed they were obliged to Suffer by your Imperial Laws without any Resistance. I am sure, the Senate and People did not believe, that the Emperor had any such Authority, when they declared Nero, and Maximin, for their intolerable Cruelty, not only Enemies of the Commonwealth, but of Mankind. But if by these Imperial Laws of Nonresistance you mean no more than what you laid down in your Syllogism, That it is an inseparable Right or Prerogative of Sovereign Powers, not to be resisted by their Subjects, when you have proved this Proposition, by the Laws of Nature and Reason, I shall then believe it. But as for your Conclusion, it being founded upon these Premises, it needs no Confutation, for if the Imperial Laws of Government do not require your Passive Obedience; then Subjects are not bound to perform it. And to show you the Falseness and absurdity of this Assertion that Whatsoever the Imperial Laws of any Government require of its Subjects, if it be not contrary to God's Laws, they are bound to perform it. In stead of Passive Obedience, or Patient Suffering of Injuries, let us insert, to give up to the Sovereign all our Civil Properties and Estates, if demanded by him, is not forbid by God's Laws, and therefore Subjects are bound to perform it when ever it is required by the Imperial Laws: For certainly the absolute disposal of the Estates of the Subjects is as unseparable a Prerogative of Sovereign Power as Irresistibility itself, as I think I am able to prove, if you think fit to dispute that Question.  
But at present I shall only confine myself to confute the Major in your Syllogism. In the first place therefore, tho' I do grant what you lay down for a Ground to be true, That it belongs to Sovereign Powers to be accountable to, or punishable by, none but God, Yet, I suppose, Resistance of their Violence and Tyranny may very well be performed by the People, without calling them to a judicial Account or erecting a Tribunal for that purpose; Calling to an Account, and Punishment are acts of Authority of Superiors over Inferiors, But Resistance for self-defence is a Right of Nature, and which no Man, by entering into Civil Government, ever parted withal, but out of Consideration of a Greater Good to be obtained thereby, (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 lost, his Natural Right of Self-defence for the Preservation of himself, and Family again takes place; Nor doth he then resist the Supreme Powers as such, but as Murderers, and Cutthroats, who by going about to destroy the People have already loft all that Right, they formerly had: And of this opinion is that moderate Romish Author, Barclay before cited, Who in the 16 Chap. of the Book last quoted, hath this Remarkable passage.  
What then? Can there no Cases happen in which it may be lawful for the People by their own Authority, to rise up, and resist a King governing Tyrannically? His Answer to this Question is, there are certainly none as long as he continues King: for the Scriptures forbid it; which say, Honour the King, and he who resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God; Therefore the People can have no Power against him, unless he committeth something, by which he may cease to be King; for than he himself abdicates his Kingship, and becomes a private Man, and by this means the People being made Free, that Right returns to them, which they had before the King was made; But there are but few Facts of that Nature, which can produce Such effects; And I cannot, when I think of it, find more than two Cases, in which a King doth ipso facto make himself no King, and thereby depriveth himself of all Honour, Regal Dignity, and Power, (which also Winzerus takes notice of.) One of these is, if he destroys his Kingdom; and then gives us the Examples of Nero, and Caligula as I have already done; And next proceeds to this purpose that when any King designs, and doth seriously endeavour, to put this in practice, he casts off all care, and desire of Governing; And therefore thereby loses his Empire over his Subjects, as a Lord of a Servant loses his Dominion over him, by giving up all Care, and Government of him. And of this Opinion likewise are 
* Lib. 1. cap. 4. §. 7.11.  Grotius, and P●ffendorf 
† Lib. seven cap. 8 §. 6 7.  the two best, and most learned Writers on this Subject. Who do not think it inconsistent with the Rules of the Gospel, for Subjects to resist the King, if with a Hostile mind, He seeks the Destruction of his People, for, says the former, the Will of commanding and destroying cannot consist together; And therefore he who professes himself an Enemy of the whole People, does thereby abdicate the Kingdom, but that can Scarce seem to happen in a King in his right Wits, and who commands only one Kingdom. But if he commands more Kingdoms, it may so happen, that he would destroy the People of one Nation, to gratify the other, that he may there make Colonies of them. And this, I suppose, Grotius spoke in relation to the King of Spain who (they say) had declared, that if he overcame the Dutch, then in Arms against him, he would fallen the People for Slaves into America, and people the Country with Spaniards.  M. 
You very much mistake me, if you think, by Imperial, I meant the Roman Laws, but only the Common Laws of Sovereignty, which, tho' they destroy no Man's Natural, 
H. I. Ib.  or Civil Rights, Yet both grant, and confirm unto the Legal Sovereign in every Government the Essential Rights of Sovereignty, of which I take Nonresistance, not only for Wrath, but Conscience lake, to be one of the Chief. And therefore it were much better to venture the utmost that a Tyrant can do towards his People by destroying them, than to give the least inlet to Rebellion, by Supposing the People may in any case whatsoever resist their Prince; For granting the worst that may happen, that a Prince once in 1000 years to be so wicked and Malicious, as to go about to destroy his People, yet he could scarce find means and hands enough to bring it about; and admit he should destroy by his Mercenary forces, 30, or 40000, of them, it were better all these should perish, than that the Nation should be involved in Civil War, and the Prince's Person and Government destroyed by Resistance; And therefore in all Governments whatsoever, whether Monarchies or Commonwealths, there must be an absolute Trust placed by the People in one, or more persons, which Trust they can neither recall when they will, nor yet resist upon the Non-performance of it. And therefore it is a mistake, when you affirm with those Authors you have quoted, that a King, or other Supreme Powers can ever lose their Right, by going about to destroy the People, much less when they only think their Liberties, in danger; and I have several reasons to give you for my Assertion.  
As first from the Common Notion of a Trust, For what is more generally understood by trusting another, 
V. I. R. p. 6.  than that we lodge our concerns with him, and put them out of our disposal? When I trust a Man with my life, or Fortune, all men agree, that I put it in his Power to deprive me of both, For to deliver any Property to another with a Power of Revocation is to trust him (as we say) no farther than we can see him. He that can recover a Sum of money he hath deposited, when he pleases, to speak Properly, hath it still, in his Custody, and trusts his Friend no more, than he doth his own Coffers, and therefore if we consul our own Thoughts, we shall find, that a Trust Naturally Implies an Entire Reliance upon the Conduct, and Integrity of another, which makes us resign up our Liberty, or Estate to his Management, imagining them Safer in his hands, than in our own. In short, a Trust, where there is no Third person to Judge of the performance, (as in these Pacts between Subjects, and Sovereign, there is not,) I say, such a trust includes a Translation of Right, and in respect of the irrevocableness of it, is in the Nature of a Gift. So that there seems only to be this difference between them, that a Gift ought to respect the Benefit of the Receiver, whereas a Trust is generally made, for the advantage of him who Conveyed it.  
And in every Civil Society or Government under Heaven that doth not depend upon another, 
B. D. F. p. 8.  there must be an absolute, and uncontrollable Power fixed somewhere, which may irresistibly dispose of the E●ves, Estates, and Persons of the Subjects within that Civil Society, or Government; For if every Man be left at Liberty to dispose of his own Estate, and person, as he pleases himself, then can he promise himself no Protection, but what his own natural force will afford him, and that will certainly be over powered at one time, or other, by others. Without this Trust, there can be no Justice administered within the Civil Society, For if every particular man may be Judge in his own Case, the Right will certainly be asserted on both sides, tho' it really can be but in one, No Malefactor will ever condemn himself, nor Submit to Justice if he can, and may resist; and if a War happen, every man will be for saving his own Goods, from the expense, as his own person from the Danger of it, and the Consequence must be, that that Civil Society must perish either by internal disorders, or internal Force.  
Therefore this Power is, and must be in one Person, or body of men in every Civil Society, 
Id. pag. ●.  and is also indivisible; For supposing that it should be divided to the same Civil Society into two, or more Parts, as between two men, and two Senates, or Councils, without any dependence upon each other, or any Third power, the Consequence must needs be, that they differing, and opposing one another, and having no Lawful Power fixed in either of them to oblige the other to submit, must have recourse to Force, and Arms; So that this Civil Society can never rest, till this Supreme Sovereign Power be reduced again into one. And if you suppose this Power of judging, and Resisting in the People, or Multitude▪ the matter is ten times worse, that being a blind, and heady Monster, easily provoked upon flight occasions, commonly judging false, even in its own Concerns, and as implacable in its Rage, as unsatiable in its Revenge.  
To conclude, whether this Supreme Power be in a Single person, or in a few, or in all, where ever it is lodged, none must oppose, none must resist it, nor can any Man assure himself of more Justice, or better usage from a Senate, or a Multitude, than from a Prince, or Single Person. So that this inconvenience of being liable to have our Lives sometimes taken away, our persons injured, and our Estates oppressed, by the Evil management of our Governors, is one of those humane miseries that by the Corruption of Men's nature from the Fall took possession of the World, and can never be purged out of it till the Final Conflagration. And therefore the Advice of Cerialis in Tacitus is always to be remembered, that Tyrants, and evil Princes are to be born with, as Immoderate Rains, and unkind Seasons, and amends may be made by a better Successor: Since Resistance will not Cure, but only inflame the Distemper.  F. 
You have made a long Speech, wherein I see you have heard together, all that Wit, or Interest can produce on the behalf of Tyranny, tho' I must confess, I did not expect to find you of any Man, so Zealous an Advocate for it. But I forgive it, as long as I really believe, that only a mistaken Conscience, and not any Private Interest prompts you to it. But that I may take your Speech to pieces in order to answer it: In the first place, as to what you say concerning a Trust, I think you are under a very great mistake. For no Man, either in a Civil State, or in that of Nature, ever yet so trusted another, as that, if he abused his Trust, he had not reserved to himself a Right of Appeal; Under all Civil Governments this is Notorious, since it is one of the main Businesses of Supreme Courts of Justice, upon Complaints, or Appeals, of Breaches of Trust, to call the trusties to an Account, and force them to make Restitution for the wrongs they have done: And whereas you say, that in the State of Nature, where there is no third person to judge of the Performance, such a Trust includes a Translation of a Right (as in these Pacts between Subjects, and Sovereigns:) This is likewise a mistake, tho' it be true, that in that State, if I trust a Man with my Life, and Fortune. I put it in his Power to deprive me of both, and that this Trust naturally implies a Reliance upon the Conduct, and Integrity of another; which makes me resign my Liberty, or Estate to his Management; Yet doth it not therefore follow, but that upon the abuse of this Trust, I may have a Remedy against him, who thus breaks this Trust I have so reposed in him. And when there is no third Person to judge between me, and my Trustee. I myself am the Sole judge of the Wrong he doth me, and may not only turn him out of his Trust, if I find he abuses it; but may also force him to make me Satisfaction for the Wrong he hath done: So that, if in the State of Nature I trust a Man with a Bag of Silver to keep for me: If he either Imbezels, or runs away with it, I may certainly force him to make me Restitution▪ or else enter into a State of War with him, till he do; And where there is no Common Power over us to whom we can Appeal, this Difference can no way be Decided but by the Sword. And therefore no Trust (as in those mutual Pacts between Subjects, and Sovereigns) can be Irrevocable, or include a perfect Translation of a Right, and no Trust can ever be supposed to be given but with this tacit Condition, that the Trustee doth not abuse it: And you yourself have made a sufficient Difference between a Trust, and an Absolute Gift, but granting that a Gift respects, the benefit of the Receiver, whereas a Trust is for the Advantage of him who convey's it; From whence it must necessarily follow, that if this Trust be for his Advantage; he hath still an Interest in the thing Trusted, and consequently may call the Trustee to an Account in the State of Nature, and upon Satisfaction denied, Appeal to God himself by Battle, or Combat. So that if the Supreme Powers are but trusties of the People, they may be Resisted, when by going about to Destroy them they break their Trust.  
But as for the Second part of your Argument, that in all Civil Governments under Heaven, there must be an absolute and uncontrollable Power fixed some where, that may irresistibly dispose of the Lives, Persons, etc. of the Subjects. This, tho' it seems a better Argument than the former, yet is all one in Effect, for the Question is still, Whether the People ever reposed such an absolute Power in their Supreme Magistrates, or not. I grant indeed, that as far as they act, as the nature of Civil Power, requires, they are not by any means to be resisted, but the Question still is, whether, when a Prince makes War upon the People, or goeth about to destroy them, there is then any Civil Power in being; and whether the Government be not already dissolved, since the main Ends of Government, viz. the Good and Preservation of the Subjects, are quite destroyed. And now pray tell me, which is most suitable to that prime Law of Nature, the endeavour of the good, and happiness of mankind, that a whole Nation should be enslaved, or destroyed by the boundless Will of a Tyrant, or that Rulers should be sometimes resisted, when they grow intolerably Tyrannical, & abuse their Power to the total destruction of the Lives, and Properties of their Subjects. So then, if such an absolute Arbitrary Power, in Princes, or States, can never consist with the main Ends of Civil Society, the Peace & Happiness of the Subjects, it is plain that when ever they are reduced to such a State, they will look upon themselves, as again in the State of Nature, nor would they have ever quitted their Natural Freedom, & tied themselves up from providing for the security of their Lives, and Properties by such means as they might before have justly exercised, had it not been to obtain these Ends with much greater certainty by entering into Civil Society, and by Stated Rules of Right, and Wrong to secure their Lives and Properties, with their future peace, and Quiet, by surer means, than they could hope for in the mere State of Nature.  
For it cannot be supposed that the People would ever confer such an Arbitrary unlimited Power on one Man, or many, over their Lives, and Estates that they might take them away without any just cause. For this were to put themselves into a worse Condition, than the mere State of Nature, wherein they had a Liberty to defend their Just Right against the Injuries of others, and were upon equal Terms of Force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single Man, or many in a Combination. 
T. T. G. part 2. p. 359.  Whereas, by supposing they have thus given up themselves to the absolute Arbitrary Power, and Will of a Single Person. They have wholly disarmed themselves, and only armed him to make a Prey of them, whenever he pleases. He being in a much worse Condition, that is exposed to the Arbitrary Power of one Man, who hath the Command of 100000 Men than he that is exposed to the Arbitrary Power of 100000 single Men, no body being secure that his Will who hath such Command is better, than that of other Men, tho' his force be 100000 times stronger.  
To conclude, granting a Supreme Power to be placed somewhere, either in a Single Person, or in many, yet it can by no means be absolutely Arbitrary and Irresistible over the lives, and Fortunes of the People. For their Authority being (as I have already proved in the former Conference) no more than that Power which God hath granted to every particular head of a Family, and other Freemen at his own dispose, for the security of their own Persons, and the Common Good of those whom God hath entrusted to their Charge, they cannot confer upon the supreme Magistrate any more Power, than what God hath conferred upon them before, and so can be no more than those Persons had in the State of Nature; before they entered into Society, and before they gave up their Power to these Supreme Magistrates; viz. that only what God had before trusted them withal. Now (according to your own Principles) no Man is trusted by God in the State of Nature, with an absolute Power over his own life, much less to destroy, or take away the life, 
Id. p. 355.  or Property of another, and therefore cannot convey any such Power to those he would intrust with it. So than if a Man cannot Subject himself to the Arbitrary Power of another, neither hath he in the State of Nature such an Arbitrary Power over the life, Liberty or Possessions of another, but only as much as the Law of Nature gave him for the Preservation of himself, and the Common Good of Mankind; This is all he doth, or can give up to the Commonwealth, so that if it can have no more than this. It's Power in the utmost bounds of it is still limited to the public good of the Civil Society.  
All which if duly considered, the rest of your weaker Arguments are easily answered. For supposing but one Prince in a 1000 years so wicked as to go about to destroy his People, it will then, whenever it happens, be as much their Right to defend themselves, as if it were to happen every year. And tho' you assert he could scarce find means, or hands to bring it about. Yet that makes nothing to the Purpose, for if he hath no Right to destroy 30, or 40000 of the Subjects, as you suppose he may, by his Mercenary forces, than that 30, or 40000 may defend themselves if they can: For when once a Prince hath thus entered into a State of War with his People; who can tell when or where it will end, or can assure himself, that he shall not be the next man that shall be destroyed, and it is very pleasant, that you allow the Prince this Power of murdering to avoid Civil War, as if there could be no War begun, unless there be fight on both Sides; Whereas Mr. Hobbs himself acknowledges, the very assaulting, or setting upon any Man, to be entering into a State of War with him; And sure I think to fall upon the People without Cause, and Killing 30, or 40000 of them is entering into a State of War, or else nothing is. And therefore you mistake the question, when you argue, from the Indivisibility of the Supreme Power, that it must not be resisted. For the Question is not here, whether it be divisible or not, but whether it be not absolutely dissolved by thus entering into a State of War with the People, whom all Civil Magistrates are supposed to protect when they assume the Government. Nor doth this give any countenance to Male factors, or other single Persons to rise in Arms, and defend themselves against the supreme Powers when they have offended against the Laws, or that they think themselves injured by the undile execution of them; Since such abuses of Power cannot suddenly, or upon every slight occasion disturb the Government. And in the Case of Malefactors, the Supreme Power is still sure to have all the People on its side, for their own Security, and in case of some Murders, or oppressions committed by such Supreme Magistrates, on the Lives or Estates of some Private Persons, tho' I suppose that even such private Men have a Right in the state of Nature to defend their Lives, and to recover by Force, what by unjust Force is taken from them, yet this Right must still give place to the Public Place, and Safety of the Commonwealth whereof they are members, which must not be disturbed for the sake of a few, and of this the People themselves are so sensible that it is almost as impossible, 
Ib. 429.  for a few oppressed men to disturb the Government, where the Body of the People do not think themselves concerned to it, as for a Ra●ing Madman or Heady Malcontent to overturn a well settled Sta●e, the People being as little a●t to follow the one, as the other. So on the other side, when over the People are once convinced that their Governors, instead of Protecting, go about to destroy them, it is as impossible for any Man to persuade them not to take up Arms, and defend themselves against them, if they are able to make Sufficient Resistances. And therefore tho' I so far agree with you, that some oppressions, and violences may be practised in all Civil Governments whatsoever, since such abuses will continue as long as Men are Men, yet doth it not therefore follow that the Supreme Powers, must always be born withal, and never resisted, no not when they go about to destroy the whole Body of the People.  M. 
But pray tell me, is it not a very mischievous, and unjust thing, that Subjects should be both judges and Parties too in their own Case. Since they may pretend, that the King goeth about to destroy them, when really he does not design any such thing; and would not this bring all things into Anarchy and Confusion? I showed you the fatal consequences of this at the Beginning, but you have not yet thought fit to answer them.  F. 
I beg your pardon, Sir, I have been so taken up with answering the main Arguments, that you have proposed against this Right of Resistance, that I have not had time to consider this Objection, which is but a Consequence thereof. And therefore in the first place give me leave to ask you this Question. Suppose you were Master of a separate Family in the Indies, and a Neighbouring Prince, or Cacich of the Indians, should come to Kill you, or to drive you out of your Plantation, might you not defend yourself, because you are both judge and Party too in your own Case? or suppose you should so far abuse this Power of self defence, as to pretend this Neighbouring Prince was coming to assault you, when he realy was nor, and should therefore (to prevent it) set upon him first, and Murder him, and his Followers, must your abuse of this Right which you have by the Law of Nature be a sufficient Argument, that neither you, nor any Man else in the State of Nation, should ever for the future exercise this Right? no more will the abuse of either of these be● sufficient Argument against the Right of Self-defence against the supreme Powers.  M. 
I grant indeed they are not in the State of Nature, but it is much otherwise after People are entered into a Civil Society, or Commonwealth and that upon your own Principles. For than they have given up all that Equality which you suppose between men, in the State of Nature. For supposing what you affirm should be true, That Civil Government at first began from the whole Body, or major part of the People's making over all their Right of Governing themselves to one Person, or more, upon Conditions of being Protected in their Lives, and Estates, they must likewise make over all their Right of judging for themselves, what means are necessary for their Common Good, and Preservation; after which transferring of their Power, they can never have any Right to meet again in a body either by themselves, or their Representatives to Judge of these Breaches, or the Transgressions of those Conditions which they at first Proposed, and agreed upon with such Princes, or Governors. And when the People come once to multiply into a Nation, it in absolutely Impossible for them ever to meet altogether again, and give their judgement of the Good or Evil Consequence of the Monarch's actions, or to come to any resolution upon them; So that their opinion can never afterwards be known otherwise, than by the Murmurs of particular Persons, which none can certainly know neither, unless they could speak with every Individual Person of that Kingdom, which is impossible. But if you will say, this oppression needs not to be known by Words, or Votes, but actions, viz. by the People's actual taking up Arm', this must either be by the whole People altogether at once, or at least the major part of them, or else of some particular Bodies of Men much less than the whole, or major part. Now the whole, or major part of a People of a Nation to rise and take up Arms all at once a● one Man, is morally impossible. And if any part less than this whole, or Major part (as suppose a whole Province, or City) every such party or Body of Men so rising, must be guilty of Rebellion and disturbing the Public Peace of the Commonwealth as being but private single Persons, which you yourself granted, and condemned as unlawful. And therefore I desire to know, who shall Judge when this Body, or Major part of the People, are thus assaulted, so that they may justly defend themselves? But indeed this Licence of taking up Arms is not only unpracticable, but unreasonable too: For it supposes, that after the People have given up all the Power they had of judging what was bad or good for the Public, they have this Power still left in them, which would make them at once both Subjects and Sovereigns, which is a Contradiction.  F. 
Had you been pleased but better to have observed what I said the last time I spoke, a great part of this Objection had been saved. For I there expressly asserted, that the Security of men's Lives, Liberties and Estates, being the Main Ends for which men entered at first into Civil Society, and likewise desired to continue in it, as being the only means why Civil Government is to be preferred before the State of Nature, the People neither did nor can give up their Right of judging, when these are invaded, or taken from them. And therefore you are very much mistaken to believe, that at the Institution of Civil Society, Men must have given up their Common senses, and reason too of judging, when they are like to be murdered, or made Slaves of, or their Fortunes unjustly taken from them, by those, whom they have ordained to be their Governors; and I suppose you will not say, that they thereby acquire a Power of altering the Nature of things, or of making War, Slavery or Beggary the means of procuring the Welfare, and Happiness of the People, any more than they can enact, that hunger, or diseases should conduce to the preservation of any man's life; And therefore as the Judgement of these things was obvious, and natural to every man's senses, and understanding in the State of Nature, so it is as plain, they never intended wholly to give up all their Right of Judging concerning their own Preservation and Happiness, and all means necessarily tending thereunto, but only in such Cases, and concerning such matters as are beyond the Power, or above the Knowledge of every ordinary private subject: thus in a disease, tho' I give up myself to the skill, and Judgement of a Physician, yet I do it not so absolutely, but that I still reserve to myself a Right of judging, whether he gives me Poison, instead of a Purge. and if Princes or Supreme Magistrates were thus absolutely invested with an Arbitrary Power of doing whatsoever they pleased with the Lives, Liberties and Estates of the People, they would then be in a much worse condition under Civil Government, than they were in the State of Nature, as I have already proved, And therefore there is no need of any such general Meetings, or Assemblies of the whole Body, or Representatives of the People, to judge when these Fundamental Conditions of all Government are notoriously violated and broken: Since it will be apparent to every man's sense and reason that is thus assaulted or injured.  
And as for the other part of your Objection, how the People can know, when the whole Body, or Major part, of them, is thus assaulted, or oppressed, and being so assaulted, or oppressed, what number are necessary to justify this Resistance? To this important Question, I thus answer; that if such a War, or assault be made upon such a considerable part of the People, as may justify their Resistance to be much better for the Good of the Commonwealth, than that so many People should be destroyed, Resistance certainly is then Lawful; And the reason why every particular person, when unjustly assaulted by his Prince's Order, or his Estate taken away by his unjust Edicts, or Decrees, ought not to make any public disturbance only to save the one, or recover the other, I have given you before, viz. because the public peace is to be preferred, before that of any private Person: Yet even then such a private Person may very well defend himself, if unjustly assaulted by Assassinates, whom the Prince, or other Supreme Magistrates shall send to take away his Life without any just Cause, or Legal Trial▪ tho' I grant he may not solicit others to rise with him, and take his part or help him to defend his Life, or Estate. Yet (as a Reverend Dignitary of our Church very well observed. 
S. C. R. p. 59 ) No Man can want Authority to defend his Life against him, who hath no Authority to take it away. But much more when this assault, or oppression is either made upon the whole People in general, or upon so considerable a Part, or Member thereof, as the Commonwealth could not well subsist without, if it were destroyed, in all such cases, I suppose the People thus assaulted, or oppressed have a sufficient Right to defend their Lives, and free themselves from that slavery, and oppression they lie under; and thus the People of Rome might very well have justified their Resistance of Nero's Incendiaries, when he sent to Burn the City, tho' they had been his own Guards. We read likewise in the Hist. August. that the Emperor Caracalla, the People happening to laugh at him (for his Folly) in playing the Gladiator in his Circus Maximus, sent his Guards to kill them; So likewise in Herodian, that, upon another supposed affront, he sent his Praetorian Bands to Murder most of the Inhabitants of Alexandria, who came out to meet him with a Solemn Procession. And, I suppose, no rational Man will deny, but that, if the Citizens of Rome, or Alexandria, had had Arms in their hands, they might have Lawfully defended their Lives against these Murdering Guards. For I think it was much better that those should be destroyed who were the Aggressors, than that so vast a Body of Innocent People, should be made Sacrifices to the undreasonable Passion, or Revenge of a Cruel Tyrant. So that when the oppression, or Violence to men's Liberties and Properties is general, and notorious, and affect the whole Body of the People, I do then suppose that any Part of them, that are sufficient to defend themselves, may do it, till they can find Assistance either from the rest of the People, or else from some Foreign Prince, or State, who will vindicate their cause, and come in to their Assistance. And thus we read the Town of Brill in Zealand, 
Vi. Meterani Histor.  under the Conduct of the Count of Mark first revolted from the Tyranny of the Duke of Alva, which example was afterwards (tho' not immediately) followed by most of the Cities of Holland, and Zealand, and the Courage, and Resolution of this Count, as also of the Citizens of this Town, is highly commended by the Historians of that time, for so nobly venturing their Lives, and Fortunes to ●●diem their Co●utry from that slavery it then lay under till at last they were relieved, and assisted by Queen Elizabeth to whom the United Provinces owe that Freedom they now enjoy.  M. 
I shall not now dispute with you what Right the States of the United Provinces, might have to resist the Tyranny of the Duke of Alva, than Governor for the King of Spain, since Grotius, and most Writers which are not of the Spanish Faction, suppose, that King to have had a Conditional Right of Governing those Provinces according to their own Laws, and Privileges from the very first Institution of the Government; And therefore not being an absolute Monarch over them, he might well be resisted upon the Breach of those Condition's: But this is not the Case now in hand: since we are now discoursing of absolute Monarchies, or Commonwealths, who being invested with the Supreme Power by the Consent of the People (as you suppose:) And therefore may have by their Consents (whether forced or Voluntary it matters not) according to your own Principles a Supreme unaccountable Power over them; And in the first place I can show you, how a Man may make over all the Power he hath in his own Person irrevocably to another; As when a Man sells, or grants himself for a Slave to another by his own Consent; who when he hath once put himself into this Condition, his Master hath an absolute Property in his Person, and an indefesible Right for ever to his Service. So that notwithstanding all the Cruel, Harsh, and unreasonable Usage, he may meet with from his Master, he can never regain his Freedom without the Consent of his Lord. And this I take to be an uncontested Truth agreed on by the Law; of Nations, and established by the Law of God. Thus St. Peter chargeth those, who are in this State of Servitude: 
* Pet. Ep. 1. ch. 2. v. 18.  To be subject to their Masters with all Fear, not only to the Good, and Gentle, but also to the Froward. So likewise St. Paul in both his Epistles to the Ephesians, and Colossians, 
† Eph. 6. v. 5. Col. 3.22.  Commands Servants to be obedient to them that are their Masters according to the Flesh, etc. And that this particularly respects Slaves, appears by the 8. verse of the 6. Chapter of the former of these Epistles.  
So that if a Man may thus make himself a Slave, or perpetual Servant to another by his own consent, I cannot see any Reason why a whole Nation may not do the same, and deliver themselves up to one Man, or more to be Governed, and treated both for their Lives, Liberties, and Fortunes, at his or their Discretion. So that, tho' he may perhaps abuse this Power to the severest Tyranny, or Oppression: Yet have they no Right to shake off this Yoke, or to resist him; since their Lives, and Fortunes are wholly at his disposal, by their own Act, and Consent. And that whole Nations may justly surrender themselves for Slaves or absolute Subjects, I can give you two Examples approved of by God in the Scriptures: The first is, that of the Egyptians, who, when they had sold all their Goods and Lands to Pharaoh for Bread, to keep themselves alive in the seven years of Famine we read of in Genesis. You'll find they were afterwards such absolute Servants or Slaves to Pharaoh. 
Gen. 47.21, 22.  That as for the People he removed them to Cities, from one end of the Borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof, only the Land of the Priests bought he not, etc. The other is, that of the Gibeonites, of whom we read, that they accepted of their Lives from joshua, and the Elders of Israel: Tho' on the Condition of the greatest slavery, rather than they would venture to be destroyed. So that if absolute Monarchy were not Lawful, but contrary to God's Will and Institution, most of the greatest Kingdoms in the World would be governed contrary to the Laws of God and Nature; and the Subjects of all the Kingdoms from France to China, (not reckoning those of Africa) might immediately, if they were able, rebel against their Monarches, and set up what sort of Government they thought fit: Since none of the Subjects in those Kingdoms hold their Lives, Liberties or Estates by any other Tenure, than the Good Will or Pleasure of the Monarch, who may take away all or any of them as often as he pleases to do it, and that without any right of Resistance in all, or any of their Subjects, let them use them never so severely.  F. 
I cannot deny, but what you say is so far true, that one Man, or many together may grant, or sell themselves for Slaves by their own Consent; and that the Persons who thus make over themselves, have afterwards no Right, or Property in any thing, more than a bare Subsistence, yet that servitude is not by the Law of Nature, but only brought in by Custom▪ or the Law of Nations, as all Writers agree, and is so far lawful, because it tends to the Good, and Preservation of Mankind, that Prisoners taken in War should rather be kept as Slaves, than immediately slain, or that Men compelled by extreme necessity, should sell themselves, or their Children, rather than both should perish; and therefore it is no wonder, that the Apostles who were not sent to a●ter the State of things in the World, or to entrench upon any Man's civil Rights, should command Servants, or Slaves, to be Subject to their Masters, tho' unbelievers: Yet doth it not therefore follow, that when men are forced to give themselves thus up to the Power of another, they likewise give him an absolute Right over their Lives, so as that their Masters may take them away, whenever they please; for that was more than they ever had over themselves. Nor doth God confer any such Power upon Masters, and therefore, if the Master hath no such absolute Right, or Property in the Persons of his Slaves, as he hath in his Sheep, or Cattle; I see no reason, why even Slaves, if their Masters go about to take away their Lives for no other Cause, but to satisfy their own humour, or passion, may not, (if they cannot otherwise escape) resist their Masters, and save their Lives if they can. For all Writers agree, that if a Master doth so inhumanely abuse his Slave; that he can no longer endure it without danger of his Life, he may in that Case Lawfully run away, and escape from him; and why he may not as well resist him to save his Life, when his Master goeth about thus unjustly, and without any Cause to take it away; I can see no reason to the contrary: Since it was only for the saving his Life, that such a Man could ever be supposed to yield himself a Slave to another; and which Condition being broken on the Master's part, the Servant is again in the State of Nature, and the relation of Master and Servant so far ceases; or is at least suspended, during that Violence.  
This being the state of particular Men, I cannot think that God hath put whole Nations in a worse Condition; nor can I ever imagine, that any whole Nation, unless urged by some extreme necessity, would ever give up themselves so absolutely for Slaves, as not to have any Right to defend their own Lives, or a Property in any thing they can enjoy; and if ever they could be supposed to have done so, I think I may boldly affirm, that such a Nation are not Subjects, but Slaves, and the Prince not a Monarch or Civil Governor, but only a Lord of a Great Family, or Master of a public Workhouse.  
For I take the difference betwixt Subjects, or Slaves, and Princes and Masters of Families to consist in this, that the Power of a Prince, is chiefly ordained for the Good, and Preservation of his Subjects, tho' I grant his own may likewise be included in it, as an Encouragement, and Reward for his Labour; yet not as the principal End of his Institution: Whereas in a Family of Slaves, they are chiefly ordained for his profit, or Benefit that maintains them; but their Happiness, and Preservation is only accidental, and as it may conduce to that. The main End also of Civil Government is to institute and maintain a distinct Property in men's Estates, and which the Prince, or Commonwealth can have no Right to take away. And therefore, tho' I grant that in those Despotic Monarchies you mention, the Monarches do exercise an Absolute, Arbitrary Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of their Subjects: Yet that this is by Divine Right, or Institution I utterly deny, or that it was always so in all of them from the beginning; for most of those Empires you mention can no otherwise subsist than by a Constant maintaining vast standing Armies, or Guards to keep their Subjects in Obedience.  
Nor can any Governments be of Divine Institution, which are exercised with a sole Respect to the personal Power, and Grandeur of the Prince, rather than the Good and Preservation of the People. So that if you will but survey the accounts that Travellers give us of those Eastern Parts of the World, you will find, that there are no known settled Laws or Properties in those Countries, except at the Arbitrary Will of the Monarch, or his Viceroys; and thus all those rich, and fruitful Countries of Egypt, and Asia, which formerly flourished in all Arts, Knowledge and Civility, and abounded in Multitudes of People, are now in most places reduced to mere Deserts, and do not breed a Tenth part of that number of People, as they did in former Ages: Which proceeds from no other cause but the Cruelty, and Injustice of the Government, quite different from what it was in the time of the Roman Emperors, who tho', I confess, they were in some sense absolute too, yet governed by, and were obliged to observe Known Laws▪ and the People had a settled Property in their Estates, which the Prince had no Right to take away. I shall not inquire how all these Monarches came to be so Arbitrary at first, and thus to abuse their Power. But the Generality, or Antiquity of this abuse can be no more a Plea for its Right, than that because Idolatry was generally practised throughout the World within three or four hundred Years after the Flood, till three or above four hundred Years after Christ, therefore, Idolatry was the True and Ancient Religion of the World.  
Now, tho' I will not condemn this sort of Government▪ where the Subjects enjoy no settled Property in Lands, or Goods, as absolutely unlawful, and directly contrary to the Laws of God, or Nature: Yet in those Kingdoms and Commonwealths, where Civil, or Hereditary Property is once introduced, I think it is not Lawful, nor indeed in the Power of the Prince or Commonwealth to destroy, or take it away. And therefore if the Roman Emperors should have endeavoured by any Laws, or Edicts of their own making to have destroyed all Civil, or Hereditary Property in Lands and Goods, and to have reduced all the Estates of their Subjects into their own Possession: I think they might have been Lawfully disobeyed, and resisted by the People, since they went about to destroy one great End of Civil Government, viz. the Instituting, and Maintaining of Civil Property.  
To conclude, I freely grant that in all Countries which are governed, either by absolute Monarchies, or Commonwealths, the Sovereignty, is so fully in one Person, or Body of Men, that it hath no other Bounds or Limits under God; but it's own Will, or Commands: Provided they do not apparently tend to the absolute Ruin, and Destruction of the People; for that being inconsistent with the Notion, or End of governing them, they are, and ever will be judges of it. And therefore even amongst the Turks, and Tartars themselves, if they should once find their Prince go about wilfully to destroy them, or sell them for Slaves; you would soon find (notwithstanding this servile Subjection,) That they would quickly be rid of them, as the janissaries have served their Emperors of late Years, for far less faults.  M. 
I cannot deny but you have spoken reasonably enough on this Subject, and perhaps if you had restrained this Power of Resistance only to such Cases, where the Prince, or Monarch makes open War upon his People, or doth otherwise actually go about to destroy them, it might have been a tolerable doctrine that they may lawfully resist the Forces he shall send against them, but this is a Case that so seldom happens (if ever at all) that it can never be supposed, and no Prince, unless he were Mad, can be guilty of it; and therefore when ever he Acts thus, I think he may not only be Lawfully resisted, but tied up for a Madman. But this is seldom, or never the Case between Monarches, and their People, for most of the Rebellions, and Insurrections that I have ever read of, or observed in the World, have not proceeded from any necessity that the People had to rise up in Arms, and Rebel against their Supreme Magistrates, because their Lives, or Estates were assaulted, or in danger to be taken away, but for the most part they arose either from the too Great Cruelty, or severity of the Supreme Power towards some particular Private Men, who by themselves, and their Friends and Relations have gone about to revenge those Injuries, that they supposed had been done them. And of this, all Histories are to full, that I need give no particular Instances of them; all which abuses may be reduced to these Heads. First, when a Prince doth commonly himself violate the Chastities of the Wives, or Daughters of the Subjects, which tho' it hath been the ruin of divers Princes, yet is he able to do this only to some few particular Persons, and tho' if he should permit his Soldiers, or Officers generally to do this, without any Punishment; yet even this, can hardly, if ever, extend to all the Wives, Daughters, or Women in a whole Country: And therefore both these Cases are to be born withal, according to your own Principles, since it doth not tend to the Slavery, or Destruction of the People, I mean, as to their whole complexed Body. A Second is, when an absolute Prince or Monarch goeth about to alter the established Religion of his Country, and to introduce a different one by his own sole Authority, whilst the Major part of the People continue of another Opinion. In this Case, I suppose you will not affirm, that the Subjects have a Right to resist their Prince for so doing. For then the Romans might justly have rebelled against Constantine, when he shut up the Heathen Temples, and forbade all public Sacrifices to their Gods, and thereby made the Christian Religion the established Profession of the Empire.  F. 
But pray Sir, give me leave to interrupt you a little, might not Constantine have a Right to do this, because the Christian Religion is the only true one; and that the Idolatry the Romans then practised, was against the Law of Nature?  M. 
Whatever weight there may be in this answer, yet you have no reason to put this Question now; since you have already, viz. at our first Conference asserted, that, an Erroneous Conscience gives men a Right to follow it, during the time they are under this Ignorance of the Truth: And therefore if the Roman Emperors had not a Right to do this by their own Authority without any resistance, the Subjects, whilst they believed the Worship of their God to be thereby destroyed, might, nay, aught to have resisted the Emperor, rather than to have suffered him to have altered the ancient Religion of the Empire, and to have brought in another, which they looked upon as an upstart; and it is very natural for Men to do so, since nothing ought to be more dear to them, than the Worship and honour of God.  F. 
I do not desire at present to Embark myself in this tedious, and troublesome dispute about the Authority of the Supreme Powers in matters of Religion; and therefore I shall say no more to it at present, but if your Assertion be true, that an absolute Monarch may set up what Religion he pleases, without being resisted by the Subjects, whom I suppose to be of another persuasion, it will then follow, that if the French King, or Emperor of Musc●vy, should turn Mahometan, and should set up that Superstition by force, for the Public, and National Religion of the Country, tho' with the Destruction of all that should oppose it, none of their Subjects might resist them in so doing; and if so, I desire you to consider, what you have gained to Religion by thus asserting such an unlimited Prerogative to all Monarches. But laying aside this Dispute till another time, I pray go on to the rest of those Cases in which the People do take upon them to resist the Supreme Powers.  M. 
I shall comply with your desires, and therefore a Third Pretence of Subjects to rebel, is, when the Supreme Powers shall think it necessary to levy upon their People more heavy and grievous Taxes, and Impositions, than the People are willing, or, it may be, able to pay. Now, if your Principle be true, that they may rise in Arms, and resist the Supreme Powers, whenever they think themselves thus intolerably oppressed, and if they shall be sole judges of this oppression, than all the Rebellions that ever were made in England, or elsewhere, by reason of such excessive Tributes, or Taxes, whould be Lawful. Which would be a perpetual Ground of Anarchy, and Confusion: For private Subjects, not being admitted into the Privy Councils of Princes, or States, can never be supposed to understand, whether the necessities of the Commonwealth may require them, or not. And indeed the People do so often repine and murmur at the Government, when the Public Necessities require to impose greater Taxes, or Gabels than they think they can well bear, that the Mobile of any great City or Province for Example, who think themselves thus oppressed, beyond what they are able, or perhaps willing to bear; may rise in Rebellion and throw off all Obedience to Civil Authority, and they may have a very good Pretence for it, according to your Principle, because they may look upon themselves as a very considerable, nay, necessary part of the Commonwealth. And thus the Common People of Kent might have justified their Rebellion in Richard the seconds time under Wat Tyler, and jack Straw; and the People of Devonshire, and Somerset-shire might likewise have justified their Insurrection in Henry the sevenths Reign under Flammock the Black smith. And I could mention others of the like Nature, but I forbear, because you may say they were upon account of Religion. And lastly, this Principle might very well justify the Insurrection of the People of Naples under Massaniello, which besides the vast spoil it made upon the Goods and Palaces of the Nobility, ended at last (whatsoever they pretended at first to the contrary) in delivering up themselves to the King of France, who refusing to protect them they were soon reduced to their former Obedience to the King of Spain.  
In short, if the People should take upon them to Resist, or Rebel, whenever they thought themselves intolerably injured, and oppressed in their Estates by immoderate Taxes, there would be no End of such Rebellions, especially considering the advantage which Wicked, Crafty, and Ambitious men would thereby take to excite the People to rise and depose their Lawful Governors, and set up themselves in their Room upon Pretence of better Government, and greater Liberty. And how prone the Common People have been to receive such Impressions, He is but meanly alleged in Ancient, and Modern History, who is not convinced of it.  F. 
To answer this Objection, before you proceed farther, my opinion in short is, that tho' such Taxes may often prove an Universal Damage, and a great impoverishment to the Subjects; yet if they are such as may be born with less trouble, than can follow from a Civil War, or the change of the Government, there is no just or sufficient cause of Resistance of the Sovereign Magistrates commands, or Edicts concerning them. As for Example, such great Taxes as the Subjects pay, and perhaps may bear it well enough in Holland and other Countries; since there may be a necessity for such Taxes, and of this I grant the Supreme Authority of the Nation can be the only judges. And how far this may extend, I cannot positively determine. For suppose you should ask me, if the Supreme Powers should borrow all the Ready Money the Subjects had, for the necessary uses of the State, so that they would give them Leather, or Brass Money instead of it, to go at the same value, for the necessary uses of Commerce, yet if they did not take away their Property in their Lands, Corn, or Living Stock; which are the necessary means of their Subsistance, I do not think it were a sufficient Cause, to take up Arms against their Governors for so doing; because the Subjects cannot tell, but that the necessities of the State, (for their necessary defence against a Potent Foreign Enemy) may require it. And sure, it is a much greater Evil to fall into a Civil War, or to be subdued by Strangers, than to part with their Money; since by such a War, or Conquest they might not only lose that Money, but also their Liberties, and Estates.  
Yet, on the other side, I would not be understood to give the Supreme Magistrates, a Power to invade the Properties, and Estates of their Subjects to what degree they thought fit. For than they might Tax them to that extremity as might force them to sell themselves, and their Wives and Children for Slaves, or else being unable to pay, must be forced to run away and leave their Habitations, (as the Peasants often do in France;) whereby whole Villages, nay Towns, may become depopulated, as they are in divers parts of Italy, and Turkey, by such extraordinary Severitles, and therefore in absolute Monarchies, where there is no Nobility, Gentry, nor Yeomen, who can claim any Property in their Estates, which with us make up the best and most considerable part of the People; and where the Government being wholly Military, and is exercised, over the People, only by force of Arms; I doubt not but such a People reduced to this extremity, may not only quit the Country, where they are thus intolerably oppress't, but that, if they are not of themselves strong enough to make Resistance and cast off this intolerable Yoke by force, they may (if an occasion be offered) ●oyn with any Neighbour Prince, or State, tha● will undertake their Quarrel, and upon this account, I think▪ we may very well justify the Revolt of the Greek Christians from the Ottoman Yoke, and putting themselves under the Protection of the Venetians, both in the Morea, and other places; and also upon the same Principles, I conceive, the Common People of France, who are reduced to the like extremities, might also with a safe Conscience revolt from the Present King, and put themselves under the Protection of the Prince of Orange, our now present Sovereign, or the States of Hotland▪ if ever they should be successful enough to make any considerable Invasion upon that Kingdom.  
And therefore I must confess, that there can be no certain and stated Rule set down to what Proportion absolute Princes or Commonwealths may Tax their Subjects, since in some Country's the People can better part with a Shilling, than in others they can pay a Penny. And as I grant it must be left to the Mercy, and Discretion of the Governors what Taxes to impose without thus ruining and destroying their People, as it is left to the Judgement of the owner of the Beast, how much burden it is able to bear. So if he, by laying too great a weight, breaks the Back of his Horse or Beast, he not only hath the Loss, but makes himself the Laughingstock of all his Neighbours: So that, tho' I confess the People ought to have Patience, and rather to suffer many Oppressions, and hardships, than to put themselves in this miserable State of War; Yet there is a midst in all things, and the People may be so Cruelly Oppressed by Taxes, and other Impositions, as it is impossible for them longer to Subsist or provide Necessaries for themselves, and their Families: And since you have already granted, that the People may judge when their Prince makes War upon them, and goeth actually about to destroy them by the Sword, I cannot see, why they may not have the same Right of judging when they are like to be destroyed by Famine too. And who can be judge of this, but those who feel it?  
But indeed it is Morally impossible for the People to be mistaken in so plain a Case. For, tho' this many-headed beast (as you commonly call them,) the People cannot argue very Subtly of the future Consequences of things, yet they have a very Nice and Tender Sense of feeling, and can very well tell, when they are so injured, and oppressed: that they can bear it no longer, for then sure, they may be allowed to have as much Care, and Sense of their own Preservation, as Camels, and Dromedaries, which (as Travellers Relate) tho' they are taught by their Masters to Kneel down, and to receive their Loads, which they will patiently endure as long as they are able to bear them, Yet when once their Masters do over-exceed that weight, neither fair means nor foul, can prevail upon them to rise, or they will throw off those Loads if risen, that they feel will otherwise break their Backs. But I have Discoursed long enough on this Head, and therefore if you have nothing more material to except against it, I pray proceed to the rest of the Causes, that Subjects may, as you think, pretend to have, to take up Arms against the Supreme Powers.  M. 
I have somewhat more to urge, towards proving that this Liberty which you allow the Subjects, wholly tends to Anarchy, and Confusion; but I shall reserve it to the last, when I shall Sum up all that I have farther to urge upon this Subject, and therefore I shall proceed to the other Pretences that Subjects in absolute Monarchies may make to Rebel; and the next may be, that the Monarch looking upon his Subjects as his Slaves, may either use them so himself, or Sell them to other Nations for that purpose, as Monfieur Chardin tells us, 
Vi. Sir Jo. Chardins Travels L. 1.  the King of Mingrelia often doth divers of his People to Raise Money, And tho' I will not be so Ridiculous as to suppose That such a Monarch can Sell away all his People at once; for than he should be left alone without any Subjects, and Consequently become no King. Yet in such Monarchies as divers of the Eastern, and African are at this day, where (as you yourself own) the People having no Settled or Hereditary Property in their Estates, the Monarch may dispose of their Particular Persons as he thinks fit; I cannot see any reason, why, the Monarch may not in these Countries without any blame exert his Prerogative if he pleases, and take as many of his Subjects, or their Children to serve him as Slaves, as he thinks necessary for his Service.  
And therefore whatsoever People or Nation have thus Subjected themselves to the Absolute Power, or Dominion of one Man, they have no more Right to Regain their Natural Liberty, than I should have of taking away any thing by Force which I had before given or granted to another: For this Sort of Civil Servitude, is not so Repugnant to Nature as some Imagine, or that because Subjects were forced to consent to it for the avoiding of some Greater Evil, they can afterwards have any Right to shake it off again when ever they will. For, tho' I grant, that God hath not Instituted any such Servitude, yet when once it is introduced in any Country, Men are not at Liberty to cast off the Yoke when ever they please, but to observe St. Paul's Rule, If thou art a Servant, care not for it, but if thou are free, choose it rather, That is, Freedom is to be preferred before Servitude or Subjection. But where Providence hath made Men Absolute Servants, or Subjects; they are bound to continue in that State, unless the Supreme Powers, they are under, think fit to Release them from it. And therefore this can be no good Pretence under Absolute Monarchies for Subjects to take up Arms against their Prince, for such a State of Liberty which they never enjoyed.  F. 
I shall not trouble myself to Dispute, what Right an Absolute Monarch may have over the Persons of his People in a Country, where they have no Property, nor Written Laws, and where they look upon themselves as no better than Slaves to their Prince, and perhaps may take a Pride in it, (as I have read the Russians do.) And therefore if they have so wholly Submitted themselves, I grant what you assert, is true, and that they have no Right to Resist, according to the Old saying, Volenti non fit Injuri●. And yet even in these Despotic Monarchies, tho' the Prince may pick out here and there some of his Subjects to sell for Slaves, or else to use them as such himself; yet I do much question, if he should go about to make any Considerable Number, (as suppose to take 20, or 30000 all at once for Slaves,) I say, I do much question whether these People would be so Convinced of your Principles of Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance, as to let their Monarch's Guards drive them into Slavery, like Sheep to the Market, but would, if they were able, make a Vigorous Resistance, and knock their Drivers on the Head. Whether jure, vel injuria, I shall not dispute.  
But for all this, even in Absolute Monarchies, where the People have a Settled Legal Property in their Lands, and Estates, and consequently where their Persons are free, I doubt not, if their Princes should go about to make all his Subjects Slaves; but that they might Lawfully Resist him, or those he employs in so doing. And tho' it be true, he could not make all his People Slaves at once, Yet if he asserted it as a part of his Royal Prerogative, and also exercised it on particular Persons, as often as he thought sit, or could, I doubt not but the People might make it a common cause; Since none can know whose turn it may be next: For sure Liberty from Servitude is as necessary to Man's Happiness and Wellbeing, as Life is to his Existence: Which would seem no great Benefit to those. 
Martial.  who being Born Free, were reduced to Slavery; it being well said by the Poet, Non est vivere, Sed-valere vita.  
And tho' the Roman Emperors did exercise an Absolute Power over their Subjects, yet I never read, that they durst presume to make Slaves of Freeborn Romans, nor indeed of any of those Nations they Subdued; For they had too great a Sense, and Love of Liberty themselves, ever to Impose such a Yoke upon the People they Conquered, which was so Destructive to the Common Happiness and Preservation of Mankind. And suppose if the French Grand Signior, as absolute as he is, or pretends to be, should go about to Sell his Subjects, (especially the Nobility) for Slaves, all that the Jesuits (those Instruments of Slavery) could do, would not, I believe, be able to Keep that People from Rising against him. But if you have nothing farther to object against what I have now said; I pray proceed to the next Flayed, if you have any more Instances to make.  M. 
I am now come to the last Pretence, that Subjects may make to Rebel. And that is, Supposing the Monarch, should at once, or by Degrees turn the Subjects out of their Legal Hereditary Properties in their Estates; And of this you yourself grant, there can be no Dispute in those Despotic Monarchies, where there is no Hereditary Property allowed; And as for all other Governments, since you do own that all Legal, and Civil Property in Lands did chiefly proceed, or at least is Established by the Civil Power, I cannot see, why, those Powers in any Kingdom (if they think it would conduce to the Good of the Commonwealth,) may not Destroy this Civil Property, and either make all Estates equal, or else ordain, that they shall be enjoyed (as in all absolute Monarchies) at the Will of the Prince; since, if the Supreme Powers are the Author of this Property, sure they may alter, and Abrogate it again as often as they think fit.  F. 
I shall not Dispute with you concerning such Kingdoms, where there is no Civil Property yet Instituted, or where the People do own themselves Slaves to the Prince: But if such a Monarch, hath remitted any thing of this Right; and hath Instituted a Legal Hereditary Property in Estates; such a Law being once made, I do not think it is in the Prince's Power to revoke it, any more than it is for a Master to Reduce his Slaves again to Servitude after he hath once set them free; Since both Men's Liberties, or a Settled or Hereditary Property an Estates do equally conduce to the Happiness and Propagation of Mankind, and the Good of that People, or Nation, wherein it is introduced. And I doubt not, but Pharaoh, tho' he was Lord of all the Lands of Egypt, by the Grant of the Egyptians, yet might lawfully have been Resisted by them, if he had gone to take away those Four Fifth parts of the profit of the Lands, which he had left thern free by his own Concession.  
So that even in such Absolute Empires, the Monarches have Power to Dispose of the Estates of the People, only as far as the Compact▪ or Concession at first made by them or their Predecessors do allow: But it is also not much otherwise where the Subjects do not acknowledge their Estates as the Gift, or Benefit of the Supreme Powers, and that may happen chiefly two ways, Either 1. When any Free People, under the Conduct of a Captain or Leader, Created by themselves, have Conquered any New Territory, and Habitation; or else, 2. When Divers Fathers, or Masters of a Family, who had Estates of their own before have agreed for their Mutual Security, and the quiet Enjoyment of what they were already possess of, to join together into one Commonwealth, under the Command of one, or more Men, or else of others that will bring their Estates, and join themselves to such a Government already Constituted, and will Subject themselves to this Supreme Power, according to the Conditions already agreed on amongst them. A third Case may be, when an Hereditary Property in Land was Established before the Monarchy began, as in the Roman Commonwealth, this Property was Established before the Government was changed from a Republic to a Monarchy, so that the People did not owe their Property to the Emperors Grant, or Donation.  
In the former case, if such a Free People Conquer a Country under the Conduct of a Captain or Leader, tho', I grant, such a Country may be Assigned by him to all the People by Lot, or in Proportion to the greater Merit, or Service of his Fellow Adventurers, or Soldiers, (tho' it may seem that the Property of Particular Men, may have proceeded, not from their own Right, or Possession, but from the Assignment of their Chief Captain or Leader,) Yet are not the Estates which such particular Men enjoy, to be looked upon only, as the mere Grace, or Favour of such a Prince, since most of those who followed him in this Conquest, or Expedition, did it not, as Subjects, but as Volunteers, and without whose Assistance, he could never have Conquered at all: So that they have thereby acquired to themselves a certain Portion, or Share in the Land so Conquered, tho' for avoiding Dissensions, and Quarrels amongst them, it was left to the Disposal of this New Prince, as a public Trustee, to Distribute to each person what share he should have. But in the other Case, when Fathers, or Masters of Families, before Free, and Possessed of Hereditary Estates, do submit themselves to the Command of one Man Voluntarily, or by Election. Those Estates do much less depend upon the Will or Favour of that Prince. And therefore, if such a Prince should without their consents go about to take away their Property in their Estates, he might very justly be Resisted by them, since a quiet enjoyment of these in Peace, and Safety, was one of the chief reasons, that made them choose him for their Prince, and was certainly one of the Original Compacts of the Government.  
And that in Absolute Monarchies, where the Subjects were not Slaves, they looked upon themselves to have such a settled Property in their Persons, and Estates, by Compact, That Seneca boldly pronounced, Errat, siquis existimat sutum ●sse ibi R●gem, ubi nihil à Regetutum est; Securitas Securitate mutua paciscenda est. And Mr. Hobbs himself, as much a Friend as he was to the Arbitrary Power of Monarches, and an Enemy to the Natural Rights of Subjects, yet is forced in his Leviathan to confess, that the Riches, Power, and Honour of a Monarch, arises only from the Riches, Strength, and Reputation of his Subjects, for no King can be Rich, 
Pag. 96.  nor Glorious, nor Secure, whose Subjects are ●●●her poor, or contemptible. Tho' how this Riches, and Strength of Subjects can consist with that Absolute Power which he gives his Sovereign over the Persons, and Estates of his Subjects, I cannot understand; since he will not allow of any Compacts, or Conditions between him and them. But that their Propriety may very well consist with the Power of the Prince; Seneca shows us; jure Civili (says he) omni● R●gis sunt, & tamen illa quorum ad Regem pertinet universa possessio in singulos Dominos descripta sunt, & unaquaeque res habet possessorem suum. Itaque dare Regi, & donum, & mancipium & pecuniam possumus, nec donare illi de suo dicimur. Ad Reges enim Potestas omnium pertinet, ad singulos Proprietas. And the Earl of Clarendon in his Survey of the Leviathan makes this excellent remark upon this Passage of Seneca: 
cap. 24.  And that Prince who thinks his Power so Gre●●, that his Subjects have nothing to give him, will be very unhappy, if he hath evern n●ed of their Hands, or their Hearts. So that notwithstanding this Universal Power, or Supereminent Dominion of the Emperor over all things, which Seneca there supposes, yet, if he should have gone about to have Invaded all Men's Properties, and reduced all Men's Estates into the Public Treasury, I doubt not but he would soon have had not only his own Legions, but the whole Empire about his Ears. And tho' I have heard that the French King, doth by his Ex●roitant Taxes, and Gabels raise more M●ney out of the Kingdom of France, and the Territories annexed to it, than the Ottoman Emperor doth out of that vast Empire (of which he hath the Sole Propriety of the Lands in himself) Yet if the French King should endeavour by the Power of his Standing Army to take away all Men's Hereditary Properties in their Estates, and make them all to be holden at Will, I doubt not, but he would not only be Opposed by his Subjects, and perhaps ruined in the Attempt; but also, if he should Succeed in it, would be so 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 Estates, any more than they do in Turkey, when they were not sure 〈◊〉 soon they might be turned out of them; or at least 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 〈◊〉 to above half the value of the Estates) to encourage the People to beautify, cultivate, and improve a Country abounding with all those Riches, that Nature, or Art can produce.  
And to let you see, I am not at all partial, I think I may safely affirm the same of the Legislative Power in this Kingdom, so that, if it should happen (which though highly improbable, yet it is not impossible) that the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament should so far abuse the Trust reposed in them, as to give up all their Civil Properties in their Estates into the King's Hands, to be disposed of as he should think fit, and that the King should thereupon go about to turn all the People out of their Estates, I doubt not, but they might in that case resist the King if he went to do it by force, Notwithstanding this Act of Parliament, and my reason it, that a 〈◊〉 Hereditary Property in Estates, being an Ancient, if not more, than Parliament themselves in this Nation, must consequently be a Fundamental Law of the Government, and so cannot be altered by its Representatives. For tho' it be true, the People have given them a Power to dispose of what part of their Estates they should think 〈◊〉, yet did they not make it absolute, to extend either to their Liberties (I mean in respect of Slavery) or their whole Properties in their Estates. And if the King may be resisted, if he invade them by his own Sole Authority, the reason would be the same why he might be also resisted, tho' backed by an Act of Parliament: Since the ta●●ing away of Civil Property would prove as destructive to the People● Liberties and Happiness in the one case, as in the other, and as great an abuse of the Trust reposed 〈◊〉 them; that were designed to protect it.  M. 
I cannot except against your distinction between those Governments where a Property in Estates, did precede the Institution of the Government it sell; for there, I grant, that such a Property may be a Fundamental Law of the Government, but in those Monarchies that have begun by Conquest, under the Command of a King; or absolute Prince, over an Army of his own Subjects, in that case upon the Conquest of a Kingdom, or foreign Nation, not only the Prey, or Goods of the 〈◊〉, but also their Estates were forfeited to the Conqueror, who had a Right either to retain them for himself, or else to distribute them as Rewards amongst his 〈◊〉, and Soldiers: And that this is the Right of all Conquerors, whether Commonwealth, or Monarches, by the Law of Nations, and was exercised amongst the Ancient Greeks, and Romans, as well as other Nations, I refer you to your own Authors Grotius, and Pufendors. And therefore, since it appears from History, that most of the Kingdoms now in Europe, and particularly this of England, began from Conquest, under the Conduct of their first Kings, if than whatsoever was so Conquered was acquired for them, and they alone had a Property in it, it will necessarily follow that all Estates which the Subjects of all sorts now enjoy, must have proceeded from their Grants or Concessions; And hence it is, that not only in England but also in Scotland and France, they are all held either mediately, or immediately, of the King: as being at first all derived from him; and we read in the ancient Laws of Scotland, that the King had the whole Property of the Country, till the Reign of Malcolm Conmor, who, as we read in the Ancient Histories of that Country, granted all the Lands in Scotland to his Nobility, and Gentry, according to that old Maxim in their Law, Rex distribuit totam Toram Scotiae hominibus juis: And therefore if Hereditary Property in Estates were only from the Gift and Bounty of our Kings without any Fundamental Contract between them, and their Subjects, as you suppose; I cannot see any reason (granting the worst that can happen, which is highly improbable) if the Kings of this, or of our Neighbouring Nations, should go about by force to destroy, and take away this Hereditary Property they now enjoy, That the People should have any Right to resist them; But that it would be not only Ingratitude, but Rebellion so to do. For tho' I own that Kings were guilty of Perjury in the sight of God if they did it, yet that being an offence only against God, the Subjects could have no more right to resist, than Sons in the State of Nature had to resist their Father, if he should go about to take away those Estates, which he had before bestowed upon them.  
And as for what you say concerning the Roman Commonwealth, I grant indeed, that the Government of the People did there precede that of the Emperor, yet if you please to Remember, Monarchy was the first, and most Ancient Government of that People. And I doubt not but all the Property the Romans had in their Estates, tho' they preceded from Conquest of their Arms, yet it was wholly owing to the Grace and Bounty of their first Kings, and when upon the Expulsion of jarquin, 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 thought fit, tho' I confess the Not dividing of these Lands amongst the Common People, was afterwards the Cause of great Tumults, and Commotions amongst them; Yet notwithstanding the Senate and Nobility still maintained their Power, and to the last refused to make a Division of those Lands, they had formerly Conquered; So that the Roman Emperors succeeding in the Power of the Senate, and People, they were likewise restored, as it were ex pos●liminio, to the Prerogatives of the first Kings, and consequently, as Seneca himself confesses in the place you have quoted, tho' the particular Propriety of Estates was in Private Men, yet you see he grants the Universal Possession, or Dominion of them was in the King, or Emperor, from whom they were Originally derived.  
I would not be thought to speak thus, as if I were an Enemy to men's Liberties, and Properties, or that I either Fear, or desire any Change in them, from what we now enjoy, but since I think it a thing Morally Impossible to alter them, and that therefore no King will be so ill advised, as to go about to Seize them into his own hands; but only by way of discourse, supposing the worst that can happen, I think we are not only Obliged in Conscience, but also that it were much better for the Common Peace that the Ring should take all we have, than that we should involve the Nation in Civil War, and confusion, and our Consciences under the Gild of a Mortal Sin, by such Resistance, and Rebellion.  F. 
I am very sorry to see, that by your Principles all the Free Nations of Europe lie at the Mercy of any Prince to be made as errand slaves as any are in Turkey, when ever their Monarch please, or that they think that they can make more of their People by taking away their Estates and Liberties, than by letting them enjoy them, which would render Civil Property in all Kingdoms like private Estates, which every Man may let to his Tenant's a● Will, upon a Rack Rent, or for Years, or Lives as they shall think fit. But I think I may very well differ from you in both your Propositions: For, omitting any farther discourse of th●se Eastern Monarchies, where I grant the People are little better than Slaves; Yet I think I can easily prove, out of the Ancient Histories of those Kingdoms that are now in Europe, that tho' most of them began by Conquest, yet was it not under the Conduct of Absolute Monarches, but under such Princes, or Leaders, whose followers (as I said before at our last meeting,) were not properly Subjects nor Mercenaries, but Volunteers, under those that Commanded them. And therefore would never have gone out of their own Countries, but to advantage themselves, and to enjoy those Privileges, which their Countrymen had at home, of which, Liberty in their Persons, and Property in their Estates, were the Chief; and this is apparent in the French Nation, who whatever their Condition may be now, yet Anciently called themselves Francs▪ in opposition to that Servitude, which they supposed their Neighbouring Nations amongst the Germans were in to the Romans at that time: And tho' I grant, that these Nations of the Goths, Vandals, Francs and Saxons from whom most of the Kingdoms in Europe are now derived, might Vest, or intrust the Lands of the Countries they had Conquered, in him whom they had made their King, yet still it was with this Trust, that retaining a sufficient part to sustain the Royal Dignity, they should distribute the rest to all their Officers, and Soldiers, according to each man's Valour, or Merit; And if they had refused to have done this, can any Man believe, that so free a People, as the Ancient Histories relate them to have been, would ever have suffered it, without pulling down those Kings they had set up, which was then very common among them for much slighter occasions? And to go no higher than William (whom you call the Conqueror) can any Man believe, that if he had retained all the Lands of England to himself, not only his own Norman Lords and Soldiers, but those of other Foreign Nations, who assisted him in this Expedition, would ever have suffered him to have reigned in quiet over them, if instead of a Limited King, he had set himself up for an absolute Monarch, and have granted them no Estates but at his Will, and Pleasure: which would have reduced the Conqueror, and the Conquered to the same condition▪ But as for your Example of Malcolm Canmor, I cannot believe that the Kings of Scotland were so lately as his Reign possessed of the whole Hereditary Property of all the Lands in that Kingdom, so as that no Man had any settled Interest in them before that time, and therefore I must beg your pardon, if I think this Passage in their Historians to be very suspicious, if not false: But I speak this only by the by, and I reserve what I have more to say on this Head, for another time, wherein, I doubt not but to be able to show you, as evidently as can be done after so many Ages, that all the Kingdoms in Europe which are descended from the Gothick or Germane Nations commenced at first from Compact, with their first Kings, and have thereby an unalterable Right, in their Lives, Liberties, and Estates; And if so, have likewise Right to defend them, if generally, and universally invaded by their Princes.  
But granting for the present, what you have asserted to be true, that all this Property, which is now in Europe, proceeded wholly from the Grants, and Concessions of Princes; yet will it not follow, that by the Law of Nature, or Nations, if any King should go about generally, or at once to invade the Liberties, and Properties of their People, they might not Lawfully be resisted, for, as I said before, even a sl●ve when Manumitted by his Patron, may Lawfully defend his Liberty against him, if he goeth about to take it away, and reduce him again into slavery; So likewise in the same State of Nature▪ if a Prince freely grant his Subjects a settled and Hereditary Property in their Estates, they have likewise a Right to defend them, against him, or any other that would endeavour by force to take them away; For he that in this State grants any thing to another, grants him likewise a Right to Keep it, whether the Donor will, or not, or else it were indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For he, that in the State of Nature grants another Man any thing to be possessed, or enjoyed only as long as he himself, or his Heirs, shall think fit, doth in effect grant him as good as nothing; since he may alter his mind to morrow and demand it again, and take it away the very next day. So that if you will grant, that Subjects have such a Right to their Estates, as that the Prince cannot without manifest violence, or injustice take them away, you must likewise grant, that they have also a Right to defend them.  
But I suppose you will not deny that Right, that all Men have to their Civil Properties in all our European Kingdoms, 
T.T. G. c. 19  and Commonwealths, tho' never so absolute: But your Objection against the subjects defending it by force, if it be invaded, is, that it may cause Rebellion, and Confusion; I grant indeed, it may sometimes occasion Civil Wars, or Intestine Commotions, if the People finding their Liberties and Properties notoriously invaded, shall oppose the unjust violence of those who, contrary to the trust reposed in them, do thus violently invade them: therefore, (forsooth) if this Doctrine be allowed, it may prove destructive to the Peace of Kingdoms, and Common Wealths and Consequently to the good, and happiness of Mankind: But methinks you might as well have argued, that honest Men might not resist Robbers or Pirates, because it may occasion Disorder, and Bloodshed; If any mischief come in such cases, sure it is not to be charged upon him, who defends his own Right, but on him that invades another's. If the Innocent honest Man must quit all he hath for quietness sake to him who will lay Violent Hands upon it, I desire it may be considered, what a kind of Peace there will be in the World, which would consist only in Violence, and Rapi●●, and which would be maintained only for the benefit of Public Robbers, and Oppressors.  M. 
But pray, do you make no difference between a knot of Thiefs and Robbers and the Civil Government of a Monarch, or Commonwealth, which I suppose may very well be maintained without any Hereditary Property in Lands as you have granted? And it were much better in my mind to forego these outward things, than resist the Civil Government which is the Ordinance of God, as you yourself acknowledge.  F. 
I think the best way to end this controversy, will be, to desire you to give a Definition of Civil Government, that we may know what we mean by it, therefore, pray, will you give me an easy and plain Definition of it.  M. 
Well Sir, I shall comply with your desires; I then take Civil Government to be an Authority conferred by God, on one, or more Persons, to make Laws for the benefit, and Protection of the Subjects, and to inflict such Punishments for their Transgression, as they shall think fit, and by the Subjects Obedience, and Assistance to protect them against Foreign Enemies, and also to appoint what share of Civil Property each Person in that Commonwealth shall enjoy.  F. 
Sir, Tho' your Definition be somewhat lame, yet I am pretty well contented with it, only I will show you by and by wherein it is deficient: The first and therefore chiefest Branch, or Office of Civil Magistrate●, 〈◊〉, to make Laws for the Benefit, and Protection of the Subjects: Is it then a Branch of this Power, to send Soldiers, or Dragoons, to take away their Liberties, Lives or Estates▪ This sure is directly contrary to their Duty, and that Trust which God hath conferred upon them. Let us go on to the next Branch: The inflection of Punishments for the transgression of such Laws; Is this a part of Civil Government not only to send their Soldiers, and other Officers to take away their Subjects Lives and Estates, but also to let the most Capital Offenders or Robbers pass unpunished when they have done; if you maintain these to be the Prerogatives of Civil Government, or that to be Civil Government where these things are commonly practised, you may, even with Mr. Hobbs set the great Leviathan Free from all obligation to his Subjects, any further than he shall think fit for his own interest, and make them always in a State of Nature, that is, (as he supposes) of War with them, and then pray tell me, whether such a State, can be the Ordinance of God, or not? But to come to the last Branch of your Definition (and in which alone I think it deficient) the appointing what share of Property each person in that Commonwealth shall enjoy; Tho' I grant it may be the Prerogative of Civil Governments to appoint this at first, Yet are they likewise obliged to maintain this Property when it is once Instituted; and the People have as much Right to it as any King can have to his Crown, viz. the Civil Law of that Country, or Consent of the whole Nation: And therefore, if, according to King james the First his Rule, a King of a Settled, (or limited) Kingdom will break all the Laws thereof, and Degenerate into a Tyrant; unless such Tyrant be the Ordinance of God, he may certainly be so far Opposed, for what can Pirates, or Robbers do more than his Officers, and Guards by his Commission? The former can but Murder Men, Ravish their Wives, burn their Houses, and take away their Estates; and if the latter may do so too, pray where is the Difference? Or what satisfaction is it to me, that I am Ruined by one Man having the King's Commission, or by another that Ruins me without it? Since I am sure, God hath given the one no more Authority to do it, than the other; if then this unlimited Power be neither conferred by God, nor Man upon the Civil Magistrates, I would fain know any Reason, why Thiefs, and Pirates may be Resisted, but their Instruments may not, that do the same things; And why, when Civil Authority exceeds its utmost Bounds, the State of Nature, or Self-defence, may not take place; Since the Civil Government is as much Dissolved by such Violent Actions, as if a Foreign Enemy had broke in, and Conquered the Country?  
But to Answer your Query, whether I think a Civil Government may not be, where there is no Settled Property in Estates, and whether the Eastern Monarchies are not Civil Governments? To this I answer, that I have Aristotle on my Side, who, not without Reason Affirms, that the Government of one Man, where there is no Civil Property, and where all Men are Slaves, is not Civil Government, but that of a Master of a Great Family over his Slaves: And tho' I grant, that they may have some show of Civil Government among them, as in a Plantation, where one of the Slaves may complain to the Master against another for any Injury or Wrong done him, yet is not this Property Civil Government any more than that of the Master of a Separate Family who looks upon himself as Absolute Lord over all his Slaves, and they allowed him by God, only for his Benefit, and Grandeur, and not he instituted, (as all Civil Powers are) for the Good, and Preservation of the Subjects.  M. 
But methinks you seem herein to Condemn the Government of Gods own People the jews, which no doubt was an Absolute Monarchy; And that restrained by no Laws, except what God had expressly prescribed them; And yet you see notwithstanding Samuel told them, that their Kings should 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 Resist them, for so doing: But all the Remedy left them, 
1 Sam. 8.18.  is, that they should Cry out in that day, because of the King which they had chosen, and the Lord would not hear them, that is, there was no Remedy left them but Patience.  F. 
I have already given you my Sense of that Place, and I shall speak more particularly to it, when you shall come to those Texts of Scripture, that you said you would produce for Absolute Subjection, and Nonresistance: And therefore at present: I shall only here show you what the Earl of Clarendon in the above mentioned Survey of the Leviathan, cap. 19 hath very prudently as well as honestly said concerning this Text: 
pag. 74.77.  They who will deduce the extent of the absolute and illimited Power of Kings, from that Declaration by Samuel, which indeed, seems to leave neither Property nor Liberty to their Subjects, and could be only intended by Samuel to terrify them from that Mutinous, and Seditious Clamour; as it hath no Foundation from any other part of Scripture, nor was ever practised, or exercised by any Good King, who succeeded over them, and was blessed, and approved by God. So when those State Empirics (of what degree, or Quality soever) will take upon them to prescribe a new Diet, and Exercise to Sovereign Princes, and invite them to assume new Powers, and Prerogatives over the People, by the Precepts, Warrants, and Prescriptions of the Scriptures: they should not presume to make the Sacred Writ Subject to their own private Fancies. So likewise in a Leaf or two before, he speaks much to the same Purpose. That what Samuel had said was rather to terrify them, from pursuing their foolish Demands, than to Constitute such a Prerogative as the Kings should use, 
pag. 74.  whom God would appoint to go in and out before them; which methinks is very manifest, in that the worst Kings that ever reigned over them, never challenged, or assumed those Prerogatives Nor did the People conceive themselves liable to those impositions; as appears by the application they made to Rehoboam upon the Death of Solomon, that he would abate some of that Rigour his Father had exercised towards them, the rough Rejection o● which request, contrary to the Advice of his Wi●est Counselors, cost him the greater part of his Dominions: And when Rehoboam would by Arms have reduced them to Obedience, God would not suffer him, because he had been in the fault himself. From whence you may conclude, that this Great Man did not think all Resistance unlawful, in Case of General, and Intolerable Oppressions.  M. 
I shall give you my Opinion farther, of what you have now said, when you have told me more plainly in what Cases you allow Resistance of the Supreme Powers, and in what not. For till you have been more clear in this matter, I cannot tell what Judgement to make of your Tenets.  F. 
I thank you for putting me upon so fair a Method, And therefore that you may not mistake me, and suppose that I would go about to allow Subjects to Resist, and take up Arms against the Supreme Power upon any less Occasion than an Absolute Necessity, and apparent Danger of being Destroyed, and Ruined in their Lives, Liberties, and Estates; first therefore, considering that the Corruption of Humane Nature is such, that no sort of Government whatsoever can continue long, without some Inconveniences, and Mischiefs, to particular Men, not that any Man either Prince, or subject was ever Master of such perfect Wisdom, and Goodness, as always to peform his Duty so exactly, as never to Offend; I do in the first place, grant, that it would be both Undutiful▪ as well as Unjust for Subjects to Rebel against their Prince for his Personal Failings, or Vices; Undutiful, Since the Prince may be often times an ill Man in his private Capacity, and yet a good Governor, in respect of the Public; and also Unjust, since neither do we ourselves exactly perform our Duties toward the Supreme Powers (or to one another) as we ought: And therefore it is highly reasonable for Subjects to endure▪ and pass by the personal Faults or Failings of Princes, in consideration of that Protection, and Security, in their Lives, and Fortunes, which they do enjoy under them▪ since it hath been found by experience with how great a Slaughter of People, and how great a confusion, and danger of the whole Commonwealth, Evil Princes have been resisted, or turned out of their Thrones: And therefore I grant the Private Injuries of Princes are to be passed over, in consideration of that great Charge they undergo, and for those greater Benefits we receive from their Government, but chiefly for the public Peace of the Common Wealth, or Civil Society; And therefore I own it is very well said by that Master in Politics, Tacitus, That the ill Humours or Dispositions of Kings, are to be born withal, and that often Mutations of Governments are of dangerous Consequence. And he wisely introduces Ceriales speaking to this purpose to the Rebellious Treveri: That they ought to bear with the Luxury and Avarice of Rulers, as they do with immoderate showers, and other unnatural Evils, since there will be Vices whilst there are Men, yet neither are these continual, but are often recompensed by the Intervention of better.  
But I will now particularise those Cases wherein I do absolutely disallow, and disclaim all Resistance in Subjects against the Supreme Powers.  
1. I deny all Resistance to Subjects against their Princes, or Supreme Magistrates, in all such Actions, or Prerogatives which are absolutely necessary to the Exercise of their Supreme Power, viz. of Protecting and Defending their People, as also against those who are Commissioned by them for the Execution of such Powers.  
2. I Condemn all Rebellion against Princes, or States, merely on the Score of Religion, or because they are not of the Religion of their People, or Subjects, if there be no positive Law Extant, Disabling or Forbidding Princes, or other Magistrates of different Religions than that of their People, from being admitted to the Throne, or Government.  
3. I look upon it as Rebellion in the People, Tumultuously to rise up in Arms to alter, or reform the Religion of the Nation, or Kingdom already established by Law, without the Consent of the Legislators.  
4. I Disclaim all Resistance, or Self-defence in Subjects, upon the account that the free, or public Exercise of that Religion they profess, is not allowed them by the Legislative Power of the Kingdom, or Nation, provided that such Supreme Powers do not forbid, or hinder the People professing such a different Religion, to Sell, or Transport their Estates, and Persons into any other Country where they please.  
5. I Deny Resistance to Subjects against their Princes or Governors upon Pretence of any Personal Vices, as because they are wicked, Atheistical, Cruel, Lustful, or Debauched, provided they generally Protect their Subjects in their Lives, Liberties, and Properties.  
6. I Deny this Right of Resistance to any particular person less than the wh●le Body, or Major part of the People, or at least such a considerable Portion of a Nation, as are able, when Assaulted, or Oppressed in their Lives, Liberties, or Estates to constitute a distinct, and entire Kingdom, or Commonwealth of themselves.  
7. I look upon it as Wicked, and Rebellious for any private Subjects to Assassinate, Murder or Imprison their Monarch, or other Supreme Governor, since no private Person whatever ought to lay Violent Hands upon his Prince, whose person ought to be Sacred, and in no wise to be Violated, unless he put off the Character of a Prince, and Actually make War upon his People. But if in this Case, he happen to be Resisted, and Perish in the Attempt, he falls not as a Prince, but as a Common Enemy, by breaking the Original Compact with his People; and entering into a State of War against them: As a Father who unjustly makes War upon his Children, may be, (as I have already proved at our first conference) Resisted by them in the State of Nature.  
But as for all other Grievances, or Oppressions, if they are of that Nature as may Ruin the whole Commonwealth, yet not suddenly, but after some time, and often Repeated, I cannot allow such Grievances, or Oppressions, as a Sufficient Cause of Resistance; For as on the one hand, there is no Inconvenience so small, but in process of time it may turn to the Ruin of the Commonwealth, if it be often Repeated, and excessively Multiplie●; so on the other side, length of time produces so great Changes, that the Nature of these Encroachments, or Injuries are not sufficient to justify Resistance, and the Breach of that Peace and Unity in a Common Wealth, which must necessarily follow by entering into a State of War.  
To conclude, I do not in any Case whatever allow of Resistance; but only in these three necessary ones: When the Lives, Liberties, or Estates of the whole People, of the greatest part of them, are either actually Invaded, or else taken away, and when they are Reduced into so bad a Condition, that a State of War is to be preferred before such a Peace; a●d when the End of Civil Government being no longer to be obtained by it, the Commonwealth may be looked upon as Dissolved.  M. 
Tho' you have been pretty long in treating of this Matter, yet I did not think it Tedious, since I confess you have given me honestly enough, (and so far I agree with you) all those Cases wherein you say it is Unlawful for Subjects to take up Arms, or Resist the Supreme Powers: But I wonder you have not added one Case more, which Divers Authors, that are high enough against Nonresistance, in other things, do yet allow to be a sufficie●s Cause of taking up Arms, and Resisting their Prince; And that is, when he Actually hath, or goeth about to Alienate, or make over his Dominion and Subjects to some Foreign Prince, or State.  F. 
I am not ignorant of what you say, but I thought it not worth speaking ot, because in absolute Monarchies, (which we are now treating of;) if such Kingdoms are Patrimonial, and that the Monarch hath such an absolute Dominion over his Subjects, as neither to let them enjoy any Liberty in their Persons, nor Properties in their Estates, but at his Pleasure; I cannot see any reason, why such a Prince may not alienate his Dominion, over such a Kingdom, and People, as well as any private-Man, may his Property in his Estate: Nor have the People any Cause to be concerned at it, since they can then likewise be but Slaves, and enjoy nothing but at their Prince's Pleasure, as they did before; so that whether He, or a Stranger govern them▪ it is all one as to their Circumstances; But yet under such Governments, as are absolute, where the People enjoy their personal Lib rites, and Properties in their Estates, the Case may be much otherwise; since they may not be sure, that the Foreign Prince, to whom their own Monarch, or other Supreme Powers hath assigned them, will maintain their Liberties, and Properties as the former did: And therefore not being Slaves before, they cannot be Alienated without their own Consents, and consequently they may take up Arms, and defend themselves if they are able; ●nle●s the Prince, or State to whom they are so Alienated will give them the like assurance to preserve their Lives, Liberties, and Properties, as their former Governors did; and therefore I do conceive, the People of the Islands of Cyprus, and Candy, might very well have refused to become Subjects to the Grand Signior, in case the Venetians should have Sold, or Alien'● their Dominion over them, before he had actually conquered them. But in Limited, or Hereditary Kingdoms, which are so by their fundamental Constitution, I suppose, the Prince cannot upon any account whatsoever, make over his Dominions, to a Foreign Prince without the consent of his People, and next Heir: And therefore, (granting the Story to be true;) I doubt not but the People of this Kingdom might very well have opposed King john, if he had gone about to have subjected it, to the Dominion of the Emperor of Morocco, upon Condition that he would Assist him with an Army of Moors to subdue h●s Barons, and Nobility then in Arms against him.  M. 
I confess it is not worth while to dispute about that which so seldom happens, and is indeed almost impossible to be put in practice, and therefore I shall not much oppose you in what you have said upon this Case; yet, that I may be as good as my word, and give you my Judgement concerning what you have lately said, I must freely tell you, that as it may happen, that a Prince, or State may sometimes abuse their Power, so as to take away the Liberties, and Estates of all their Subjects, as you have set forth, (and which I confess is a very great mischief) yet upon second thoughts, I think it were much better that this Inconvenience should be suffered, rather than the work mischief of leaving Subjects to be the sole judges, when their Liberties, and Estates are invaded, or like to be taken away; nay, every private Subject would be first judge of it, or else the whole People could never come to pass their judgement upon it, which would leave too great a latitude for turbulent, and Rebellious Spirits to make disturbances in Kingdoms, and Commonwealths: especially if there be any small Grievances, on the Subjects, especially too, 〈◊〉 they touch at those things they account their Hereditary Liberties, and Properties: these, (tho' never so small) if the People are suffered to be their own judges (as you make them to be in their own Case) will soon be aggravated, and blown up to intolerable Oppressions of, and Invasions upon their Liberties and Properties, when indeed they are not: This is a pernicious Doctrine, for it will be a perpetual Cause of Quarrels, Civil Wars, and Rebellions, which would turn all Commonwealths, though never so well Constituted, into Anarchy, and Confusion. So that as you have stated this Question, you have broached a Principle highly destructive to all Civil Government; for if All, or Any of the People, may Resist, or Rebel, (call it what you please) whenever they think themselves oppressed in their Liberties and estates, 
L. O.  this is for them only to be obedient, when they think themselves well governed; but stubborn, and Rebellious when they believe they are not, which would be to make all Government Precarious and Conditional, and the People not only Parties but judges, and Executioners too in their own Case; how far these Conditions are observed on the Governors' part, and then the Regularity, or Irregularity of the Administration will no longer be the Question, but the Validity of the Power to Command▪ And there wants no more to dissolve such a Government, than for Dick, or Tom, and every Rascal of the Mobile to say, This or That, is destructive to the People's Liberties, and Properties, and therefore an insupportable grievance, and oppression. And if you will once allow any number of the People, tho' never so many, to judge This, or That Law, or Order of the Government, not to be for their Good, and that they may likewise Resist, and Right themselves by Arms, when ever they thus fancy, they will quickly come to say, that the Government itself is not for their good neither; and upon this ground all the Rebellions ●a●sed by an Incensed, and mistaken Multitude against the Government in all Ages, may easily be justified, and Wa●▪ Tyler, and Mass●an●llo shall be so far from being Rebels, that they may pass in future Ages for Heroes, and Noble Assertors of the People's Liberties; and I hope you will believe, I do not speak this out of any liking, or Approbation of Tyranny, or that I desire, that Princes should stretch their Power to the utmost, to Invade their Subjects Liberties, or Estates; but only to let you see, how far your Principles may serve the Pretences of wicked Men to set whole Kingdoms together by the Ears, whenever they find the People so far discontented with the Government, as to believe their Malicious and wicked Insinuations; of all which those long, and cruel, Civil Wars, and Rebellions which for several Years tormented, and almost ruined these three Kingdoms, are too late, and sad Examples.  F. 
I confess Sir, you have made a very Pathetic speech, and exerted, I suppose the utmost Strength of your reason and Eloquence on this Subject, for you have made the Consequences of this Principle, viz. (That the People may judge when their Liberties, and Properties are invaded) to seem very dreadful, but after all, it is no more than what you have urged in great part already, and the main Strength of your Argument lies here, that if the People should take upon them but once to judge, when they were notoriously injured, or oppress't, and thereupon take Arms, to right themselves; they would soon make bold to put this Power into use and Practice, when they had no occasion for it at all, or at least not sufficient to make any open Insult. But to show you, that there is no need, of such an infallible judge, as you suppose, to be necessary in a Commonwealth any more than there is in the Church; pray, tell me, Sir, would it not have been very convenient, if Christ had appointed, an Infallible judge, (be it the Pope, or General Counsel, or both together, ● to decide all Controversies in Religion, and to whose Judgement all People ought to submit?  M. 
I cannot deny, but it would have been a very ready way to end all Disputes about Religion, but since God hath not thought fit to appoint any such judge, it were very great Presumption in us to set up one to please our humour, since such a one could have no Infallibility, unless it were given him from above.  F. 
You Judge very well; and doth it not therefore follow, that since there is no such infallible Judge, all Men ought to judge for themselves of the Truth of their Religion, and also in the Christian Religion, what Doctrines are agreeable to the Word of God, and what not, and yet you see that from the ill use of this Liberty have sprung all the Different Sects, and Heresies in the World? Does it therefore follow, that Men must not make use of this Liberty, because they may abuse it? So likewise, must Subjects judge in no Case whatsoever, when the Supreme Power Tyrannizes' over them, beyond what they are able to bear? and must they never resist, or endeavour to cast off this insupportable Yoke, because they may happen one time or other to be wanton, and believe themselves oppress't when indeed they are not?  M. 
I grant your Parallel would have some what in it, were the Consequences of every Man's judging for himself in Matters of Religion, as fatal to the Peace, and Happiness of Mankind, as your Doctrine of the Subjects judging, when it is fit for them to resist the Supreme Powers; for I do not at all debar them from the Right of judging, when they are oppress't, or ill used by them, for that may very well consist with the Public Peace, but I utterly disallow all manner of Resistance by Force, because it tends, not only to dissolve all Civil Government, but to disturb the Common Peace, and safety of Mankind.  F. 
Notwithstanding your Distinction, the Parallel with hold in both Cases, for are not differences in Religion as fatal to the Peace, and Unity of the Church, as the Subjects judging, when they are oppress't, and thereupon taking up defensive Arms, can be to that of a Civil State? And do not more Wars, and Quarrels arise about men's differences in Religion, than from any other 'Cause you can Name? So that if the Peace of the Church were a sufficient Cause for supposing a certain, or Infallible judge in Religion, there would be the same Reason to suppose it in Civil Matters too. And therefore your Argument, from the abuse of this Liberty of the Subjects judging, when they may resist, is of no more force in one Case, than the other; for I grant it may so happen in a Civil State, as well as in an Ecclesiastical, that the Subjects may rise up, and resist their Civil, as well as Spiritual Governors, without any just Cause: doth it therefore follow, that God hath wholly delivered up Mankind to the domineering humours of Men in Power, let them abuse it never so grossly? And therefore we must not be wiser than God Almighty himself, and when he hath not appointed any certain, and Infallible judges either in Civil or Spiritual matters without any Contradiction, or Resistance, we ought not to suppose a necessity of such Judges, merely because of some Inconveniences, which may perhaps often happen from the abuse of that Christian Liberty he hath given us. For than I doubt you will find the Remedy would be much worse than the Disease, as if to avoid Heresies, we should set up the Pope for an Infallible judge. So would it be likewise if to avoid Civil Wars, and Rebellions we should set up the Supreme Magistrate (as Mr. Hobbs hath done) for a certain, and Irresistible judge of whatsoever Means are necessary for the People's Quiet and Preservation, since I have already proved, that an Insupportable Tyranny is not Civil Government, and that the Supreme Powers can no more alter the Nature of things, but their own Laws, or Edicts, than they can ordain Poison to be used, in stead of wholesome Food, by the People.  M. 
I confess what you have now said, carries some weight with it, and my own Carnal Reason doth very much incline me to your Opinion, were it not for two things, the one (as I said) is the Horrid Rebellions, that have, and may again arise in these Kingdoms from this Principle; which hath made God so strictly forbid, all Resistance of the Higher Powers, upon any account whatsoever; And therefore you are much mistaken, when you assert, that Resistance, tho' for Self defence, is one of the Liberties, that God hath left us; since certainly he would never so severely have forbidden it, but that he not only knew how prone Men's Corrupt Natures were to Rebellion, but also foresaw the fatal Consequence of it.  F. 
If God's Commands in Scripture be the greatest Argument, you have against all Resistance whatever, I doubt not but to show you, (when We come to it,) that you as well as others are mistaken in that Strict Interpretation of those places of Scripture; and as for the Evil Consequences you suppose may follow from this Doctrine, I doubt not likewise but to convince you, that much worse will follow from the Irresistible Tyranny of the Supreme Powers, than ever have happened from the Dreadfullest Rebellions. And therefore I desire you to take Notice, that what I have now said, is not out of any design to justify so Horrid a Crime, as I grant Rebellion to be, or to incite Subjects to be Guilty of it; but only to hinder Civil Government from being destroyed, and Mankind from being made Miserable.  
For I have first Asserted, that no Resistance whatever is to be made in Absolute Governments; but in those Cases in which the main Ends of Civil Government are Visibly destroyed, or so near it, that there is no other means left but Resistance to prevent it. And then when things are once brought to this Pass, it is not the People, that make this War, but the Governors, who by their Tyranny have brought the Commonwealth into this Anarchy, and Confusion you so m●ch Dread; so that it is not the People, but they that are the Aggressors.  
And as for the ill use that may be made of this Doctrine, to stir up the People to Rebellion, when they have no just, or sufficient Provocation to Re●●st. This will not prove of that Dangerous Consequence, you imagine if you will but consider, that I do not allow this Resistance in any Case; but when the Violence, or Oppression of the Governors is so Evident, and Insupportable to all the People, that groan under it, that no indifferent Man in his Senses, will be able to deny it; for as long as there remains, any Disputableness whether, or no the People are sufficiently Oppressed▪ in their Liberties, or Estates, the Trust Reposed in the Supreme Magistrates makes them the Sole judges of the Necessity of such Exorbitant Actions, as being Entrusted by the People as Men supposed, to be both Wise, and Good, and themselves Ignorant in Divers Cases of the true means of their own Preservation, and the Supreme Powers remain the Sole judges, as long as the Case is Doubtful, or Uncertain.  
But since you have already acknowledged, that the People might judge (if such a Case should happen) whether the Prince, or other Supreme Magistrate makes Actual War upon them, I would very fain know, why the People cannot as plainly distinguish when he sends his Guards, or Dragoons to take away their Lives and Liberties, or to turn them out of their Estates: And 〈◊〉 this be done, and the Tyranny so evident, and general, and insupportable, that it is passed all question I grant that the People ought to have Patience, and rather suffer many Oppressions, and Hardships, than put themselves into a State of War. So that I think it is Morally impossible, that the People can be mistaken in 〈◊〉 evident a Case: Nor I believe can you scarce show me one Example, either out of Ancient or Modern History, of any whole Nation, or People, or the Major part of them, that did ever rise in Arms to cast off either a Foreign, or Domestic Yoke, which pressed too hard upon them; but when they had the most unavoidable, and justest causes so to do. And I believe I can show you Ten Examples out of Histories, (if the Question were to be decided by them) for one you can show me to the Contrary. 'Tis true, some private Men may sometimes make Disturbances, or Rebellions; but it is commonly to their own Just Ruin, and Perdition; for, till the Mischief be grown General, and the Violence of the Rulers become Evident, and their Attempts to Destroy, or make Slaves of them, are most sensible to all, or the greatest part of the People; they are commonly more a great deal disposed to Suffer, than to Right themselves by Resistance, well knowing the Mischiefs of War, and how Destructive it will prove, not only to their Lives, but to the Welfare of their Families and Posterities, as well as Private Concerns. So that the Example of some particular Injustice, Oppression, nay, or Absolute Ruin of here and there an Unfortunate person, moves them not. But if once they find their Lives, Liberties, and Estates Universally Assaulted, and about to be taken away, who is to be blamed for it: The Magistrate, or the People? for the former might have avoided it if they had pleased, either by not urging them to that Extremity at all, or at least Redressing those Grievances, and Oppressions before they became so General, and Insupportable, as not to be any longer endured.  
So that, tho' I grant, the Ambition, or Turbulence of private Men have sometimes caused great Disorders in Commonwealths, and Factions have been fatal to States, and Kingdoms, Yet whether this Mischief hath oftener begun from the People's Wantonness; and desire to cast off the Lawful Authority of their Rulers, or from the Ruler's Insolence, and Endeavours to get, and Exercise a Tyrannical Arbitrary Power over their People, that is, whether Oppression, or Disobedience gave the first Rise to the Disorder, I leave it (as I said) to Impartial History, to Determine.  
But this I am sure of, whoever (either Ruler, or Subject) goes about by force to Invade the Rights of either Prince, or People, and lays a Foundation for overturning the Original Constitution, and Frame of any Civil Government, he is Guilty of the greatest Crime, I think a Man is capable of, being to Answer for all those Mischiefs, Bloodshed, Rapine, and Desolations which the breaking to pieces of Governments does bring on a Country▪ And he who doth it is justly to be esteemed a Common Enemy, and is to be treated accordingly.  
But as for the Instances you give of Wa● Tyler, and Massianello, I grant indeed it may so happen, that a Great part of the Common People, or Rabble may sometimes upon sudden, or false Apprehensions, occasioned by some Real Grievances or Oppressions, such as are great Taxes, or Gabels imposed by the State, take up Arms, and Rebel against the Supreme Powers; Yet these Examples do not reach the Question in Hand, these Insurections, or Rebellions you mention being of a much less number, than the whole People, or the Major part of them, and in which I still include the Nobility and Gentry, and other Land-holders', as the most considerable part. And so those Insurrections were in no wise justifiable, especially in such a Government as ours, where no Man can be Taxed but by his own Consent included in his Representatives, whereas all these Rebellions were chiefly (if not altogether) made by the meaner sort, or Scum of the People, of one, or a few Countries, whom I can never allow to make Disturbances, since they, having very little to lose, aught in all Civil Governments whatsoever, to be directed and Governed by those, in whom the Balance of the Government in Lands, and other Riches doth reside and on whom they chiefly depend for their Protection and Subsistance, and consequently aught to make no Alterations in the State without their consent, and Approbation.  
But as for your other Instance of the Wars raised in these Three Kingdoms, against King Charles the First, upon the Pretence of our Religion, Liberties, and Properties being Invaded, it is not proper to be Treated of in this place: Since we are now Discoursing of the Power of Princes, and the Right of Subjects under Absolute, and not limited Monarchies; And I grant that some Resistance may be Rebellion, under Absolute Monarchies which would not be so under limited ones: Yet I do still suppose that it may be Lawful under such limited Monarchy for the People to take up Arms, and make Resistance in defence of those Just Liberties, and Privileges which they Lawfully enjoy either by the Original Constitution of the Government, or by Acts of Grace, or Concession of the Prince; but this requires a more large, and accurate Discourse which at another time, I am ready to give you. Therefore granting at present, that those Wars were down Right Rebellion against the King, and also that they were made under Pretence of the Principle I now assert, yet doth it not at all overthrow the justice of that Cause, which I now maintain; since (as I have already more than once intimated) the abuse that may be sometimes made of a Natural Right, by some Wicked, Factious, or Hypocritical Men ought not in the least to prejudice the Exercise of that Right to all the rest of Mankind; who may lie under a Real Necessity of making use of it.  
To conclude, if the People may nev●r be trusted to judge when their Liberties and Properties are actually Invaded, because they may happen one time or other to be mistaken, and so enter into a State of War without cause to the Destruction of Mankind, this Argument would serve as well against all Princes, and Commonwealths, who, being in the State of Nature with each other, should never make War for any Cause or Provocation, how great soever, because being judges and Executioners too in their own Case, they may more easily happen to be mistaken, I suppose you yourself will grant, that one, or a few Men are more apt to be in an Error, than 100000, and I have already proved, that where the People have never wholly given up their Liberties, and Properties unto the Absolute Will of the Supreme Powers, they are as to that still in a State of Nature, and do reserve to themselves a Right of judging when they are Violently and Insupportably invaded and Consequently of vindicating themselves from that Oppression. And therefore granting what you have said to be true, that the People may sometimes happen to abuse this Natural Right of judging, and resisting by exerting it, when there is no real and absolute necessity: so on the other side, if they are wholly debarred from it, because they may happen sometimes to abuse it, the Freest People in the World, viz. (our selves for Example) may easily be reduced into a Condition of absolute Slavery and Beggary, and that without all Remedy, by any Humane means that I can think of, and which is the worst mischief of these two, I leave to yourself, or any indifferent Man to judge.  M. 
If you will have my Opinion in this point●, I must freely tell you, that it is a hard matter to find out a mischief so destructive to the People, and which they should exchange for this miserable State of War, which you suppose may prove so beneficial to them, and yet I doubt, if it be throughly looked into, not only the Doctrine itself, but also the lasting Wars, and miseries it may produce, would sufficiently prove the contrary since the cruelest Tyranny, Slavery, and loss of Estates, or any thing else almost may be better born with in Peace, and Unity than a Civil War, with the greatest Liberty, and Plenty: seeing all such comforts would quickly be devoured like Pharaoh's Fat Kine, by such a Cruel M●nster feeding in their bowels: And therefore since Civil War is one of the greatest Calamities, and Punishments that God uses to send upon a Nation, it seems evident to me, that the Welfare of any State, or People requires them to be Obedient unto the Supreme Powers, tho' they be never so great Oppressors, or Cruel Tyrants. For when once they enter into this dismal State of War, who can tell whether it will have an End, without almost the total destruction of the Nation, or at least by bringing them into a far worse Condition of Slavery and Suffering, than they were before, since the State of Princes, or other Supreme Powers can never be so mean, and inconsiderable in the World, as not to find, when like to be Oppressed by such insurrections, and Rebellions of their Subjects, sufficient assistance from Neighbouring Princes or States, who making the Cause of such a Prince their own, will be sure to assist him to the utmost of their Power, it being found true by experience as Tully long ago observed: 
Cicero orat. pro Lege Manil.  That the afflicted State of Kings do easily draw the help and Pity of many others, especially of those, who are either Kings themselves, or do live in a Kingdom, the Regal Name being by them esteemed to be great and Sacred. And farther▪ how ready a way it is to subvert the State of any such distracted Kingdom, and to bring it under the Subjection of Foreigners, we need not seek a plainer Proof, than by an Example no farther off than Ireland, where Derm●t King of Leinster being forced by his Rebellious Subjects to ●rave the Aid of King Henry the II. for his Restoration to his Kingdom, his assistance to recover his Right produced that effect, which we now see, viz. That the Irish lost their Dominion, and became Subject to the Crown of England even to this day.  
And supposing, that the Subjects might likewise be assisted by some Foreign Prince who would undertake their deliverance, they would not be in a much b●tt●r condition since if he were an Absolute Monarch himself, he would be 〈◊〉, for example sake, as well as for their own security to carry as strict a hard over t●em, and use them more severely than their own Prince had done before: and I doubt not, but if Lewis Prince of France, had been Crowned King of this Kingdom, as he was very near it, toward the latter end of King John's Reign, but that he would have been more cruel, and Tyrannical than ever King john had been before: So that they would have got nothing by the bargain, but a change of Masters, and a heavier Yoke imposed upon them by a Foreigner.  
And so much the Viscount Melun confessed upon his Death bed to many of the English nobility, which was the reason of their returning again to their Allegiance to Henry the third. So that I think, it had been much better for the Barons and Nobility of this Kingdom never to have stirred, or Rebelled at all against their Lawful Prince.  F. 
You seem so in Love with slavery, and all the Consequences of it, that it is an hundred pities but that you should feel the smart of it a little while, provided no body was to suffer by it but your self, and those of your Opinion; But could you see the miserable Condition those poor People are in who live under Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government, I doubt not but you would be of another mind, and prefer a War, tho' never so Violent, before such a Peace, for when Men are once reduced to so desperate a Condition as neither to be secured of their Lives, Liberties, or Estates, they may have some hope to redress themselves by Resistance, but need not fear to be reduced to a worse Condition than they were before, and therefore I cannot understand how all the Comforts of a Civil Life, would then be lost by a Civil Wa●, when I have already putit as a chief part of the Case, that Subjects are never to make such a Resistance but when the Supreme Powers are just about to begin, or else have actually entered into a State of War against their Subjects: For what can any foreign Enemy do more if he Conquers them, than take away their Lives, Liberties, and Estates? So that this is so far from being a State of Peace, that indeed the People are already exposed to all the Calamities of War: but a War, which you suppose may be made without any resistance, whilst the Subjects (forsooth) are bound to keep the Peace but much such another Peace, as would be in a House unto which Thiefs having broken, and the Inhabitants retiring into some upper Rooms, there stand upon their Guard; and make Resistance; whilst the Thiefs having Seized upon all they have below, one of them should make such a speech as this; I pray Sirs, come down, and submit yourselves to us, for we assure you we intent not to Kill you, but only to Bind you, and take away all you have; And is not slavery and loss of Goods better with Peace and safety, than by assaulting us to provoke us to fire the House, and Kill you all; for if you once enter into a State of War with us, it is very likely to end, with your total destruction, For if you continue to resist us, or think to call in Company to your Assistance, we can likewise call in many more of our Party to come, and help us, and then e●p●●t no mercy. Now pray tell me, would not this be a very rational Argument to move these People to come down, and surrender themselves to these Thiefs, and partake of the benefits of this excellent Peace they proposed? and whether they would not tell them that by shooting, they would also call in the Neighbouring Town, who might be too strong for all their Fellow Thiefs? Now if you will but take these honest People of the next Town for such Neighbouring Princes, or States who may Join in the Assistance of such an Oppressed People, this Simile will fully answer your Argument of those Neighbouring Princes, that may take Part with an Oppressing Tyrant. And as for the Consequence of such Assistance, on the one side, or the other, that it may happen to bring them into a worse Condition, than they were before, viz. a Subjection to Foreigners, (as I have put the Case,) it can be no cause to det●r the People from Resisting, for if they were (as I suppose) reduced to a Condition of slavery before, and had lost all their Liberties, and Properties, how can we Imagine them in a worse Case, than they are already? And it is all one to such a People, whether their own, or a strange Prince did Tyrannize, over, and oppress them: Nay, were I to take my Choice, I had much rather be Tyrannised over, and oppressed by a Foreigner than from my own Natural Prince; since the former con●ing in by force, and without any precedent Promise, or Compact, I lie wholly at his Mercy, who hath no Obligation upon him, & I had much rather, if I were to be ● slave be so to a Stranger, than to my own Father, if I were assured, that both the one, and the other would use me with like severity. And to answer your Instance of your Irish King; I think that Nation hath been so far from losing any thing by their Subjection to the English Government, that they have gained far greater Privileges, and Liberties both for their Persons, and Estates, than ever they enjoyed under their own Princes: So that they are rather the better than the worse by the Change. And as for your other Example of Prince Lewis, it is uncertain whether the Condition of the English Nation would have been either better, or worse under a French King, but thus much I am sure of, that had King john Proceeded in that Tyrannical Course against his Barons and the rest of his Subjects, they could scarce have been in a worse Condition under the French, nay the Moors themselves, ha● King john, actually surrendered his Crown to the Sarrac●n Emperor, as the Historians of those times relate he offered to do.  
Nor can I be of your Opinion, that i● had been much better for the Barons, and Nobility of this Kingdom never to have stirred, or resisted the King at all; since if they had not, they had never obtained the GREAT CHARTER of our Liberties from him, and if they had not, as Vigorously defended it, when they had once got it, I doubt not but the People of England had been long before this time in the same Condition, at to their Liberties, and Properties, as some of our Neighbouring Nations; all which is sufficient, I think, to prove, that Resistance in desperate and unavoidable Cases is not attended with those mischiefs and Inconveniencies you suppose.  M. 
I shall not say much more in answer to your lost discourse, since it would be to little purpose, but only take Notice that Similes are not Arguments, and therefore your Comparison between Thiefs, and Honest Men, doth not hold as to Princes▪ and Subjects; since sure there is a great deal of difference between those, that are to be Obeyed as the Ordinance of God, and those who are Obliged in Conscience to be subject to them, and Thiefs who act directly contrary to Gods Will, and Honest Men who having no obligation to them may justly resist them. So that if that be false the rest of the Comparison will signify nothing; And as for what you say concerning MAGNA CHARTA, I think it is 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, since so many of our Succeeding Kings, have so solemnly, and voluntarily confirmed it; only pray take notice, that it is wholly derived from the Grace, and Bounty of our Monarches▪ and therefore we are not to resist, tho' it may happen to be sometimes, and in some Particular Cases broken, and infringed by the King, for some great Occasions or Necessities of which we are not competent judges.  
But to come to the rest of those evil Consequences that may attend your Doctrine of Resistance; I think the Benefits, would be much greater to the People by strictly adhering to those Doctrines of Absolute Subjection, and Nonresistance than by propagating yours of Rebellion. For if the former were constantly taught, and inculcated, as most beneficial for them, and if they were once really persuaded of the Truth of it, and would both constantly profess, and practise it, it would make all Princes, much more Gentle, and mild to their Subjects, than otherwise at some times they are. For now they are still fearful, that they will take the first opportunity, they can to take up Arms against them: And upon the least Grievance, or Misgovernment, to resist their Authority, for then Princes not needing to keep any such constant Guards, and standing Armies, might afford to lay much easier Taxes, and impositions upon them, for the maintenance and support of the Government, than now they do, and in short, would have much fewer Temptations to Tyranny and Oppression, could they be once assured of their Subjects absolute Obedience, and Subjection. Whereas when they are under those constant fears, and suspicions of Insurrections, and Rebellions against them, upon the least occasion, it is no wonder, if they are tempted, sometimes to abuse this Power for their own Security. And therefore we read in our Histories, that William the Conqueror never thought himself secure from the English, whom he had newly Conquered, till such time as he had turned most of the Nobility, and Gentry, out of their Offices and Estates, lest they should have any Power left either in his Life time, or after his Death to turn him, or his Posterity out of the Throne, as they did the Heir of the Danish King Cnute, who with his Danes had before Conquered England, as King William did afterwards with his Normans: So that upon the whole matter it seems to me much more to conduce to the main design of Civil Government, viz. The Happiness and Peace of Mankind in General, that Princes and other Supreme Magistrates, should be suffered (I will not say authorized) by God, sometimes to abuse their Power to the general oppression, and enslaving of the People, without any Resistance on their side, expecting their deliverance WHOLLY from him who can bring it about in his good time; and by such means as shall seem most meet to him▪ than that Subjects should take upon them to be both judges, and Executioners too, in their own Case, and thereby introduce not only all the Mischiefs of Civil War, and all those cruel Revenges which the Wrath of an Incensed Prince may justly inflict upon such Rebels in this Life; but also the Wrath of God, and those Punishments that he hath denounced in the Holy Scriptures in the Life to come against such Rebellious Subjects, as dare resist the Supreme Powers ordained by God.  F. 
Before I answer the main part of your last discourse, give me leave first to justify my Simile, for tho' I grant Similes are no Arguments, yet they often serve to expose the absurdity of several things which either the ●alse colours of Eloquence, or the too great Authority of learned men might otherwise have hid from our Eyes, and therefore if the Supreme Powers have no Authority from the Revealed Will of God, or the Law of Nature, nor by the Municipal Laws of any Country to invade their Subjects Lives, Liberties or Estates, they may be so far compared to Thiefs and Robbers, when they do; nor are such violent Actions of theirs to be submitted to as the Ordinance of God. And I suppose you will not deny, but that a Prince or State that does thus, Acts as directly contrary to Gods Will, as Thieves themselves; and consequently all honest men or Subjects having so far no obligation to suffer or obey, may justly Resist them; So that if this be true, all the rest of the Comparison, currit quatuor pedibus.  
But as for your reflections upon MAGNA CHARTA it is you yourself, not I, that asserted it to have been extorted by force, and defended by Rebellion, for it is very well known to those who are at all Conversant in our English Histories, and Laws; that there was nothing granted in that CHARTER, which was not the Birthright of the Clergy, Nobility, and People long before the Conquest, and were comprised under the Title of King Edward's Laws, and which were after confirmed by William the first, as also more expressly by the Grants of his Son Henry the first, and King Stephen, as appears by their Charters still to be seen. And therefore these fundamental Rights, and Privileges were not extorted by force from King john, as you suppose; The War commencing between him, and his Barons, was not, because he would not grant them fresh Privileges, which they had not before; but because he had not kept, nor observed the Fundamental Laws of the Land, and those Rights and Privileges which before belonged to the Clergy, Nobility, and People, as well by the Common Law of the Land as the Grants of former Kings. And therefore if King john by his apparent breach of them forced the Nobility and People to defend them, it was no Rebellion for so doing, nor was it ever declared to be so by any Law now extant.  
But to come to the main force of your Argument: I confess it were an admirable expedient not only against Rebellion, but also the Tyranny of Princes to PREACH that they should not oppress their People, nor yet that the People should rebel against them, but the preaching of these Doctrines, or getting as many as you can to believe them, will no more make Princes leave keeping standing Armies, or laying great Taxes upon their People, than Constant Preaching against Robbery, or Murder, will take away the necessary use of Gallows out of the Nation: Since we know very well, that as long as the Corruption of humane Nature continues; so long must likewise all Powerful Remedies against it. And therefore your Instance of William the Conqueror will signify very little, for I believe had all those learned Divines (who have of late so much Written and Preached for Passive Obedience and Nonresistance) been then alive, and had exerted the utmost of their Reason, and Eloquence to prove them necessary, nay farther, I do not believe, tho' all the People of England, should have given it under their hands, that they would not have Resisted, or Rebelled against King William, that yet he would have trusted them the more for all that, or have kept one Soldier the less for it; nor have remitted one Denier of those great Taxes he imposed, for he was too cunning and Politic a Prince not to understand humane Nature; which cannot willingly endure great and intolerable Slavery, and Oppression without Resistance, if men are able, and therefore, he very well knew that after the forcible taking away of so many of the English Nobilities Estates, there was no way but force to keep them in Obedience: And as Princes can never be satisfied that their Subjects have been throughly paced in these difficult Doctrines, so they can never be secure, that they will not play the jades, and Kick, and fling their Riders, when they spur them too severely, and press too hard upon them. And therefore, I doubt such Princes, whose Government is severe will always find it necessary to Ride this Beast, (as you call it) the People, with strong Curbs and Cavessons. But besides all this, there is likewise another infirmity in the Nature of Mankind, and of which Princes may as well be Guilty, as other men, that they are more apt to oppress, and insult over those whose Principles, or Natural Tempers may be against all Resistance, and for this I appeal to your Example of the Primitive Christians who were not one jot the better used by the Roman Emperors, tho' they expressly disclaimed all Resistance of those Emperors for Persecution in matters of Religion; and tho' some neighbouring Princes are thought to have their Subjects in more perfect Subjection, and that either their Religion, or Natural Tempers makes them less apt to resist the Violence and Oppression of their Monarches, than the English, or other Nations: Yet I desire you to inquire whether Taxes, and all other oppressions do not Reign as much under those Governments; however sensible the Princes may be of their Subjects Loyalty, and Obedience.  
Therefore to conclude, I shall freely leave it to your Judgement, or that of any indifferent Person, which is most agreeable to the main Ends of Civil Government, viz the Common good of Mankind, and the Happiness, and Safety of each particular Kingdom, or Commonwealth, that the Violence, and Tyranny of Princes, should be sometimes Resisted, than that the People under the Pretence of this irresistible Power, should be liable to be made beggars, and Slaves whenever any Prince, or State had a Mind to it. And I appeal to your own Conscience, if the supposed belief of the Passive Obedience of some of our Church, was not one of the greatest encouragements which the King, and the jesuited F●ction had, to bring in the Popish Religion under the Colour of the dispensing Power, Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and force of a standing Army, from which Unavoidable mischiefs, nothing under God but this wonderful Revolution, could have rescued us: And therefore, I think it becomes any honest man to thank God for it, and join with his Highness the Prince of Ori●●ge, as the only means (now miracles are ceased) which God hath been pleased to ordain by the course of his Providence for our Deliverance.  M. 
I must confess, I am somewhat staggered with those Reasons, and Arguments you have now given me against those Principles, which as I have always, and must still esteem as sacred, till I am convinced, I am in an Error▪ and perhaps, if I were to consult my own 〈◊〉 Reason, and natural Inclinations, I should come over to your opinion: But since, it hath pleased God to lay much higher restraints, and stricter Rules of Obedience, and Subjection on us by his Revealed Will in the Scripture, beyond what can be discovered by the Light of Nature; and that under the highest Penalty, viz. Damnation: I can see no reason, why God Almighty, may not grant Eternal Life upon what Conditions he pleases, tho' never so hard and uneasy for Flesh, and Blood to perform. So that, if our Saviour jesus Christ hath commanded us to take up his Cross, and follow him, that is, to suffer all sorts of Injuries, and Afflictions, nay Death itself, (as he himself did,) rather than to Resist the Supreme Powers under which He lived, I cannot see any Reason why he should not Propose his own Example, for our Imitation. And as he hath enjoined, and expects from us greater Degrees of Chastity, Charity, and Humility than ever he did from the jews, or Pagans, so I see no reason, why he may not likewise exact from us a greater, and more perfect Obedience, and Submission without any Resistance to all Sovereign Princes, and States, than ever he did either by the Law of Moses, or that of Nature; not but that there are sufficient Proofs in the Old Testament, for the absolute Power of Princes against all Rebellion, or Resistance in Subjects: Tho' I confess, this Doctrine is more plainly proved by the Example of our Saviour, and the Precepts of his Apostles in the New Testament, as also from the Example of the Primitive Christians in Obedience thereunto.  F. 
I perceive you begin to distrust your Arguments drawn from Natural Reason, and the Laws of Nature, and when you are pressed with the absurdity of this Doctrine of yours, you fly from God's Natural, to his Revealed Will, and take refuge under the Covert of the Holy Scripture, to impose an Opinion contrary to the Common sense, and Natural Notions of Mankind, not corrupted with the Prejudices of Education; and therefore, give me leave at present to tell you, that I think, I shall be able to prove, that the Passive Obedience as you call it, of the Primitive Christians, and their sufferings for the Name of Christ's will not at all contradict that Natural Right, which I suppose all Freemen to have, as well under Civil Government as in the State of Nature, for the defence of their Lives, Liberties, and Properties, unless where the Common good, and Peace of the whole or Major part of the People require the contrary. And therefore, the same Reasons, which oblige particular private Persons to be quiet, and not to disturb the public Peace of the whole Society, for their own private Safety, and Advantage, when the whole Body of the People, or the Major part of them is thus violently assaulted in their Lives, Liberties and Estates, the same considerations of the Public good of their Country, (whereof every Man is a Member.) doth then as strongly persuade, I may say enjoin them to take up Arms, and defend themselves for the Preservation of the whole People or Community, whose Natural, and Civil Rights being now attacked, can no otherwise be restored to the same State they were in before, but by that last Remedy that can be used in this Case, viz. Kim vi ●topellere.  M. 
I confess, that of all Commonwealth-hypotheses, yours is most reasonable, being coherent with itself, and also most likely to be swallowed by the People, because it flatters our corrupt Natures, to which this Christian Doctrine of Passive Obedience, is so directly opposite, as also because it gives them a full Liberty, I mean, not only the Representative Body, but the Major part of them, to reassume that Power which you pretend, they never parted with, and so consequently all necessity of suffering (except when they please to think they have justly deserved it) is taken away, and the Sufferings of the Primitive Christians will be rendered only a tame Madness, and that St. Paul was very much overseen to enjoin this Subjection to the Romans, under the Government of one of the most cruel Tyrants that ever swayed that Sceptre; but we have not so learned Christ's; And therefore, I am firmly persuaded, that we ought to be strictly obedient without any Resistance to those Civil Governors, that God hath been pleased to set over us, let them abuse their Power never so Tyrannically.  F. 
I am beholden to you for your plain dealing with me in this matter, and pleased to find, that you have an Inclination to my Principles, were it not for some Texts of Scripture and Citations out of the Fathers, and Church History which give you a Prejudice against them; which I hope when they come to be closely examined will signify no more than the former.  
But for the dispatching this Important Controversy, I pray give me leave to propose this easy method, first that you would be pleased to lay down your Authorities out of Scripture, in order as they lie. And afterwards to show me, that the Ancient Fathers, and Primitive Church always understood those Texts in the same Sense that you do, viz. that No Resistance of the Supreme Powers is Lawful to be exercised in any Case whatsoever.  M. 
I approve of your Proposal, and therefore, I will first begin with those proofs, which are expressly against all Rebellion or Resistance in the Old Testament. 
S. C. R. Ch. 1. p. 7.  The first Governor that God set over the Children of Israel, when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt, was Moses, and I think, I need not prove how sacred, and irresistible his Authority was. This is sufficiently evident in the Rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, against Moses and Aaron, when God caused the Earth to open her Mouth, 
Numb. 16.  and swallow them up. And lest this should be thought an extraordinary Case, Moses, and Aaron being extraordinary Persons, immediately appointed by God, and governed by his Immediate direction; the Apostle St. jude alleges this example against those in his days, who were Turbulent, and Factious, who despised Dominions, and spoke evil of Dignities, 
jude v. 11.  that they should Perish in the gainsaying of Core; which he could not have done, had not this Example extended to all ordinary, as well as extraordinary Cases; had it not been a lasting Testimony of God's displeasure against all those, who oppose themselves against Sovereign Powers. But Moses was not always to rule over them, and therefore God expressly provides for a succession of Sovereign Powers, to which they must all submit. The ordinary Sovereign Power of the jewish Nation after Moses' Death was devolved either on the Highpriest, or those extraordinary Persons whom God was pleased to raise up, such as joshua and the several judges, till in samuel's Days it settled in their Kings. For as for the jewish Sanhedrim whose Power is so much extolled 
Ib. p. 8.  by the jewish Writers (who are all a late Date, many years since the Destruction of jerusalem, and therefore no competent Witnesses of what was done so many Ages before) it does not appear from any Testimony of Scripture, that there was such a Court of judicature, till after their Return from the Babylonish Captivity.  
But yet God took care to secure the Peace, and good Government of the Nation, by appointing such a Power as should receive the last Appeals, and whose sentence in all Controversies should be final & uncontrollable as you may see in Deuteronomy Chap. 17. 
D●ut. 17. v. 8.9, 10, 11, 12.  There were indeed inferior Magistrates, and judges appointed in their several Tribes and Cities, which Moses did by the advice of jethro his Father in Law, 
Exod. 18.  and by the Approbation of God. But as the Supreme Power was still reserved in the hands of Moses while he lived, so it is here secured to the Highpriest, or judges after his Death; for it is expressly appointed, that if those inferior judges could not determine the Controversy, they should come unto the Priests, the Levites, that is, the Priests of the Tribe of Levi, (who by the 12. v. appear only to be the Highpriest) and to the judge that shall be in those days, that is, if it shall be at such a time, when there is an extraordinary Judge raised by God, (for there were not always such judges in Israel, as is evident to anyone who reads the Book of judges) they should inquire of them and they shall show the sentence of judgement; and thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place (which the Lord shall Choose) shall show thee, and thou shalt observe to do, according to all they shall inform thee: And what the Authority of the Chief-Priest, or of the judge, when there was one, was in those days, appears from, v. 12. And the Man that will do presumptuously, and wil● not hearken ●o the Priest (that standeth to Minister there before the Lord thy God) or unto the judge, even that Man shall die, and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel This is as absolute an Authority, as the most absolute Monarch in the World can challenge that disobedience 
S. C. R. p. 10.  to their Last and final Determination, whatever the Cause be, shall be punished with Death: and what place can there be for Resistance in such a Constitution of Government as this? It is said indeed, v. 11. And according to the sentence of the Law, which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgement that they shall tell thee, thou shalt do. And hence some conclude, that they were not bound to abide by their sentence, nor were punishable if they did not, but only in such Cases when they gave sentence according to the Law of God. But these Men do not consider, that the Matter in Controversy is supposed to be doubtful, and such as could not be determined by the inferior Courts, and therefore is submitted to the Decision of the Supreme judge, and as he determined so they must do & no Man under the Penalty of Death, must presume to do otherwise; 
ibid. p. 11.  which takes away all Liberty of judging from Private Persons, tho' this Supreme Judge might possibly mistake in his Judgement, as all Humane judicatures are liable to mistakes; but it seems God Almighty thought it necessary that there should be some final judgement; from whence there should be no Appeal, notwithstanding the Possibility of a mistake in it.  
So likewise when God had appointed joshua to succeed Moses, and had conferred upon him all that Power that Moses had before, and that he came to give his Orders to the two Tribes and an half before their Passage over jordan, you'll find that they not only promised him perfect Obedience, as they had before paid to Moses, but farther also assure him That whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy Commandment, 
Iosh 1.18.  and will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou Commandest him, he shall be put to Death: So that there was a Supreme, and Sovereign, that is, an unaccountable, and irresistible Power, in the jewish Nation appointed by God himself; for indeed it is not possible that the Public Peace, and Security of any Nation should be preserved without it.  F. 
You have, Sir methinks taken a great deal of pains to prove that which I do not at all Deny, but rather join with you to ass●rt, that Stubbornness and Disobedience to God's Commands is a very great Sin, and the Rebellion, thereunto is likened to the Sin of Witchcraft; as Samuel shows to no less a Man, than King Saul himself, when he had Rebelled against (that is, disobeyed) God in not destroying the King of the Amal●kites, and therefore it is no wonder that in a Government, 
1 Sam. 15.23.  where God himself was the Head, and had appointed Moses, and Aaron, as his Lieutenants or Substitutes under him, the one in Civil, and the other in Ecclesiastical matters, that God should punish their Murmuring, and Rebellion against them as done to himself; not that I deny, but that St. jude does likewise denounce this Judgement of perishing in the gainsaying of Core, against those wicked Heretics the Gnostics, who thought themselves set free from all Civil subjection, and therefore despised Dominions, and spoke evil of Dignities, that is, not the Men invested with them, but Civil Magistracy itself; which they looked upon as inconsistent with their Christian Liberty.  
But yet for all this, and that I grant God denounced no less than the Sentence of Death against any Man that refused to Harken to the Priest, or unto the judge in those matters that should be brought before them, by way of Appeal, and also that whoever would not obey joshua, but should Rebel against his Commandments, should be put to Death; yet can I not think that there was any Irresistible Power, placed by God, in the Persons of Moses, joshua, or the judges, or that it was not possible for the Public Peace, or security of the Nation, to be preserved without that; But indeed all these Persons above named, being to be Obeyed, as God's Substitutes, or Lieutenants, as he was King of the Children of Israel, so likewise their Commands, or Dictates were only so far to be observed, as they performed this Commission, and if they had swerved from it, I doubt not but they might not only have been disobeyed, but also resisted by them: And therefore, pray tell me, suppose this Rebellion of Core had happened, because Moses making himself a distinct party, amongst the mixed multitude of strangers, 
Exod. 12.38.  that came up with them, out of the Land of Egypt, and others of his own Tribe or whom he could bring over to his Faction, under colour of this Sovereign Power, (which God had given him) had instead of leading and governing the People committed to his charge, taken upon him to have robbed them of all those Goods, and Riches which they had brought with them out of the Land of Egypt, and had sold the People, or their Children for slaves to the Neighbouring Nations, to enrich himself and his Family; do you believe that the Children of Israel had been Obliged to have Obeyed such a Leader, and not have resisted him, and his party, if there had been occasion? So likewise, if joshua, instead of Leading God's People into the Holy Land, had taken upon him, notwithstanding God's Commands, to have carried them again into Egypt, can you think they had been bound to Obey him, and might not Lawfully have resisted him if he had gone about, by the assistance of his Accomplices, to force them to it? For I doubt not but if these Substitutes had acted contrary to that Commission God had given them, they were no longer to be looked upon as God's Vicegerents, no more than the now Lieutenant of Ireland, the Lord Tyrconnel ought to be Obeyed, and not resisted, if he should go about by Virtue of that Commission which the King hath conferred upon him, and by the help of the Rebellious Irish in that Kingdom, to murder all the Protestants, and set up for himself. So likewise all this strict Obedience, and submission that was to be paid to the Sentence of the Highpriest, or judge, was only in Relation to God himself, whose Sentence it was, and who always Revealed his Will either to the judge by particular Inspiration, or to the Highpriest by the Ephod, or Urim and Thummim; And therefore we read in judges, that Deborah, tho' a Woman, yet being a Prophetess, inspired by God, judged Israel.  
Now suppose that this judge, or Highpriest, neglecting (like Balaam) the Divine Inspiration, and the Dictates of that Sacred Oracle, had, instead of a Righteous judgement, given a Sentence, in a Cause that had come before them, whereby Idolatry or breach of some great Point of the Law of Moses, had been established, do you think that God ever intended that this Sentence should have been Obeyed under Pain of Death?  
And therefore you may find in the 2d. Book of Maccabees, that when jason and Menelaus had by Bribery obtained the High-Priesthood, tho' it was then the Chief Authority, (under the Kings of Syria) both in Ecclesiastical and Civil matters, yet when they went about to undermine the jewish Religion, and seduce the People to Idolatry, they are not at all looked upon as High-Priests, 
2 Maccab. 4. v. 25.  but are there called Ungodly Wretches, doing nothing worthy of the High-Priesthood, but having the fury of a Cruel Tyrant, and of a Savage Beast; and were so far from being at all Obeyed by the jews, that jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus who were successively High-Priests in the room of Onias, were as far as the People were able opposed by them till at last judas Maccabeus, 
1 Mac. 7.23, 24, 25.  taking Arms against Alcimus the Highpriest, restored by force the true Worship of God: So that you see, that the Obedience was not paid to the Person of the High-Priests, only as such, by virtue of this Precept in Deuteronomy, but only as far as they observed the Law of Moses, and gave sentence, or Judgement in all matters according to it. And therefore it is no good Argument of yours, because the People were bound to obey their sentence in doubtful cases, therefore they had an absolute irresistible Power to give what judgements they pleased, and that the People were obliged to observe them under pain of Death, and being Guilty of Rebellion. For that had been to have given the High-Priests and judges a Power to have altered the true Worship of God when ever they pleased, and to have introduced Idolatry in the Room of it. So that I think none of these places will prove any more, but that God, and his Lieutenants were to be Obeyed, and that it was Rebellion to resist them under the jewish Government, as long as they did not force the People to Idolatry, which I do not at all deny.  M. 
Tho you labour to wave these examples, and Precepts, which I have now cited, and will not take them for convincing, yet let me tell you your exceptions against them only tend to prove that Idolatrous, Kings might be resisted under the jewish Law, which is directly contrary to the Sacred History, as I shall prove very clearly to you by these following Testimonies, I shall make use of, yet I think it is much more plain, that when the jews would have a King, 
S. R. S. P. p. 11.  their Kings were to be invested with a Supreme and irresistible Power, for when they desired a King of Samuel, 
1 Sam. 8.6.19, 20.  they did not desire a mere nominal, and titular King, but a King to judge them, and go in and out before them, and fight their Battles, that is, a King who had the Supreme, and Sovereign Authority, a King who should have all that Power of Government (excepting the peculiar Acts of the Priestly Office) which either their Highpriest, or their judge had before.  
And therefore when Samuel tells them, what shall be the manner of their King, 
1 Sam. 8.6.19, 20.  though what he says doth necessarily suppose the translation of the Sovereign, and Irresistible Power to the Person of their King, 
v. 11.  yet it doth not suppose that their King had any new Power given him, more than what was ●●●●cised formerly by the Priest, and judges. He doth not deter them fr●● choosing a King, because a King should have greater Power, and ●e more uncontrollable, 
S. C. R. P. p. 12, 13.  and Irresistible than their other Rulers were, for Samuel himself had before as Sovereign, and Irresistible, a Power as any King, being the Supreme judge of Israel, whose sentence no Man could disobey, or contradict, but he incurred the penalty of Death, according to the Mosaical Law; But the reason why he distuades them from choosing a King was, because the external Pomp, and Magnificence of Kings, was like to be very Chargeable, and oppressive to them. He 〈◊〉 your Sons, and 〈◊〉 them for himself, for his Chariots, and to be his House Men and some shall ran before his Chariots. And he will appoint him Captains over Thousands, and Captains over Fifties, and will set them to ear his Ground, and to reap his Harvest. And thus in several Particulars he shows them what burdens, and exactions; they will bring upon themselves by setting up a King; which they were then free from▪ and if any Prince should be excessive in such ●●●actions, yet they had no way to help themselves; they must not resist, nor rebel against him, nor expect that, whatever inconvenience they might find in Kingly Government,, God would relieve, and deliver them from it, when once they had chosen a King: Ye shall cry out in that day because of your King, that you have chosen you, 
v. 18.  and the Lord will not hear you in that day, That is, God will, not alter the Government for you again how much soever you may complain of it.  
This, I say, is a plain Proof, that their Kings were to be invested with that Sovereign Power, which must not be resisted, tho' they oppress their Subjects to maintain their own State and Grandeur, and Magnificence of their Kingdoms: But I cannot think that these words contain the Original Grant and Charter of Regal Power; but only the Translation that was formerly in their High-Priests, 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 irresistible: but this Power in the hands of Kings, was likely to be more burdensome, and oppressive to them, than it was in the hands of their Priests and judges, by reason of their different way of living, which is the only Argument Samuel makes use of to dissuade them from transferring the Supreme, and Sovereign Power to a King; And therefore I rather Choose to translate Mishpat, as our Translators do, by the manner of the King, than with some learned Men, by the Right of the King, thereby understanding the Original Charter of Kingly Power: for it is not the Regal Power which Samuel here blames, which was much like that which he himself ●ad exercised while he was Supreme judge of Israel, but their Pompous way of living; which would prove very oppressive, and burdensome to them, and be apt to make them complain, who had not been used to such Exactions.  F. 
You have, I must confess, made a much fairer exposition of this out of Samuel, than divers of our Hot and Giddy Divines who would render this Mishpat, as it is in the Hebrew, i. e. the manner of the King, by Right of the King, whereby they would entitle all Kings whatsoever to an absolute Right to all their Subjects Estates, when ever they would take them away, not taking notice that this word, Mishpat, is sometimes used, not only in a good, but a bad sense, not for Right, or Power, but for an evil Custom or Abuse, and therefore you may find in the second Chapter of this Book of Samuel that speaking of the Sons of Eli who were Sons of Belial they knew not the Lord, 
v. 12, 13, 14.  that the Priests, viz. (their) Custom with the People was, that when any man offered Sacrifice, the Priest's servant came, whilst the Flesh was in seething, with a Fleshhook of three teeth in his hand, and he struck it into the Pan, or Kettle, or Cauldron, or Pot, all that the Fl●sh book brought up, the Priest took for himself: so they did in Shiloh, unto all the Israelites that came thither. Where I desire you to observe, that that which is rendered in our Translation the Priest's Custom, is in the Hebrew Mishpat which you render Right; so that if this word would do it, these wicked Priests had also a Right to take away as much of every Man's Sacrifice as they pleased for themselves; nay, to take it before God himself was served, and the Fat burned (according to the rites of Sacrificing) and by the same Rule Kings also by this word Mishpat should have a Right to take what they pleased of the Subject's Estates.  
I do like wise also so far agree with you, that Samuel does not here describe a a Tyrant, but one of those absolute Eastern Princes, who made use of a great part of their Subjects Estates (as they do at this day) to maintain their standing Armies, and Royal Pomp, and Magnificence, so that I grant in short, Samuel meant no more when he thus spoke to them, but since you will have a King, he must be maintained like a King, and very great Taxes will be laid upon you for this End; of which Burden if you shall hereafter be weary, or would cast it off again, you shall by no means do it: for since this King shall obtain the Crown not only by God's appointment, but by your own Choice, or Election, it shall not be in your Power again to depose him; since it is your own Act, and therefore Samuel tells them, That when they should cry unto the Lord in that day, because of the King which they had chosen, the Lord would not hear them; and as long as this King kept himself within these bounds, I grant, he was not to be resisted.  
Yet nevertheless, this place you have now cited, as it is very far from Patronising Tyranny, or all the abuses of Regal Power, so neither do I think it was Samuel's meaning to make the Kings of Israel so absolute, or irresistible, as that upon no account whatsoever the People might disobey, or resist them, let them use this Power never so wickedly, nay, contrary to Gods express commands, and the Ends of all Civil Government; and therefore pray tell me; Suppose, instead of these necessary burdens, which they should be Subject to, when they had a King, Samuel had spoke thus to them, This King (whom you desire) shall prove an Idolater, and as cruel a Tyrant as Pharaoh, or any of the Kings of the Philistines, Canaanites, or any other Nations who so long Tyrannised over you, and shall take away all your Estates, and Lives too, at his Good Pleasure, without any Crime, or Legal Trial, and in short will not only Himself use you for Slaves, but sell you, and your Children for Bondmen to the Egyptians, and other Nations, and shall lay such Grievous Tributes and Burdens upon you, that you shall be scarce able to live under them.  
Now can any Man think, if the Israelites had been really persuaded, that their King must have such an Absolute, and Arbitrary Power, as a necessary and Inseparable Prerogative of his Crown, they would ever have been so fond of such a Government, as to have cried out with one Consent, Nay, but we will have a King over us, that we may be like other Nations. (But sure) not to Tyrannize over, and enslave us, but that he may judge us, 
Ver. 20.  and go out before us, and fight our Battles: Or do you think, if they had had such a King as this, they would ever have long endured him? for that the Children of Israel did not conceive that their Kings had such an Absolute, and Arbitrary Power over them, as to oppress them with Taxes, and to make their Yoke more grievous to them, than they were able to bear, or to Tyrannize over them at his good Pleasure, appears plainly by the Story in the first of Kings concerning the Children of Israel's assembling together at Sichem to make Rehoboam King, 
Chap. 12.  and you'll find the Preliminary Conditions of his Government were these. 
Ver. 3.4.  All the Congregation of Israel came, and spoke unto Rehoboam saying: Thy Father made our Yoke grievous: Now therefore make thou the grievous Service of thy Father, and his heavy Yoke, which he put upon us, Lighter, and we will serve thee. But see the Answer that Rehoboam made them, according to the Wisdom of his Young Counselors. 
Ver. 10.11.  My little Finger Shall be Thicker than my Father's Loins: And whereas my Father did lad you with a heavy Yoke, I will add to your Yoke: My Father has chastised you with Whips, but I will chastise you with Scorpions. And mark, what follows upon this Answer: 
Ver. 16.  So when all Israel saw, that the King harkened not unto them, the People answered the King, saying, What Portion have we in David? Neither have we inheritance in the Son of Jesse; To your tents, O Israel: Now see to thine own House, David. So Israel d●parted unto their Tents. 
Ver. 19  And it is farther said, So Israel rebelled against the House of David unto this day. Nor is this action at all blamed, or disapproved by the Scripture, or rebuked by any Prophet at that time; for tho' the Word is here translated, they rebelled, yet in the Hebrew it signifies no more than, fell away from, or Revolted, and it is said before, that the King harkened not to the People, For the 〈◊〉 (which may be also translated REVOLUTION) was from the Lord, 
1 King 12. v. 15.  that he might perform his saying which he spoke by Ahijah th● S●ilonite unto Jeroboam, when in the Chapter before, the Prophet promised him the Kingdom of the T●n Tribes, and that God would rend them out of the hand of Solomon, (i. e. his Posterity) and give them unto him; who thereupon had a Right to them, and that upon his being made King by the People, he had also a Right to their Obedience, is as evident: Since to continue in a State of Rebellion towards one King, and an Obligation to obey another, are absolutely inconsistent in the same Subject, as I have already proved at our second Conference. And therefore, I cannot but here take notice of that rational Account which the Earl of Clarendon, in his Survey of the Leviathan which you before quoted, gives of this Revolution. Nor did the People (viz. of Israel) conceive themselves liable to those impositions; as appears by the Application they made to Rehoboam upon the death of Solomon, that he would abate some of that rigour his Father had exercised towards them, the rough Rejection of which, contrary to the advice of his wisest Coun●ellours, cost him the greatest part of his Dominions: and when Rehoboam would by Arms have reduced them to obedience, God would not suffer him, because he had been in the fault himself.  M. 
After this extravagant way of Arguing, when ever the Subjects of any Nation shall think themselves too much oppressed with Taxes, or other Grievances, above what they are able to bear, if they are not eased by the King or Supreme Magistrates upon the first Petition, they may presently cast off that Power they were under, and set up another, that would govern them upon Cheaper Terms; for if the People of Israel had this Right, why may not all other Nations claim the same; and this Doctrine, however comfortable it might be to the People, I am sure, it would be very Mischievous to all the Monarchies, and Commonwealths in the World, and it is likely that the Subjects of the French King, nay, States of Holland and other Princes, would quickly take the first opportunity either to make their Princes, and States, to ●ax, them no more than they please themselves or else they, may presently cry with the Israelites, To thy Tents O Israel; nor can I see how the King, and Parliament in England, would be in a much better Con●ition in Relation to the People they represent, should they impose greater Taxes than they thought they could afford to pay, and this Privilege you give the Israelites, seems to be clean contrary to what you laid down at our last Conference▪ wherein you excepted great Taxes, and Tributes to Princes, or States, as no just Cause of Resistance, or taking up Arms: And therefore, I think, I may very well maintain the old Doctrine about this Matter, and that tho' God did rend the Kingdom from Rehoboam, and bestow it upon the Son of Nebat, whom also when the People had made him King, they were obliged to obey, because it was Gods will it should be so, who gives and takes away Kingdoms from whomsoever he pleases: Yet doth not this at all justify the Rebellion of the Israelites, or Iereboam's ●su●pation of his Master's Kingdom; since God oftentimes makes use of this Rebellion of the People to execute his judgement upon a sinful Prince, and Nation: And therefore, it is very remarkable that after this Rebellion of the Israelites, from the house of David they never prospered, but by their Kings, still falling one after another into the same Idolatry, till God at last was so highly provoked against them, that he suffered them to be carried away Captives into a strange Land, near two hundred Years before the Tribes of judah, and Benjamin underwent the same fate for the like Crime.  F. 
I hope you will not be in a Passion; because I have brought this Instance of the Israelites Defection from Rehoboam as an Example of the Right that Subjects may have in those Cases. I have put, to resist, or cast off those Supreme Powers that God had once set over them. For I do confess Divines, and other Authors, are much divided about this Action of the Israelites, some maintaining it to be well done, and in Pursuance to God's Will, and others holding it to be Downright Rebellion. And therefore, I shall not positively assert either the one, or the other, much less that Subjects may rebel whensoever they conceive themselves overtaxed; but thus much, I think, I may safely affirm, that if the Israelites had no Right upon any score whatsoever to resist, I cannot see, why Rehoboam might not have made them, if he had pleased, as Arrant Slaves, as ever their Ancestors were in Egypt; and what he else meant, by saying, instead of Whips, to chastise them with Scorpions, (which were a sort of thorny rods, with which the jews corrected their Slaves, and Malefactors) I cannot understand; and as for Taxes, though I confess, there is no setting any positive measure to them; since no man can positively define what the Exigences of a State may require, and I think no good Subjects ought to deny to contribute as much as ever they are able to afford, to maintain the Government they live under, as long as they receive the Protection of it: So, on the other side, should the Supreme Power of any Nation, (where the People are not mere Slaves) under the Pretence of laying necessary Taxes, for the Maintenance, or Preservation of the Government be constantly exacting from the People, more than they were able to pay, as if, for Example, they should out of every Man's Estate take Nineteen parts, and leave but the Twentieth for the Subsistance of those that own it, I do not think, in that Case the People were obliged in Conscience to pay it, and might in such Case Lawfully resist those Officers, that should come to levy it by force.  M. 
I could have argued farther against what you have now said, concerning this Right of the People of resisting, in case of extravagant, or intolerable Taxes; but since it is not to the Subject in hand, I shall refer it to another time: And therefore to return where I left off; I shall in the next place show you, how sacred, and irresistible the Persons, and Authority of Kings were under the jewish Government; and there cannot be a plainer Example of this, than in the Case of David. He was himself anointed to be King, after Saul's death, but in the mean time, he was grievously persecuted by Saul, who pursued him from one place to another with a design to take away his Life: How now doth David behave himself in this Extremity? What Course doth he take to secure himself from Saul? Why he takes the only Course that is left to a Subject; 
S. C. R. 28.29.  he flies for it, and hides himself from Saul in the Mountains, and Caves of the Wilderness; and when he found he was discovered in one place, he removes to another; He kept Spies upon Saul to observe his Motions, not that he might meet him to give him Bat●le, or to take him at an Advantage, but that he might keep out of his way, and not fall unawares into his hands.  
Well, but this was no thanks to David, (you'll say) because he could not do otherwise. He was too weak for Saul, and not able to stand against him; and therefore had no other Remedy but flight. But yet we must consider that David was a Man of War, he slew Goliath, and fought the Battles of Israel with great success; he was an admired, and beloved Captain, which made Saul so Jealous of him; the Eyes of Israel were upon him for their next King, and how easily might he have raised a Potent, and formidable Rebellion against Saul? But he was so far from this, that he invites no Man to his Assistance; and when some came uninvited he made no use of them in an Offensive, or Defensive War against Saul: Nay, when God delivered Saul twice into David's hands; that he could as easily have killed him as have, Cut off the Skirts of his Garment at Engedi, 
1 Sam. 24.— 26.  or, as have taken That Spear away, which stuck on the Ground as his Bolster, as he did in the Hill of Hachil●h, yet he would neither touch Saul himself, nor suffer any of the People that were with him to do it, tho' they were very importunate with him to let them kill Saul; nay, tho' they urged him with an Argument from Providence, that it was a plain Evidence, that it was the Will of God that he should kill him, 
— 24.4.— 26.8.  Because God had now delivered his Enemy into his Hands, according to the Promise he had made to David; we know what use some Men have made of this Argument of Providence to justify all the Villainies they had a Mind to act: 
Ib. p. 30.  But David, it seems, did not think, that an opportunity of doing evil, gave him a Licence; and Authority to do it. Opportunity, we say, makes a Thief, and it makes a Rebel, and a Murderer too. No man can do any wickedness which he has no opportunity of doing; and if the Providence of God, which puts such opportunities into men's hands, might justify the wickedness they commit, no Man can be chargeable with any Gild whatever he does; and certainly Opportunity will as soon justify any other Sin, as Rebellion, and the Murder of Princes. We are to learn our Duty from the Law of God, not from his Providence: At least this must be a settled Principle, that the Providence of God will never justify any Action which his Law forbids.  
And therefore, notwithstanding this Opportunity which God has put into his hands to destroy his Enemy, and to take the Crown for his Reward, David considers his Duty, remembers, that tho' Saul were his Enemy, and that very unjustly; yet he was still the Lords anointed. The Lord forbid, says he, That I should do this unto my Master, the Lords anointed, to stretch forth any Hand against him, seeing he is the Lords anointed. Nay, he was so far from taking away his Life, that his Heart smote him for cutting off the Skirt of his Garment. And we ought to observe the Reason David gives, why he durst not hurt Saul, because he was the Lords anointed, which is the very Reason the Apostle gives in the Romans, 
Rom. 13.1, 2.  because the Powers that are, are ordained of God; and he that resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God. For to be anointed of God signifies no more than that he was made King or ordained by God. For this external Unction was only a Visible Sign of God's Designation of them, to such an Office; And it is certain, they were as much Gods Anointed without this Visible Unction as with it. Cyrus is called Gods Anointed, tho' he never was Anointed by any Prophet, but only designed for his Kingdom by Prophecy; 
Isa. 45.1.  And we never read in Scripture, that any Kings had this external Unction, who succeeded in the Kingdom by Right of Inheritance, unless the Title and succession were doubtful; and yet they were the Lords Anointed too, that is, were placed in the Throne by him. So that this is an Eternal Reason against r●sisti●g Sovereign Princes, that they are Set up by God, and invested with his Authority, and therefore their Persons, and their Authority are Sacred.  F. 
I am so far from differing with you in what you have said concerning this Example of David towards Saul, tho' his Enemy, that I think it ought to be a Pattern to every single Private Man, though never so great, in a Kingdom or Commonwealth, how to comport himself towards the Supreme Powers, if he himself alone be unjustly persecuted by them either in his Life, or Estate, that is, to fly if he can, tho' with the loss of all his Estate, rather than resist, tho' there are some Circumstances in this Story of David that make it evident that he did not think a Defensive War against those Cutthroats that Saul might send to Kill him unlawful, 
Sect. 2.  and so much Dr. Fearn himself, in his first Discourse called resolving of Conscience, etc. against Resistance of the Higher Powers acknowledges: For David when he fled from Saul, made himself Captain of four hundred Men, which number soon increased to six hundred; 
1. Sam. 22.2.23.13. 1 Chron. 12.1.  And still every day grew more by Additions. Now why should he entertain those Men, but to defend himself against the Forces of Saul? that is, to make a Defensive War when ever he was assaulted by him.  M. 
I think I can give you a sufficient answer to this, and therefore you must observe that David invited none of these Men in to him; but they came as Volunteers after a Beloved Captain, 
S. ●. R. p. 32.  and General; which shows how formidable he could easily have made himself, when such Numbers resorted to him of their own Accord.  
When he had them he never used them for any Hostile Acts against Saul, or any of his Forces; he never stood his Ground when he heard Saul was coming, but always fled, and his Men with him; Men who never were used to fly, and were very ready to have served him against Saul himself, would he have permitted them: And I suppose you will not call it a defensive War, to fly before an Enemy, and to hide themselves in Caves, and Mountains; and yet this was the only defensive War which David made with all his Men about him: nay, all that he would make, and all that he could make according to his Professed Principles; that it was not Lawful to stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed. And when these Men are pursued, as David was, by an enraged and Jealous Prince, I will not charge them of Rebellion, tho' they fly before him by thousands in a Company.  
Yet there was sufficient Reason why David should entertain these Men who voluntarily resorted to him, tho' he never intended to use them against Saul: for some of them served for Spies to watch Saul's Motions, that he might not be surprised by him, but have timely notice to make his Escape. And the very presence of such a number of Men about him, without any Hostile Act, preserved him from being seized on by some Officious Persons, who otherwise might have delivered him into Saul's hands. And he being Anointed by Samuel to be King after Saul's Death this was the first step to his Kingdom, to have such a Retinue of Valiant Men about him; which made his Advancement to the Throne more easy, and discouraged any Oppositions, which might otherwise have been made against him; as we see it proved in the event, and have reason to believe that it was thus ordered by God for that very End. It is certain that Gad the Prophet▪ and Abiathar the Priest, who was the only Man, who escaped the Fury of Saul when he destroyed the Priests of the Lord, were in David● Retinue, and that David enterprised nothing, without first ask Counsel of God: But he who had Anointed him to be King, now draws Forces after him, which after Saul's Death should facilitate his Advancement to the Kingdom.  F. 
I cannot think your Answer to this Objection satisfactory, for first it is evident, that when David was at the Cave of Adullam, his Brethren, 
1 Sam. 22.1.  and all his Father's House, as soon as they heard it, went down thither to him, and tho' it be not expressly said, that he sent for any to come to his Assistance, yet it is plain he refused none that came, and to what purpose should he make use of so many as 400, or 600 Men, unless it were to defend himself against those Men, that Saul might send against him? since half a score, or twenty Persons had been enough to have served for Spies, and if he had thought himself obliged only to run away▪ three or four Servants had been enough in conscience to have Waired on him in any Neighbouring Country; but that David thought it no Sin to defend himself from the Violence of those which Saul should send to Kill him, is plain from what he says to Abiathar upon his flight unto him after the Death of his Father: 
1 Sam. 22. v. 23.  Abide thou with me, fear not: for he that seeketh my Life, seeketh thy Life, but with me thou shalt be in safeguard; And if David had not meant by these Words to have defended Abiathar's as well as his own Life, if assaulted, and without a Possibility of escaping, it had been very cold comfort, for David to have only assured him that he should be in safeguard with him, till the first assault that should be made upon them, but that then he should shift for himself; for as for his own part he would rather permit his Throat to be cut by the King's Officers or Soldiers, than resist them.  
And therefore, tho' I own that it was not Lawful for him to stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed: Since I do not allow any Private Subject to Kill, even Tyrants, unless a in State of actual War, or Battle, wherein they are Aggressors; nor then neither, if it can possibly be avoided: Yet do I not find it at all unlawful for David, or any other private Man, to defend his own Life, against such Assassinates as his Prince may send against him: So it may be done without a Civil War, or endangering the Peace of the Commonwealth; And so much you yourself, tho' Coldly, seem to yield, when you say, that the very Presence of such a number of Men about David, without any Hostile Act, preserved him from being seized on by some Officious Persons, who otherwise might have delivered him into Saul's Hands: For I cannot think that David would have been at the trouble of keeping so many Men only for show, and a Terror to those Officious Persons you mention, without resisting of them if there had been occasion.  
And tho' you tell me that his being Anointed by Samuel to be King after Saul's Death, was the first step to the Kingdom, to have such a Retinue of Valiant Men about him; which made his Advancement to tho●punc; Throne so much the ●aster, and discouraged any Opposition which might have been made against him, and that we see it proved so in the Event; and therefore have Reason to believe, that it was thus ordered by God to that very End, I must take the Liberty so far to differ from you.  
For first, I desire to know by what Authority David could List 600, or 700 Men in Arms in Saul's Territories▪ and whether, according to your Doctrine, they were not Rebels for joining themselves with one who was declared a Traitor by the King? And tho' you say it was thus ordered by God. I grant indeed it was, yet doth it not appear, that it was done by any Divine Revelation to Nathan, or Abiathar, but only by the Ordinary Course of his Providence, like other things in the World; and therefore it is no fair way of Arguing for you, to affirm, that what ever David did in the matter of his own Defence, contrary to your Principles, he must needs do it by express order from God, of which the Scripture is wholly silent, much less doth it appear from the Story▪ that these Men, whom David kept with him, were only to facilitate his attaining the Kingdom (as you affirm,) since the Scripture mentions no such thing, 
2 Sam. 2.4.  only that after Saul's Death he went up by God's Command to Hehron with the Men that were with him, and thither the Men of judah came, and there they Anointed David King over the House of Judah; but 'tis no where mentioned, that these Men were of any use, to David for the Obtaining of the Crown, since the Tribe of judah would have made him King, tho' these Men had not been with him, for what could 600, or 1000 Men do against so vast a Multitude as the whole Tribe of judah? And therefore it is evident, that these Forces were for no other End than his own defence.  
And tho' you make very light of this State of War, in which David was, in relation to Saul; yet pray tell me, supposing that the Duke of Monmouth had really been (as he Pretended,) the Legitimate Son of King Charles the II. but by some Particular Disgust of his Father, or by the Intrigues of his Competitor, the Duke of York, had been forced to fly into Scotland, and 〈◊〉 to have defended himself with 1000, or 1500 of his Tenants, and followers, tho' without Fight the King's Forces that should have been se●● against him, but flying into the Highlands, and had there maintained himself, as David did by Free Quarters, or Contribution of the Inhabitants; till his Father died, would not this have been cried out upon in all the Pulpits in England, as a most Horrid Rebellion, of a Son and a Subject against his King, and Father; tho' he had never done any Act of Hostility against his Forces, but always 〈◊〉 from them? And yet he, being Heir Apparent to the Crown might have pleaded as well as David, that he kept these Soldiers about him, only to keep himself from being Murdered by those Officious Persons, whom his Father, or Uncle might send to apprehend him, and to have such a Retinue of Valiant Men about him, as might render his advancement to the Throne more easy when ever his Father should die.  
I shall not urge, as a farther proof of the Lawfulness of David's Resistance of Saul's Forces, his Intention to have slayed in Keilah, and to have fortified it against Saul, had not he been informed, that the Men of that City would have saved themselves by delivering him up to Saul: 
● Sam. 23.  Since I confess it doth not certainly appear by the Text, whether David would have stayed any longer there than till Saul had approached near to that place; whether the Keilites would have delivered him up, or not; much less shall I urge, that other example which some Men make use of, of David's going to the last Battle against Saul with Achish, King of the Philistines; For tho' it be plain he marched with them, as far as Apbek in the Tribe of Issachar, yet I confess it is not certain, whether he really intended to have assisted them, or not, in this War against his Country, since he might either have gone over to Saul at the beginning of the Battle▪ or else have stood neuter; tho' neither of them would have been very Honourable; or Consonant with David's Character, therefore I shall say nothing of this; since the Lords of the Philistines, for fear he should prove a● adversary to them in the Battle, made him retire again into the Land of the Philistines, 
1 Sam. 29.3, 4.8.  tho' he seemed to be very much troubled to be so disinherited, that he might not fight against the Enemies of that King, who had so good an Opinion of him; And therefore I pray will you proceed to those other Example's you have to produce out of the Old Testament.  M. 
Well, since you are not fully satisfied with this Instance of David, (tho' I am glad you allow the Persons even of Tyrannical Princes to be Sacred) therefore to proceed in the story; Solomon, who succeeded David in his Kingdom, 
S. C. R. p. 37, 38.  did all those things which God had expressly forbid the King to do. He sent into Egypt for Horses. He multiplied Wives, and loved many strange Women, (together with the Daughter of Pharaoh) Women of the Moabites, 
1 Kings 11.1.10.27.  Ammonites, etc. He Multiplied Silver, and Gold. For this 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 accomplished in the Days of Rehoboam: but yet this did not give Authority to his Subjects to Rebel. If to be under the Direction, and Obligation of Laws, makes a Limited Monarchy, it is certain the Kingdom of Israel was so. There were some things which the King was expressly forbid to do, as you have already heard; and the Law of Moses, was to be the Rule of his Government, the standing Law of his Kingdom. And therefore he was Commanded, when he came to the Throne to write a Copy of the Law with his own hand, 
Deut. 17. v. 18, 19, 20.  and to read in it all his Days, that he might learn to fear the Lord his God, and to keep all the Words of this Law, and these Statutes to do them, and yet being a Sovereign Prince; if he broke these Laws, God was his judge, and Avenger; but he was accountable to no earthly Tribunal; nor do we find, tho' there were so many wicked, and Idolatrous Kings of judah, who broke all the Laws of God given them by Moses that ever any of the Priests, or Prophets stirred up the People to Rebel against them for it.  F. 
Neither of these Instances do reach the Case in hand; For I grant that neither the Breach, or nonobservance of these Precepts enjoined the Kings of Israel, by God; Nor yet their open Idolatry were a sufficient Cause, for their taking up Arms, or resisting their Kings in so doing▪ since those were offences only against God, and in which the People had nothing to do, those being no part of that Tacit, or implicit Compact of Protection, and Preservation, that goeth along with all Kingdoms and Supreme Powers whatsoever. And I have already excepted out of the Causes of Resistance, or taking up Arms, the Princes being of a different Religion from that of his Subject; And tho' I must own, that the Kings of Israel were under the direction or Obligation of the Law of Moses, and so were limited Monarches, yet this limitation was not from the People, but from God, whose business it was to revenge the breach of it as often as they offended, and if they broke those Laws, God only was their Judge, and Avenger (as you yourself very well observe) who never failed severely to punish this breach of his Laws.  
Nor yet were the People of the jews always so nice and temperate as you make them; For (besides the example of Rehoboam, which I have formerly made use of, you will find in the 2d. of Chronicles concerning Amaziah, who when he turned away from following the Lord, 
Chap. 25. v. 27.  They (viz. the People) made a Conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish but they sent to Lachish after him, and slew him there: and made his Son Vzziah King in his stead; nor do we read that any were punished for killing him, as Am●ziab put to Death the Servants of his Father King joash, for conspiring against him, as it is related in the 10th. Chap. of the 2d. of Kings, and you'll find in the same 
* Chap. 21.10.  Book that the City of Libna revolted (which sure is the highest degree of Resistance) from that wicked King jehoram, who had slain all his Brethren with the Sword, 
v. 4.6.  and walked in the way of the Kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab, and wrought that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, etc. And therefore it is said expressly in the Text, that the City of Libna revolted from his hand, because he had forsaken the God of his Fathers. I bring not these Instances to justify Rebellion, but to let you see that it was sometimes practised, amongst the jews, tho' you affirm to the contrary.  
But much more lawful was the Resistance, which Azariah, and the 80 Priests, 
2 Chron. 26.  that were with him, made against King Vzziah, when he would have burnt Incense in the Temple: pray turn with me to the Place, and read what is there said, And they (viz. the Priests withstood Uzziah the King, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, 
ver. 18.  to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the Priests the Sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn Incense: go out of the Sanctuary, for thou hast trespassed, neither shall it be for thine Honour, etc. And when he persisted therein, and took the Censer in his hand to Burn Incense, and that thereupon the Leprosy arose in his Forehead▪ the Priests thrust him out of the Temple, The LXX. render it, 
Vide St. Chrysost. Ecloga at Imperio, & Potestate, where you'll find that he both owns & justifies this Resistance in the Highpriest.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. they resisted him; josephus says, they drove him out in haste, so that you see they went somewhat farther than Solomon's Question, Who may say to a King what dost thou? And, which is more remarkable, they withstood him before the Leprosy rose upon his Forehead, and no doubt but they would have done the same to him, whether that Judgement had happened, or not, since he went about to Usurp the Priest's Office, it not being so much as Lawful for him, that was no Priest to set his foot within the Temple.  
But if you look into the History of the Kings of Israel after their Division from judah, they are so far from teaching us these Lessons of Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance, that you will scarce find any other manner of Succession amongst them, but the Killing of one King, and the setting up another, and jehu for Rebelling against and destroying the house of Ahab, had the Crown entailed by Gods Promise to his Posterity unto the fourth Generation. 
2 Kings 10.30.  And tho' I do not produce any of these Examples as fit for our Imitation at this day, (since what jehu did was done by God's express Warrant and Command) yet I think they are sufficient Evidences, that neither the Person, or Power of the Kings of judah, or Israel were always looked upon as so Sacred, and Irresistible by their Subjects, as you suppose.  M. 
I am glad you are so ingenuous to confess, that most of these Examples you have brought of the Resistance, and Murders committed by the jews and Israelites upon their Kings were not Lawful, or can be proposed for the Imitation of Christian Subjects, and if so, pray make what other use of them you please, since à facto, ad Ius non valet Consequentia: I cannot deny, but that the Succession of the Kings of Israel after Nadab, the Son of jeroboam, was very confused. God stirring up some or other to Rebel against them, 
S. C. R. p. 35. 1 Kings 15, 25, 26, 27. 2 Chro. 16.7.  and make them away as a Punishment for their former Rebellion, and Idolatry: Thus Baasha killed Nadab the Son of jeroboam, and Reigned in his stead, and for this, and his other Sins, God threatened Evil against Baasha, and against his House, Zimri slew Elah the Son of Baasha, but he did not long enjoy the Kingdom which he had Usurped by Treason, and Murder, for he Reigning, but seven days in Tirza, which being Besieged, and taken by Omri, 
v. 18.  he went to the Palace, and burned the King's House over him with fire, and died.  
This Example jezebel threatened jehu with, 
2 K. 9 31.  Had Zimri Peace who slew his Master? And yet Nadab and Elah were both of them very wicked Princes: And if that would Justify Treason and Murder, both Baasha, and Zimri had been very Innocent, but as for the example of Iehu's kill his Master King joram, (you say) it was by the particular Command of God, and is no more to be produced as an Example for Rebellion, and the murder of Princes by the General of their Armies, than that because the Children of Israel had a Power given them by God to extirpate, and destroy those seven Nations whose Countries God had given them to Inherit,, therefore they had a like Right to destroy all other Nations whatsoever, that lay near them: And therefore those Actions in Scripture, which are sometimes Commanded by God for the bringing about the great Designs of his Providence, by those Human means that may seem unjust to us, are not to be produced for Authorities, nor alleged as Examples.  F. 
I so far agree with you, and I do by no means allow that particular Private Men, of what condition soever they are, should disturb the Common Wealth, and Murder their Lawful Princes, tho' wicked, or Idolatrous, only to satisfy their own private Zeal or Ambition and to set up themselves, who perhaps are altogether as o●d, or worse than him they depose, or make away. But yet I think I might very well produce these to convince you, that there were no better Examples for Loyalty, or Passive Obedience among the jews, than other Nations; And therefore that your Examples out of the Scripture do hitherto prove insignificant: Yet I cannot but take notice of one passage, wherein by following the ordinary English translation you fall into a great mistake, where you make Baasha to be slain by Zimri, because he killed Nadab, which, as it is there rendered in the English, is false, for the Words in 〈◊〉 Translation are, because he killed him, viz. jeroboam to whom it there immediately relates, which is false, for Baasha did not kill jeroboam, but Nadab his Son; Neither was it suitable to God's Justice to destroy Baasha, for that which he himself had ordained him to do. For God by jehu the Prophet, said to Baasha, for as much as I exalted thee, out of the Dust, and made thee Prince over my People Israel, and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam, and hast made my People Israel to Sin, to provoke me to anger by their Sins: And therefore the Text concludes this Narration with there words, that the Word of the Lord came against Baasha and against his House, even for all the Evil which he did in the sight of the Lord in provoking him to anger with the work of his Hands in being like the Hous● of Jeroboam, but the words which immediately follow, and because he killed him (i. e. jeroboam) cannot be truly rendered in our English Translation, for the Reason already given, and therefore the best Critics upon this place Translate it thus, leaving out, and therefore He (viz. the Lord) smote him: (i. e. Nadab) by the hand of Baasha) Whereas our Translation makes the Scripture to contradict itself. I have no more to observe from this History of the Kings, and Chron. and therefore I pray proceed to what other Testimonies you have to produce.  M. 
Well, I think I can make it much more plain, from other Examples and Precepts out of Scripture, that the jews were not only under high Obligations to be Subject to the Higher Powers, 
S. C. R. p. 35.  after they were carried Captives to Babylon, but also not to resist them, tho' they went about to exercise their Power, never so cruelly, and Tyrannically, even to the Destruction of the whole Nation. Now the Prophet jeremiah had given them an express Command. Seek the Peace of the City whither I have caused you to be carried away Captives, 
jer. 29.7.  and pray to the Lord for it: for in the Peace thereof you shall have Peace. Which made it a necessary duty to be Subject to these Powers, under whose government they lived. And accordingly we find, that Mordecai discovered the Treason of Bigthana, 
Esther. 6.2.  and Teresh two of the King's Chamberlains, the Keepers of the Door, who sought to lay hand on the King Ahasuerus; 
S. C. R. p. 40, 41.  And how numerous and Powerful the jews were at this time, and what great disturbance they could have given to the Empire, appears evidently from the Book of Esther.  
King Ahasuerus upon the suggestions of Haman, had granted a Decree for the Destruction of the whole People of the jews; which was sent into all the Provinces, Written, and Sealed with the King's Ring; This Decree could never be reversed again; for that was contrary to the Laws of the Medes and Persians. And therefore when Esther had found Favour with the King, all that could be done for the jews, was, to grant another Decree for them to defend themselves; which accordingly was done, and the effect of it was, That the Jews at Shusan slew 300 Men and the Jews of the other Provinces slew 75000 and rested from their Enemies: 
Esther 6.15.16, 17.  Without this Decree, Mordecai did not think it Lawful to resist (which yet was a Case of as great extremity, and Barbarous Cruelty as could ever happen) which made him put Esther upon so hazardous an Attempt, as to venture into the King's Presence, without being called, which was Death by their Law, unless the King should graciously hold out the Golden Sceptre to them; 
Esther 4. 11.  yet when they had obtained this Decree, they were able to defend themselves and to destroy their Enemies; which is as famous an Example of Passive Obedience, as can be met with in any History.  
And pray see here, what the Prophet Daniel acknowledges to Belteshazzar. 
Dan. 5.18, 19  The most High God gave Nebucadnezzar thy Father a Kingdom, and Majesty, and Glory, and Honour: and for the Majesty that he gave him, all People, Nations, and Languages trembled and feared before him. Whom he would be slew, and whom he would be kept alive; and whom he would be set up, and whom he would ●e pulled down And if these Heathen Kings received such a Power from God, as the Prophet here affirms, St. Paul has made the Application of it, that he that resisteth, resisteth the Ordinance of God. And I think these Examples may serve out of the Old Testament, and therefore I shall conclude with the saying of the Wise Man, who was both a Prophet, and a King: 
Eccl. 8.2, 3, 4.  Where the Word of a King is there is Power, and who may say unto him, What dost thou?  F. 
Tho' this last proof be the stongest you have yet brought, yet I think it will not reach the Point in Question, to prove, that no Resistance whatsoever, tho' for saving the Lives of a whole Nation, can be Lawful: I grant indeed that the Command of the Prophet jeremiah, of Praying for the Peace of the City whither they were carried away Captives, was to be obeyed, being obliged to do it, not only by the Laws of Nature, and in Regard of those Benefits of Protection, and enjoying the Free exercise 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 settling them in another, according to the Custom of the Eastern Princes of those times, when they would by removing of the best, and greatest of the People out of a Conquered Country prevent their Rebelling against them, as they had done before, but that they enjoyed a Property in their Lands, and Estates after their Captivity, is certain by the Prophets commanding them, to Build and Plant Vineyards in the Country of Babylon during the 70 years' Captivity foretold by him from God. So likewise I grant it to be a necessary Duty in Subjects, tho' strangers, to be Faithful, and Obedient to those Princes and States under whose Governments they live; and therefore Mordecai no doubt performed his Duty, when he discovered the Treason of the King's Chamberlains that thought to kill him.  
But to come to your main Argument, that it was unlawful for the whole Nation of the jews to resist those, who were impowered by the Decree of King Ahasuer●● to Massacre and Destroy them, I shall not dispute with you about the Matter of Fact, as you have related it, but only in this particular, 
Esther 8.11.  that whereas you suppose till the King had Issued out a second Decree, wherein he granted the jews which were in every City to gather themselves together, and to stand for their Lives, to destroy, to slay, and Cause to Perish all the Power of the People, and Province that should assault them, etc. and to take the spoil of them for a Prey; without which Decree you suppose, Mordecai did not think it Lawful to resist, tho' it was a Case of as great extremity, as could ever happen, and that therefore Esther was put upon so Hazardous an Attempt as to venture to Obtain this Decree, tho' with the Peril of her Life: but that when they had once obtained it, they were then, and not before enabled to defend themselves, and destroy their Enemies. In answer to which, I must needs tell you that, you do not fairly represent the latter part of this story; for it no where appears in the Text, (tho' you are pleased to add it,) that Mordecai did not think it Lawful for the jews to resist, till this Decree was obtained; for it is only there said, That he sent Esther to the King, and as soon as she came into his presence, she fell down at his feet, and besought him with Tears to put away the Mischief of Haman the Agagite. 
Esther. 8.5.  (Pray read the words) And she said, If it pleases the King, and if I have found favour in his fight, and the thing seems right before the King, and I be pleasing in his Eyes let it be written to reverse the Letters devised by Haman, the Son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to destroy the Jews which are in all the King's Provinces. By which you may see that esther's Request was not for a Liberty to defend themselves, (as you suppose) but only to try if she could get the King to reverse the first decree, obtained by Haman to destroy them; but because the King's Decree, when once Issued out was not to be reversed, therefore, He Issued this second Decree, to give the jews a Legal or Civil Power, to gather themselves together, and stand upon their defence against all that should assault them, 
Chap. 9.3.  which was so far obeyed, that the Rulers of the Provinces, and other Officers of the King, instead of destroying, helped the jews, because (says the Text) the fear of Mordecai fell upon them.  
So that, tho' I own this Decree, gave them a Legal Power to stand upon their defence, and did likewise hinder the King's Officers from Heading the People, and putting the first Decree for their Destruction in Execution, as otherwise they would have done, had it not been for this last, and for that great Power which they perceived Mordecai had at Court; yet doth it not therefore follow, that it was before that, absolutely unlawful for the whole jewish Nation to have defended their Lives against those Officers, or others who would have gone about to destroy them, and have totally extirpated their Nation. So that I take this Decree not to confer any new Right in the People of the jews to defend themselves, but only to be a Confirmation of that Natural Right of self-defence, which all Nations, and every particular Member of Mankind have to preserve themselves And tho' I grant that Particular Persons are often obliged to give up this Right for the Public Peace, and safety of the Commonwealth, yet doth not th● Law extend to whole Nations, or such Bodies of People, without which the Common Wealth cannot well subsist.  
And therefore I leave it to any unprejudiced person to judge, whether it had not been better, that the jews should have thus resisted, and saved their Lives, tho' without this second Decree, which only discouraged the King's Officers, and others from falling upon them, than that all Gods Peculiar People should have lain at the Mercy of their Enemies, to be destroyed according to the first Cruel Decree.  
But farther to convince you, that the jews, after the Captivity, did not think it unlawful to make use of defensive Arms against cruel, and persecuting Tyrants, who went about to destroy their Religion, and Nation, it is apparent from the Famous Example of the Priest Mattathias, with judas Maccabeus, and the rest of his Sons, who successively Headed the People of the jews in that obstinate, and Noble Resistance, which they made against Antiochus Epiphanes, tho' then their Sovereign, who when he had Profaned the Temple, and would have forced the jews to renounce their Circumcision, and to have Sacrificed to Idols, under Pain of Death, they joined together, and resolved to defend themselves, and to stand up for their Religion and Nation, then ready to be destroyed; And you find by the History, as it is related in the Books of the Maccabees, and josephus, that God did Bless those Arms with Success, which they had taken up in their own defence, against a Prince infinitely more Powerful than themselves, who with his Predecessors had been their Sovereigns for above 130 years; And tho' Antiochus died long before the End of the War, yet did they still prosecute it against his Successors; Nor did they ever make Peace with them till jonathan, Brother of judas (who had before recovered and purified the Temple) was acknowledged Highpriest, by Alexander, the pretended Son of Epiphanes, and that they had cast off that Yoke of Subjection, which they were under to the Kings of Syria, and had settled the Government of their Nation upon the Princes of the Asmonaean Race in gratitude of that deliverance, they so justly owed to their Piety, and Courage; and which continued in this Family till the Conquest of judea by Pompey, after 106 years free enjoyment of it: So that it is plain, the jews, before the Coming of Christ, both Priests, and People, did not think it unlawful to defend their Lives, and Religion, in Case of great Extremity, and that our Saviour Christ, hath any where by his Gospel Retrenched whole Nations of that liberty lies upon you to prove.  
But to conclude, as for the Text you have cited out of the Proverbs, that will do you as little service: For tho' I grant it is true, that no Man can say to an Absolute King, or Monarch, What dost thou? i. e. Call him to Account as his Superior; Yet doth it not therefore follow, that a whole People, or Nation, have no Power to defend themselves in any case whatsoever, against his unjust, Violence, or Tyranny: This not being the Act of a Superior, but an equal (as I have already said) nor any Political, but a Natural Power.  M. 
I confess this is the Notablest Example of Resistance, that you have brought yet, but I think it may be easily answered, if we suppose with josepbus and other Authors, that tho' Alexander the great, was certainly possessed of Palestine, by right of Conquest, and the Submission of the Highpriest jaddus unto him; Yet his Chief Captains conspiring together, made such a Scambling Division of the Empire among themselves, as they could, every one almost, seeking how he might suppress the rest, and attain the whole alone for himself: so as thereupon the jews, were as free from the Macedonians, as any other of their Bordering Neighbours; none of the said Captains having any Lawful Interest, or Title to judah: But that which turned to the benefit of some others, brought a great detriment (for want of Ability) unto them: For one of the said Captains, viz. Antiochus, having gotten to himself a very great Kingdom in Syria, and another, viz. Ptolemy, in Egypt, the jews dwelling betwixt them both, were miserably, on every side, vexed by them, sometimes the Egyptians by Oppression and force, brought them under their Subjection, and imposed great Tributes upon them; and sometimes the Syrians, growing mightier than the Egyptians, did likewise very greatly afflict them; especially in the Reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, whose Invasion and Government was most Unjust and Tyrannical. 
1 Macc. 1.37.  He shed Innocent Blood on every side of the Sanctuary, spoiled the Temple, erecting in it the Abomination of the Gentiles, and caused it to be named the Temple of Jupiter Olympius. Not to mention the Profanation of the Law, and unspeakable Cruelties, exercised upon those who refused to offer Sacrifice unto Idols, until Mattathias moved with the Monstrous Cruelty, and Tyranny of the said Antiochus, made open Resistance, the Government of that Tyram being not then either generally received by Submission, or settled by Continuance. So that after the time of Alexander the Great, the jewish Nation was Governed by their own High-Priests, and Sanhedrim, and lived according to their own Laws, in all matters, both Civil, and Ecclesiastical, tho', more often, I own, with a Subordination to the Sovereignty of the Kings of Egypt, till this Invasion of their Religion, and liberties by Antiochus. So that they had a Legal Right to the Free exercise of their Religion which could not without the Highest Violence, and injustice be taken from them.  F. 
Notwithstanding what you have now said concerning this Action, I doubt not, but if you will consider josephus better, as also the two Books of the Maccabees, you will find, th●t not only Antiochus Epiphanes, but also Antiochus the Great, and Seleucus Philopater were true and Lawful Monarches of Coelo-Syria, and consequently of Palestine, And tho' I grant there had been Wars between Antiochus the Great, and Ptolemy Philopater, concerning the Dominion of that Country, yet it is plain out of Iosephus' Antiquities. Lib. 12. 
Cap. 3.4 th'.  That Antiochus had re-conquered all this Country from the Egyptians, tho' he afterwards parted with half of the Tribute of it to Ptolemy Epiphanes King of Egypt, as a Dowry with Cleopatra his Daughter; Yet surely he retained the Supreme Dominion of it to himself, for we find in the 2 Maccabees, 
Cap. 3.  that Seleucus Philopater, supplied all the Costs of the Sacrifices out of his own Revenues, that is, of those Sacrifices, that were offered for the Health of the King, as afterwards for the Roman Emperors. 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 Highpriest when ever he pleased, as having the Dominion over Coelo-Syria, and Phoenicia, over which, as appears by the 2d. Chap. of the 2d. of Macc. Seleucus had made Apollonius Governor under him: So that there cannot be more certain marks of Sovereign Majesty, exercised by the Great Turk over any of those Tributary Princes, or Governors, which he places, and displaces at his Pleasure: And therefore it is apparent, notwithstanding what you have said to the Contrary, out of I know not what Authors, that the Government of Antiochus Epiphanes, was an unjust Usurpation, for bating this Tyranny in the exercise of it, he had a juster Title than ever Alexander the Great had, since besides Conquest, he had your own Right of Prescription by three Descents, and I have Grotius, (besides other more ancient Authors) on my side in this matter. And pray now see Grotius his Opinion in his first Book de I.B. & P. cap. 4. which I will read into English, 
§. 7.  and I think will make sufficiently for my Opinion.  
The Fact of the Maccabees may seem like to this, (viz. the Example of David before going) for that some to defend these Arms by this Pretence, as if Antiochus were not their King, but an Invader, I suppose to be vain, since no where in all the History of the Maccabees, Antiochus is called by any other Name, but that of the King; and that deservedly, since the jews had long since acknowledged the Empire of the Macedonians, in whose Right Antiochus, had succeeded, for that the Law forbids a Stranger to be set over the People, is only to be understood of a Voluntary Election, and not of that which the People were forced to submit to by a necessity of the times. But what others say, that the jews than used the Right of a People, who were in their own Power is not true. For first of all, the jews being Conquered by Nabuchadnezzar, by the Right of War, obeyed by the same Right the Medes, and Persians, as Successors to the Chaldeans, whose whole Empire devolved upon the Macedonians, (with which justin likewise agrees in his 36. Book) hence the jews are said by Tacitus, to have been during the Empire of the Medes, and Persians, Vilissima pars Servientium. Neither did they covenant any thing with Alexander, and his Successors, but submitted themselves to their Dominion without any Conditions as they had been under that of Darius before. But if the jews were sometimes permitted to observe their own Rites and Laws, that was merely precarious proceeding from the Beneficence of those Kings, and not from any Law superinduced on that Empire. Therefore there is nothing which can defend the Maccabees in this matter, besides the most extreme and most certain danger (viz.) as long as they so contained themselves within the bounds of self-defense, and that according to David's Example, they retired into defeat Places for their 〈◊〉, nor took Arms until they were set upon. So far Grotius.  M. 
I shall not farther dispute this Point, tho' I thought I had very good Authority on my side, but I think I have a letter Apology to make for thi● A●tion of theirs, viz. That God might very well either by an Express Revelation, or at least a Divine Impulse of his Holy Spirit, Command, or Excite Mattathias, and his Sons the Maccabees, to take Arms in defence of those Privileges, which had been so often Confirmed to them, till at last it pleased God to restore the jews to an absolute Liberty for some years, under their own Princes, which they abusing by Cruelty and Ambition, Tyrannising over their Subjects, and Murd●ring their Brothers, it was no wonder that God was pleased to take away the Sceptre from them, and confer it upon the Romans, who gave it under them to Herod, the Son of Antipater, the Idumean, And therefore you can with no more Justice urge this Example of the Maccabees to prove Subjects may Resist the Supreme Powers, than to allege the Example of jehu as an Authority for Rebellion: Since, as I said before, whatsoever God is pleased to bring about by Human means, but yet by his Particular Precept or Revelation, is to be still looked upon as an exception from the general Rules of Nonresistance, and Passive Obedience.  F. 
I confess what you say would fully answer my Objection, could you as evidently make out from the History of the Maccabees, or josephus, that these Maccabean Captains did at all Act in those Wars they made, by any express Precept, or Divine Revelation from God, as without any just grounds you suppose it: And therefore I desire you would show me, if you can, any Testimony out of the Maccabees, or josephus, to prove that they acted thus by Virtue of any such Divine Inspiration; and then I am contented to yield the Cause, which if you cannot do (as I think you can't▪) I must look upon myself as to have had the better in this Controversy concerning the Right that Subjects had to Resist in Case of Necessity, before the Coming of Christ.  M. 
Yet for all that, some of the Fathers, and Modern Commentators, on these Books of the Maccabees do hold, that such wonderful Victories, as were obtained by judas, and his Brethren, could not have been without the Miraculous Providence of God, and Consequently a Divine Inspiration assisting them, especially considering the Strange judgement, that we read fell upon Antiochus for his Impiety; and that judas had oftentimes Divine Revelations, appears by that Dream, or Vision, mentioned in the last Chapter of the 2d of Maccabees, of jeremiah the Prophet's giving him a Golden Sword, 
v. 16.  and in giving it, speaking thus, Take this Holy Sword a Gift from God, with which thou shalt wound the Adversaries: which dream, if it were sent from God, as is highly probable, sufficiently confirms the Commonly received Opinion, that this Resistance of the Maccabees was by Divine Warrant, or Inspiration: and when ever you can show 〈◊〉 since the Coming of Christ, any Resistance so miraculously abetted as this was, I will grant it also to be Lawful.  F. 
I do join Issue with you in this, and must still suppose, (until you give me better evidence to the contrary) that the jews, under the Conduct of the Maccabees did not take up Arms, against Antiochus, and his Successors by Virtue of any Divine Inspiration to Mattathias, or any of his Sons, far it appears plainly, as well by the Scripture, as by josephus his Testimony, that there was no more Divine Revelation after Malachi, neither do the Books of the Maccabees, josephus, Sulpitius Severus, or any other ancient Ecclesiastical Writer, mention these Maccabees as Men inspired by God. I grant indeed, they might be excited by some Divine Impulse of God's spirit to do what they did; But this is so far from being at all Miraculous, that I do suppose that divers great, and good Men have been in our latter times of Reformation stirred up by the same 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 Vision, or Dream which you mention, it doth not appear, that it was any more than an Ordinary Dream; and if this might p●s● for a proof of a Divine Revelation, I could quote you many such Dreams, as this, out of the Lives of Luther, Calvin and divers others of the first Reformers; whom I suppose you will not maintain to have had any express Revelation to do what they did, contrary to the Civil and Ecclesiastic Laws of those Princes, and States under which they lived. And tho' 'tis true these Books are not held Canonical; yet they were always esteemed in the Church as Sacred Writing, as Written, tho' not by Inspired, yet, by Pious Men, and tho' they are not received in matters of Faith and Doctrine, yet you know very well they are Commanded to be read in our Ch●r●●es, as containing excellent Precepts, and Examples in matters of Morality, and therefore, 〈◊〉 perhaps they would not be a good Authority to a Praesbyterian, yet I hope we of the Church●s England cannot refuse them as Rules of Morality. But I think we are now come to the last Instanc●●hat can be brought before the Coming of Christ, and therefore pray will you now proceed with your Quotations out of the New Testament, which I suppose you have ready for me.  M. 
I confess I am not able, in a Story so imperfectly related as this of the Maccabees, to prove they had Gods express Warrant for this Resistance; and you on the other side, produce b●t a Negative Argument, that they had not (viz) because neither josephus, nor the Book of the Maccabees expressly mention any such thing, and yet for all that Mattathias might (for aught that you, or I know,) have acted in this matter by Divine Revelation, since as the Rabbins suppose▪ there was for a long time after the times of the Prophets a l●wer s●●t of Revelation, given by God to some particular Men called Batcol, that is, the Daughter of the V●●ce, which seems to have been some Private, or inward Voice, by which God Revealed his Will in some Particular Cases, and we read that long after this, josephus relates that H●rcanus, the last good Highpriest of the Maccabean Race, had the Gift of Prophecy by Divine Revelation: And why his Great Grandfather, might not have it likewise, I see no reason, besides all this, there might be other reasons, that God might allow to the People of the jews a greater Liberty of Resistance, even without Cruel Authority, to revenge the Profanation of his Temple, and Religion, being the Place, where he was pleased particularly to place his Name, than are allowed to us Christians at this Day, who have no such Visible Temple, nor are under such severe Obligations to extirpate Idolatry. So that what Mattathias, and the People of the jews acted in this matter, they might do it by the Right of Zealots, for the defence of the Law of Moses, even as Phineas did, who by kill Zimri; and Cosbi, for Fornication, and Idolatry, did that which in another occasion, and at another time would have been down right Murder.  
But be it as it will, I think we Christians are by the Laws of the Gospel tied to a stricter Subjection to the Supreme Powers, (if it be possible) than the jews themselves were, and whatsoever they might have done under Antiochus, for their own defence, and to avoid Persecution, yet jesus Christ doth now require Higher things of us, and hath by his own Example, as well as Precept, forbidden us to Resist the Supreme Powers, for any Persecution, for Religion, whatsoever, since, he hath Ordained his Religion, to be Propagated, and descended by Sufferings, and Persuasions, and not by Force of Arms, against the Will of the Supreme Powers, and if not for Religion, the most Weight● of all Concerns, surely not for any Temporal thing whatsoever. But the Proof of this, requires more time, than this evening will afford, without trespassing too much upon your, as well as my own repose. And therefore I should be glad of another Evenings conversation with you, to free your Mind, if it were possible from this dangerous Error, and to bring you over to the true Belief, and Practice of the Primitive Christians, and of our Mother the Church of England, who treids exactly in their steps.  F. 
I humbly thank you for your great Kindness to me, and the Pains you have taken, ●as also for what you intent to take for the better Information of my Conscience, and therefore if you please; and that you have no other occasion to draw you forth out of your Lodgings, I will wait upon you again to morrow in the Evening, about seven, and shall think it a very proper Work for the Lords Day, to have my Conscience, better informed by those Testimonies, which you say you will bring out of the New Testament, and Waitings of the Primitive Fathers, and Church Historians for my Instruction, and if you can out of them prove to me, that all Resistance whatever is unlawful: I promise you, upon the Word of an Honest Man, to become a Proselyte to this Doctrine.  M. 
I humbly thank you, Sir, for your great Candour, and Ingenuity: and tho' I am no Professed Divine, yet I hope by the help of the Scripture, and those Quotations that I can produce out of the Fathers, as also from the constant practice of the Primitive Church, to prove these Doctrines of Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance to be the true, Ancient, and Apostolical B●●●s. But it is now late, and I will not trouble you any longer to night, therefore shall take my leave of you, and so Sir, your Humble Servant.  F. 
Dear Sir, good Night, yours most heartily, Well, to morrow I will wait upon you as I appointed.  M. 
Pray be sure to come at your hour, for I'll expect you.  
FINIS.   

Bibliotheca Politica: Or, A DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE; WHETHER Absolute Non Resistances of the SUPREME POWERS be enjoined by the Doctrine of the Gospel, and was the Ancient Practice of the Primitive Church, and the constant Doctrine of our Reformed Church of England.  
Collected out of the most Approved Authors, both Ancient and Modern.  
Dialogue the Fourth.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, nea● the Oxford-Arms; where also may be had the First, Second and Third Dialogues. 169●.   

The Subject of the Fourth Dialogue.  
Author's made use of in this Dialogue, and how denoted in the Margin.  

1. Dr. sherlock's Case of Resistance of the Supreme Powers. S. C. R.  
2. Mr. Bohun's Preface to Patriarcha. B. P. P.  
3. Mr. Dudley Digge's Unlawfulness of Subjects taking up Arms against their Sovereigns, Ed. 1643. U. S. A. S.  
4. The History of Passive Obedience. H. P. O.    

THE Fourth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman.  M. 
YOur Servant Sir, I see you are better than your Word, since you come somewhat before the time appointed.  F. 
I do not deserve any great Commendation for it, for this Evening being a time of leisure, I had nothing else to do but to wait on you, and indeed I was impatient, `till I was with you, since I desire nothing more, than to receive satisfaction in this weighty controversy; since I know how great a Master you are both in Divine, as well as Civil Knowledge; and therefore, I beseech you▪ to proceed in the Method I at first proposed, by giving me these places of Scripture out of the New Testament, which you suppose prove your Doctrine, and in the next place show me that they were always understood by the ancient Fathers, as well as the Practice of the whole Primitive Church in that Sense.  M. 
I very well approve of your Method, and therefore to go on where we left off, I shall in the first place lay down some plain, and easy Propositions, as the Grounds of our future Discourse, which I suppose you will have no Reason to deny.  
First, Therefore I suppose, 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 asserted) And therefore did not alter any of those Rights of Sovereign Powers, and those measures of Obedience, and Subjection which were before fixed and determined by God himself: 
S. C. R. Changed 2. p. 43.  Neither hath given the People (either considered as particular men, or as a collective Body) any Power or Right to resist, or rebel against such Supreme Magistrates, tho' they never so much abuse their Power by their Tyrannical Government, either by persecuting the true Religion, or by any other Violences, and Oppressions whatsoever.  
And our Saviour himself tells us, 
Ib. 44. Mat. 5.17.  That be came not to destroy 〈◊〉 Law, and the Prophets, but to fulfil it; that is, to fulfil the Ancient Types, and Prophecies in his own Person, to perfect an External, and Ceremonial, by a Real, and Evangelical Righteousness; to perfect the Moral Laws with new Instances and Degrees of Virtue, and Obedience, but he abrogated no Moral Law, and therefore not the Laws of Obedience, and Subjection to Princes which have always been reduced to the fifth Commandment. Pray tell me, how you approve of this Doctrine.  F. 
I do readily agree to the greatest part of it, but yet as our Saviour hath not been pleased expressly to enjoin us to resist the Supreme Powers when they manifestly break, and transgress all the Ends of Civil Government, and consequently dissolve it, so on the other side, he came not to destroy those Natural Rights, which Mankind enjoyed before his coming, of defending themselves, and providing for their own Happiness and Security when their Civil Governors either could not, or would not protect them▪ And as I grant, that our Saviour made no Alteration in Civil Government by abridging the Rights of Sovereign Power; so likewise hath he not conferred upon them any new Rights, or Prerogatives of destroying, or ens●●●● their Subjects, without any Contradiction, or Resistance: and consequently hath altered nothing in those Natural Rights, or means which the People had before his Coming, of hindering the Supreme Powers, from perverting those main Ends of Government, the Happiness, and Preservation of the People▪ And that this Liberty doth not any way destroy those Rights or Prerogatives which are necessary for their own Security, and the Well-governing of the● People, I have, I think, sufficiently proved in our last Conversation. So that, unless you can now show me, by such express Authorities, as that I can have no reasonable ground to deny it, I hope you'll pardon me, if I cannot believe, that Christ by his coming into the World has taken away, or abridged, that Natural Right which Mankind before enjoyed (even after the Institution of Civil Government) of Resistance or Self-defence in Cases of Extremity, against those who exercise nothing of that Supreme Power, with which God hath invested them, but the mere Title: For had the intent of our Saviour's coming, been for this End, he had instead of freeing us from the Yo●● of the Law, laid a much heavier upon our Necks, if the Doctrines of Pass●● Obedience, and Nonresistance are to be taken in that large Sense, and ●●●mited extent that their Asserters have been pleased to give them: So that tho' I grant our Saviour came to perfect, and not to abrogate the Moral Law, with new Instances of Virtue and Obedience, and therefore hath not abrogated any Laws of Obedience, and Subjection to Princes; so hath he neither abrogated the great Law of Nature, of Self-defence in the People, wh●● they are universally assaulted, or oppress't in their Lives, Liberties, or Properties.  
And tho' I grant Obedience to Princes hath been reduced to the fifth Commandment, yet neither doth that by commanding us to Honour our Father, ●nd Mother, forbid all Resistance of Children to the Violent and unreasonable ●ctions of their Parents, much less of those whom they may command, or ●et on to kill, or ruin us, as I have, I think sufficiently proved at our first Conference. And therefore, I pray, proceed to your Proofs themselves, and show me, that they prove, as much as you have affirmed.  M. 
Before I come to my Proofs, I pray give me leave to observe it ●ou by way of introduction, that as our Saviour hath left the Government of the World as he found it: So he hath besides all this, given such admirable Laws, 
S. C. R. p. 46.  as will both teach Princes to Govern, and Subjects to Obey better, which is the most effectual way to secure the public Peace, and Happiness, to prevent the Oppression of Subjects, and Rebellion against Princes; But he has not interposed in new modelling the Governments of the World, which is not of such consequence, as some Men imagine. It is not the External form of Government, but the Fatherly Care and Prudence, and Justice of Governors and the dutiful Obedience of Subjects, which can make any People Happy. If Princes, and Subjects be good Christians, they may be happy under most forms of Government, if they be not, they can be so under none: Had our Saviour given Subjects Liberty to Resist, to Depose, to Murder Tyrannical Princes, he had done them no kindness at all: For to give Liberty to Subjects to Resist, is only to proclaim an universal Licence to Factions, and Seditions, and Civil Wars, and if any Man can think this such a mighty Blessing to the World, yet methinks, it is not a Blessing, proper for the Prince of Peace to give.  
But he, who instructs Princes to rule as God's Ministers, and Vicegerents, and to express a Fatherly Care, and Concernment for the Happiness of their Subjects, 
Ib. p. 47.  and that teaches Subjects to Reverence, and obey their Prince as the Image of God, and quietly to submit, and yield to his Authority, and that enforces these Laws both on Princes and Subjects in the Name and Authority of God, and from the Consideration of the future Judgement, when Princes who abuse their Power shall give an account of it to their great Master, and when Subjects who resist, shall receive to themselves Damnation, and those who patiently suffer for God's sake shall have their Injuries redressed, and their Obedience rewarded: I say, such a Person as this, takes a more effectual Course to reform the abuses of Civil Power, and to preserve good Government in the World, than all your wise Politians, and State-Menders who think to reform the Government of the World, 
Ib. p. 47.  by some State Spells, and Charms, without reforming those, who govern, and those who are governed. This our Saviour hath done, and this is the best thing that could be done; nay this was all that he could do in this matter: He never usurped any Civil Power, 
Ib. p. 48.  and Authority, and therefore could not new model the Governments of the World, He never offers any External force, and Compulsion to make Men obey his Laws, and therefore never forces Princes to rule Well, nor Subjects to Obey. But he has taken the same 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 threatened those who break them with Eternal Punishments, and as the Laws, and Religion of our Saviour prevail, so will the Governments of the World mend without altering the Model and Constitution of them: But I come now to those places of Scripture, I have to urge against your Opinion—  F. 
I pray Sir, pardon me, if I interrupt you, and beg leave to make some Remarks upon this Preface you have now made. I will not deny, but you have spoken some honest Truths, in what you have now said, tho' not without a mixture of divers mistakes, for tho' I grant that Jesus Christ hath not interposed in new modelling the Governments of the World; so he hath likewise given Princes no Authority to alter those, which they find ready made, and modelled to their hands in those Countries wherein God hath placed them at the helm. And tho' you tell me, those models of Government are not of such consequence as some men imagine, yet I hope you ought to have a better opinion of this of England, since it is only to this Frame of Government, that you'll own, we owe all our Freedom and Happiness above divers other Nations our Neighbours: Since if it were not for our Laws, and Original Constitutions to the contrary, I do not see why we may not be made as absolute Slaves as any in Turkey, when ever the King pleases: I grant indeed, that it is the Fatherly Care, Prudence, and Justice of Governors, that can make any People Happy. But I desire you to show me, how many Governments there are in the World where Princes exercise this Fatherly Care, as they ought, without any known Laws, or where Subjects express a dutiful Love, and Obedience to their Governors (unless Servile fear must be called so) whilst they find themselves miserable Slaves, and Beggars.  
I also yield, that if Princes, and Subjects are good Christians, they may be happy under most forms of Government; and if not, they can be happy under none, is true in this Sense, if you take Happiness, for the hopes of a future Life; but otherwise there have been divers Princes, who have been very good Christians, and yet by carelessness of their Affairs have governed their Subjects very ill; and likewise, I know some Subjects who have been very Loyal to their Prince, and very good Christians, and yet have been made very miserable, as Witness the Protestants in Hungary, and France.  
But as I do not suppose, that our Saviour hath given Subjects Liberty to resist Tyrannical Princes upon every slight occasion, much less to depose, or murder them; yet will it not follow, that if he hath given Liberty to Subjects to resist in some Cases, it would only serve to proclaim an universal Licence to Seditions, and Civil Wars: Since I do not suppose such Wars to be lawful, but when the People are in as miserable 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 Blessing proper for the Prince of Peace to give, or to come into the World to introduce Slavery, and the Arbitrary Power of the Sword.  
Tho' I grant he instructs Princes to rule as God's Ministers, and Vicegerents, and to express a Fatherly Care, and Concern for the Happiness of their Subjects, and that he likewise teaches Subjects to obey their Princes: Yet you know too well, how seldom these Instructions have all those good effects either with the Princes, or People. And therefore, as on the People's side, besides those Obligations of Conscience you speak of, there are likewise ordained temporal Punishments, to keep Subjects to their Duty, so likewise there is often need of something else, besides mere Conscience, and honour, to keep Princes from Tyrannising over their Subjects.  
And tho' I suppose the Consideration of a future Judgement may go a great way with some Princes to make them perform that great Trust, God hath given them, yet pray tell me, have you not read (if not known) some Princes in the World of late times, who have either believed no such thing, as Eternal Damnation, or at least have found a way by Nice Distinctions, or Equivocations to evade all Laws, Oaths, and Promises whatsoever? And what satisfaction is it to me, or how doth it serve to alleviate my misery, When I am made a Slave, and a Beggar, that those that had the Rule over me will be damned for so doing. But you tell me, that I must quietly and patiently suffer this for God's sake, and that then we shall have our injuries redress'r, and Obedience rewarded: I grant indeed that a single Person may be rewarded in this kind, for preferring the Common Good, or Quiet of the Nation before his own Private Interest. But that whole Nations, and Bodies of People are obliged by the like Rule, I utterly deny, since I do not find where our Saviour either enjoins, or requires such an absolute Subjection at their Hands; and if he doth not, it is no better than Will-worship to pay it, and therefore, it still lies upon you to prove it to me.  
To conclude. I think it may be a more effectual Course, to preserve the main Ends of Government, for the People sometimes to resist the insupportable Tyranny and Violence of the Supreme Powers in those Cases of Extremity I have already put, than to let those, who have got the Power over us in their Hands, do whatsoever they please with it to our ruin without any control. And also, I desire you to consider, whether the Fear of such resistance from Subjects, when thus outraged and oppress't, may not often be a more Powerful State's Spell or Charm (as you call it) to keep the Supreme Powers in their Duty, than those many Sermons, and other Discourses that have been lately preached, and published, that their Power is irresistible, and that therefore, all their Subjects are bound to endure whatsoever Tyranny they have a mind to exercise upon them: In short, I absolutely agree with you, that as our Saviour never usurped any Civil Power, or Authority, and therefore did not new model the Governments of the World, so hath he also given Subjects a Right to maintain whatsoever Models, or Forms of Government, God hath been pleased to establish among them, when they are in danger to be altered, or invaded either by a Domestic Tyranny, or Foreign Force. And without this Right of Resistance, for you to tell us, That jesus Christ hath given very good Laws, and threatened those that break them with Eternal Punishments, and that as the Laws, and Religion of our Saviour prevail, that so the Government of the World will mend without any more ado; is altogether as reasonable, as to preach, that because Christ hath given us good Laws, and threatens Everlasting Punishments to those that break them, therefore they are sufficient to keep Men from Robbing, and Murdering their Neighbours; and that all men giving up their Natural Rights of resisting such Robbers, and defending themselves against them, should wholly rely upon the Efficacy of the Commandment against Stealing, or else on the more Powerful Motive with such People, of a Judge, and a Gallows, should let them do with us what they please, whenever we fall under their Power: And therefore, I desire you would give me some better proofs, that our Saviour hath enjoined all Mankind an absolute Subjection to the Supreme Powers under pain of Damnation without any Resistance in any Case whatsoever; but I pray pardon this Digression, which your own long Preface extorted from me.  M. 
I shall not now dispute this matter with you, and therefore to observe your Commands, I shall begin with that Divine Answer, of our Saviour to the Pharisees, and Herodians when they consulted together to entangle him in his Talk. They came to him with great Ceremony, and Address, 
S. C. R. p. 49. Matth. 22.15. etc.  saying, Master we know, that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in Truth, neither carest thou for any Man, for thou regardest not the Person of Man. Tell us therefore, what thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give Tribute to Caesar or not? They thought it impossible that he should give any Answer to this, which would not make him obnoxious, either to the Roman Emperors, if he denied that the jews might Lawfully pay Tribute to Caesar, or to the Pharisees, and People, if he affirmed that they might; for there was a very potent Faction among them, who thought it unlawful for the jews, to own the Authority, or Usurpations of any Foreign Prince, or to pay Tribute to him as to their King, They being expressly forbidden by the Law, 
Deut. 17.15. Ib. p. 50.  To set a Stranger over them for their King; who was not their Brother, that is, who was not a Natural jew. And it seems they could not distinguish between their own Voluntary Act in choosing a Stranger for their King (which was indeed forbid by their Law) and their submitting to a Foreign Prince, when they were conquered by him. Our Saviour, who knew their Wicked Intention in all this, that they did not come with an honest Design to be instructed in their Duty but to seek an Advantage against him, expresses some Indignation at it, Why tempt ye me, ye Hypocrites? but yet to return them an Answer to their Question, he bids them show him the Tribute Money, that is, the Money in which they used to pay Tribute, and enquired, whose Image, and Superscription it had. For Coining of Money was then as certain a mark of Sovereignty, as making Laws, or the Power of the Sword. Well, they acknowledge that the Image, and Superscription on the Tribute-Money was Caesar's, upon which he replies, Render therefore unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar 's, and unto God the things that are Gods. The plain meaning of which Answer is this, that since by the very Impression on their Money, it is evident, that Caesar is the Sovereign Lord, they must render unto him all the Rights of Sovereignty, 
Ib. p. 51. Rom. 13.7.  among which Tribute is one, as St. Paul tells us. Render therefore unto all their Deuce, Tribute to whom Tribute is due, Custom to whom Custom, Fear to whom Fear, Honour to whom Honour. Whatever then is due to Sovereign Princes, and doth not interfere with their Duty to God, that they must give to Caesar, who at this time was their Sovereign.  
And tho' our Saviour commands us, only in general, to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, without telling us, what Caesar's things are; this is so far from making his Answer Ambiguous, and of no use in this present Controversy, that it suggests to us three plain, and natural Consequences, which are sufficient to end this whole dispute. First, That our Saviour did not intend to make any Alteration in the Rights of Sovereignty, but what Rights he found Sovereign Princes possessed of, he leaves them in the quiet Possession of, for had he intended to make any change in this matter, he would not have given such a general Rule, to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, without specifying what these things are. Secondly, 
S. C. R. p. 56.  And therefore he leaves them to the known Laws of the Empire, to determine what is Caesar's Right. What ever is essential to the Notion of Sovereign Power, whatever the Laws, and Customs of Nations determine to be Caesar's Right, that they must render to him; for he would make no alteration in this matter. So that Subjection to Princes, and Non Resistance, is as plainly determined by our Saviour in this Law of paying Tribute; for Subjection, and Nonresistance is as essential a Right of Sovereign Power, and as inseparable from the Notion of it, as any thing can be, and so it is acknowledged by the Laws, and Customs of Nations, and is so determined by the Apostle St. Paul as I shall show hereafter. Thirdly, I observe farther that when our Saviour joins our Duty to our Prince, with our Duty to our God Render to Cae●ar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are Gods, he excepts nothing from Caesar's Right, which by the Laws of Nations is due to Sovereign Princes, but what is a Violation of, and an encroachment on God's Right, and Sovereignty, that is, we must pay all that Obedience, 
Ib. p. 57  and Subjection to Princes which is consistent with our Duty to God. This is the only limit our Saviour sets to our Duty to Princes. This, I hope, is sufficient for the Explication of our Saviour's Answer to the Pharisees and Herodians, which evidently contains the Doctrine of Obedience and Subjection to Princes, enforced on us by the Authority of our Saviour himself.  F. 
I shall not dispute, that this Instance of our Saviour doth enjoin the jews to pay Tribute, and render all those Rights, and Deuce to Caesar as the Supreme Power, which are necessary to its Essence, but you seem to me, to stretch this Prerogative a great deal too far, when you thus suppose an absolute Subjection to Princes, without any resistance to be as plainly enjoined by our Saviour in this Law, as paying Tribute. For the Reason you give for it, viz. that Subjection, and Non resistance is as essential a Right of Sovereign Power, and as inseparable from the Notion of it, as any can be, and that it is so acknowledged by the Laws, and Customs of Nations, is the thing which I deny, and which having been the Subject of our last Conversation, is still the thing to be proved; and I think I have there sufficiently proved that absolute Non resistance is no Essential Right of Sovereign Power, nor inseparable from the Notion of it: Since by asserting it, no just Right of Sovereign Power will be thereby destroyed, or taken away; but rather confirmed, and that I may make it out, yet plainer by a Familiar Instance; a General of an Army, hath an absolute Power over the Lives of his Soldiers, that transgress his Rules of War, or Military Discipline; but suppose that in a Mad, or Drunken sit he should command some Troops of his Guards to cut the Throats of all the rest of the Army, and they be such obedient Coxcombs, as to go about to put this order in Execution, doth it therefore derogate, from the absoluteness of his Power as General, if the Army will not stand still, and let three, or four hundred fellows take away all their Lives? But that this Principle of Passive Obedience in your Sense, of suffering Princes, or other Supreme Powers to destroy, or enslave them; is so far from being acknowledged, by the Laws, and Customs of all Nations, that, as I think, I have proved it to be contrary to the Laws of Nature, and Reason; so I doubt not, but I can much easier make it out by the Laws and Customs of all Nations, as well Barbarous, as Civilised to be both unreasonable, and impracticable. And that it is otherwise determined by St. Paul, I desire you to prove it to me, when you come to make use of the 13 th' to the Romans, so much insisted upon by those of your Opinion.  
But before I make an end with this Text we are now upon, I cannot but take notice of your last Assertion, That by rendering to Caesar the things, which are Caesar's, God excepts nothing from Caesar 's Right, which by the Laws of Nations is due to Sovereign Princes, but what is a Violation of, and Encroachment on Gods Right, and Sovereignty; that is, we must pay all that Obedience, and Subjection to Princes, which is consistent with our Duty to God. Now if this be the only limit that our Saviour sets to our Duty to Princes (as you suppose) I wonder by what Law the Learned Doctor from whom you borrow this Principle, as also those other Clergymen of the Church of England, could justify thelr refusing 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 Dominions, in all Things, or Causes whatsoever; He must likewise be the Caesar here meant in this Text; and consequently an Active, not Passive Obedience ought to have been paid to this Declaration. Since you say, that Obedience is by the Law of Nations due to Sovereign Princes, to whom we must pay all that Obedience and Subjection, which is consistent with our Duty to God, and I hope you will not say, that this Declaration was inconsistent with that Duty, or was any Violation or Encroachment upon God's Rights of Sovereignty.  M. 
As for your last observation upon those Clergy men who refused to read the Declaration, I must confess, I have according to my Civil Law Maxims, no excuse ready for them, since with us it is always true, in this as well as other absolute Monarchies, Quicquid Regi placuit, Legi's habet Vigorem. Much less can I reconcile it with that unbounded Supremacy which the Oath of Allegiance, as also the Opinions of most modern Judges have placed in the King in all Ecclesiastical Matters; but indeed I can least of all reconcile it with this Assertion you now mention, which I confess, I have taken from divers Sermons and Treatises, that have been Preached and Printed of late by our City Divines; to whom I shall leave it to Answer this Objection; but to proceed with the design in Hand, 
S. C. R. p. 57  I shall come in the next place to prove an absolute Subjection without Resistance to be due to the Sovereign Power, from our Saviour's rebuke to St. Peter, when he drew his Sword, and struck a Servant of the Highpriest, and smote off his Ear, which is as plain a Declaration against Resistance as Words can make it. 
Mat. 26.52.  Then said jesus unto him, put up thy Sword unto his place; for all they that take the Sword, shall perish by the Sword. For the understanding of which, we must consider, upon what occasion St. Peter drew his Sword; for we must not think that our Saviour doth absolutely forbid the use of the Sword; which is to destroy all Civil Governments, 
Ib. p. 58.  and the Power of Princes, and to proclaim impunity to all which Villainies that are committed in the World. The Sword is necessary to punish wickedness, and to protect the Innocents'. In the Hands of Princes it is an Instrument of Justice, as St. Paul tells us. That they bear not the Sword in vain, 
Rom. 13.4.  But are the Ministers of God, revengers to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. In the Hands of private Persons it may be lawfully used in Self-defence▪ thus our Saviour a little before his Crucifixion, gave Commission to his Disciples to furnish themselves with Swords, 
Luk. 22.36.  tho' they parted with the●r Garments for the Purchase. Which we suppose was not designed as a mere modish, and fashionable thing, but to defend themselves from the Private assaults of Robbers▪ and such like Common Enemies, 
Ibid. p. 59  who as josephus tells us, were very nu●mero●s at that time. For no Man wanteth Authority to defend his Life against him, who hath no Authority to take it away.  
But the Case of St. Peter was very different: He drew his Sword indeed in his Master's defence, but against a lawful Authority. The Officers of the Chief Priests, and Pharisees came with judas to the place where Jesus was, to seize on him. This was a lawful Authority tho' employed upon a very unjust Errand; but Authority must not be resisted, tho' in defence of the greatest Innocence. Men who draw their Swords against lawful Powers shall perish with the Sword, which doth not signify, what the event shall always be, but what is the desert and merit of the Action. Rebel's may sometimes be prosperous, but they always deserve Punishment; and if they escape the Sword in this World, St. Paul tells us, they shall receive Damnation in the next. What can be said more expressly against Resistance than this? 
Ib. p. 59 60.  St. Peter never could have drawn his Sword in a better Cause, never in the Defence of a more sacred Person: If we may defend oppressed Innocence against a lawful Authority, if we may oppose unjust and illegal Violence, if any obligations of Friendship, Gratitude, or Religion itself could justify Resistance, St. Peter had not met with this Rebuke. But tho' it was a very unjust Action, yet it was done by a just Authority; and lawful Powers must not be resisted, tho' it were in defence of the Saviour of the World, and if St. Peter might not use the Sword in defence of Christ's Person, there is much less pretence to fight for his Religion, for tho' some call this fight for Religion; it is only fight for themselves. Men may keep their Religion, if they please in despite of Earthly Powers; and therefore no Powers can hurt Religion, tho' they may persecute the Professors of it: And therefore when Men take up Arms to avoid Persecution, it is not in defence of Religion, but of themselves, that is, to avoid their suffering for Religion. And if St. Peter might not fight to preserve Christ himself, certainly neither he, nor we, aught to take up Arms to defend ourselves from Persecution. Christ was the first Martyr for his own Religion, his Person was infinitely more Sacred, and inviolable than any one of us can pretend to be. And if St. Peter must not fight for Christ, certainly we must not fight for ourselves, tho' we absurdly enough call it fight for our Religion. And who were these Powers St. Peter resisted? They were only the Servants and Officers of the Highpriest. The Highpriest did not appear there himself, much less, Pilate, much less Caesar, and yet our Saviour rebukes St. Peter for resisting the Inferior Officers, 
Ib. p. 62.  tho' they offered the most unjust, and illegal Violence. It seems he did not understand our modern distinctions between the Person, and the Authority of the Prince, that tho' his Person be sacred, and must not be touched, yet his Ministers who act by his Authority may be opposed. We may fight his Navies, and demolish his Garrisons, and kill his Subjects, who fight for him, tho' we must not touch his Person. But he is a Mock Prince, whose Authority is confined to his own Person, who can do nothing more than what he can do with his two hands; which cannot answer the Ends of Government. A Prince is not merely a natural but a Political Person, and his Personal Authority reaches as far as his Commission doth. His Officers and Ministers of State, and Commanders and Soldiers are his Ends, and Eyes, and Ears, and Legs, and he who resisteth those who Act by his Commission, may as properly be said to resist the personal Authority of the Prince, as if he himself were present in his Natural Person as well as by his Authority. Thus our Saviour, it seems, thought, when he rebuked St. Peter for striking a Servant of the High Priest, and smiting off his Ear.  F. 
In Answer to this place, which you have now brought to prove that the Resistance that St. Peter would have made on our Saviour's behalf, was absolutely unlawful, I shall not insist as some do, that Christ came into the World on purpose to be a Sacrifice for Sin, and that therefore it was inconsistent with his design, and the Person he undertook, to resist, and oppose, had it been never so lawful to resist; tho' our Saviour himself by the Words, 
john 18.11.  which St. john relates him to have spoken to St. Peter, seems to favour this Interpretation; when after he had bid him put his Sword into the Scabbard, he adds, The Cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it; and so likewise the answer he gave Pilate, who asked him whether he was a King? 
john 18.37.  Thou sayest, that I am a King; to this End was I born, and for this Cause came I into the World, that I should bear Witness unto the Truth: Nor yet shall I go about to interpret these Words, For they that take the Sword shall perish by the Sword; in that Sense which Grotius puts upon it, tho' quite different from yours, as if it were not designed as a rebuke to St. Peter, but for the encouragement of his Disciples, and being indeed a Prophecy, that the jews, who now came against him with Swords, and Staves, should perish by the Sword of the Romans, who should be the Avengers of Christ's Death: but I shall take it in the same sense as you do, as a rebuke to St. Peter, for going about to resist a Lawful Authority, tho' employed upon a very unjust Errand: Yet will it not prove that the Supreme Powers may not be resisted in any Case, or by any Person whatsoever, let them use their Power never so Cruelly, or Tyrannically against their Subjects: I grant indeed, it proves, what I have never denied, that a private Person, tho' Innocent ought not to resist the Civil Officers that come to seize him, for a Crime whereof he is accused before a Lawful Authority, for this is not only unlawful by the Command of Christ, but also by the Law of Nature, and Nations. For in England, it is not only Penal, for a Man to resist the Officers of justice, that come to seize him, tho' he be Innocent of the Crime, whereof he is accused, but also to withdraw himself from justice by flight. And tho' upon Trial, he be found Innocent, yet if he fled for the same, he shall forfeit all his Goods; and that very justly, because no Man ought to suspect, and withdraw himself from the public Trial of the Laws; now to apply this to the Case of our Saviour, tho' the Action which these Priests, and Soldiers came about was in itself unjust; Yet was it not so, either in respect of these Officers themselves, who acted by a Lawful Authority, nor yet was it unjust, or unlawful in respect of the High Priest and Sanbedrim, who sent them: For since it belonged to them alone to judge of a Prophet, who they supposed taught contrary to the Law of Moses, since they did believe our Saviour to be such a Prophet, it was in respect of them, neither unjust nor unlawful to seize him, and bring him before them, to give an account of his Doctrine, and they might likewise do this either by day, or by Night with the help of more, or fewer men, according as they should think fit; since they feared the People might rescue him; especially since they looked upon him as one who went about to make himself King of the jews, in Opposition to Caesar; and therefore whilst they lay under this Mistake▪ they were under as high an Obligation, as an Erroneous Conscience could lay upon them of Seizing him, and bringing him before the Highpriest and the Governor. For if they had believed him to be the true Messiah, and consequently the King of their Nation, it had been impossible, that they should ever have gone about to put him to Death. Which likewise our Saviour himself acknowledges, 
Luk. 23.24.  when Praying for them that Crucified him, he said, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. I speak not this to excuse the Priests, or San●edrim for condemning our Saviour to Death, or for using all the Power they had with Pilate to have him executed: Since I grant their Ignorance being in great part Wilful, at least not Invincible, they had no just excuse, not to believe on him, after so many Miracles he had wrought in the sight of all the World: But only to prove that (which I suppose you will not deny) i. e. that Magistrates, even whilst they Act unjustly are not to be resisted in the Execution of Public justice; no, not to rescue an Innocent Man by force, from the Hand of justice, after he is Condemned: Since the false, or unjust Sentences of judges against particular Persons, are to be taken for just in common Acceptation, till they be Repealed; according to that Maxim in your Civil Law, Praetor dum iniquum decernit, Ius dicit; 
De justitia, & jure Lege Ius.  and therefore our Saviour coming to fulfil all Righteousness, and to be the exact Pattern of Divine, and Moral Actions could not do less than rebuke St. Peter, for making use of the Sword against a Lawful Authority, but what is this to the Cases that I have put of the Resistance of whole Nations, or Bodies of Men against an unjust force, and destructive Violence, upon their Persons, and Estates by those who pretend to Act as the Supreme Powers, though contrary to all Laws, Natural, and Divine, and who have no Pretence to Act as they do, but only their unjust and Arbitrary Wills backed by Power: A●d that there is a great difference in these two, I will clearly show you, from your own Concession, that no man wanteth Authority to defend his Life against him, that hath no Authority to take it away; 
Acts 21.  and therefore I suppose St. Paul might only with the Help of those that were with Him, not only have defended his Life, against those whom we find (in the 25 th' of the Acts) who were by Order of the Highpriest, and Chief of the jews, to have lain ●n wait to kill Paul by the way, but also against any that Festus the Governor himself should have sent for the same End: Since He there dec●ares, 
Acts 25 16.  That it is not the manner (i. e. Law) of the Romans, to deliver any Man to die, before that he, that is accused, have the Accusers face to face, and have Licence to Answer for himself, concerning the Crime laid against him: And therefore as Caesar could give Festus no Commission to Murder Men, so neither did God bestow on the Emperor any Authority to commit murder or to Authorize others to do it; and if a single Person might do this, certainly much more a whole Nation, Country, or City may justify such a Resistance, where their Lives, Liberties and Estates lie at Stake from the Violence, or Tyranny of the Supreme Powers and therefore, I do not see, but that I may very well grant the Instance, you have put to be conclusive against this Resistance, made by St. Peter on our Saviour's behalf, so that your Instance doth not reach the Case in hand, that all Resistance of Supreme Powers is unlawful. And you yourself have already granted as much as I can in Reason desire, that no Man wants Authority to defend his Life against Him, who hath no Authority to take it away: So that unless Princes and their Inferior Officers receive Authority from God to commit Murders, every Man may defend himself against them, when they go about to take away their Lives by Violence contrary to Law. And therefore, I see no Reason, from any thing that you have hitherto said, to believe that Christ did not allow this Distinction between the Person and Authority of the Prince, to be good in some Cases; or that tho' his Person should be sacred, yet that his Ministers who Act not by his Regal Authority, but his Personal, and Tyrannical Will may be opposed, nor can I find any Consequence from what you say, that he is a Mock Prince, whose Authority is confined to his own Person, who can do nothing more, than what he can do with his own Hands. Since no Man in his Wits asserts, any such thing; for I grant that an Absolute Prince hath Power to make Laws, and to Command them to be put in Execution, which do not contradict the Laws of God, and Nature, and a Limited Prince hath likewise a Right to Command in all things, that do not expressly contradict Gods Natural, and revealed Laws, and also those Positive Laws of his Country, (which he is not the sole maker of) that do not contradict the former; and if he can do this; I think he is endued with an Authority sufficient to Answer all the Ends of Government, without supposing, that he must needs have an irresistible Power (and without which he cannot Answer those Ends) to Murder, and Enslave whomsoever he will. I grant indeed a Prince is not merely a Natural, but a Political Person, but certainly his Personal Authority as King doth not reach as far as his Commission, or that he who resists those, who Act by his Commission, may be said in all Cases to resist his Regal Authority. Since at this rate the poor Protestants in Ireland at the beginning of the last Irish Rebellion, had been in a very woeful Condition, if it had happened (which was not impossible) that King Charles the first should really have granted a Commission to Sir Phelim On●al to destroy them; which no man could then certainly tell, but that he had, since Sir Phelim publicly showed such a Commission, and still asserted the Truth of it, till he came upon the Gallows; but this is only by the by, and in answer to what you have now said to this Matter. So that there is no need of supposing, what our Saviour thought one way, or other in this matter: Since he did not rebuke St. Peter, for resisting the Inferior Officers, because they offered an unjust, and illegal Violence; but because he resisted those who acted by a true, and Legal Commission from the Highpriest, and Sanhedrim, who supposed our Saviour to be a false Prophet.  M. 
If this Distinction of yours were true, it would render the Example of Christ's suffering, in obedience to the Supreme Powers, tho' unjustly, yet without Resistance, of no effect to us, whereas I am firmly persuaded, 
S. C. R. p. 81.  that Christ took such a mean, and suffering a Person upon him, because it was most agreeable to the Religion which he preached, and of which he was to be an Example; and therefore, tho' Christ suffered for other Reasons and to other Ends and Purposes, than we do or can suffer, yet his Sufferings are an Example to us, because God chose to save, and redeem us by the Sufferings of his Son, not only that he might expiate our Sins by his Blood, but also that he might be an Example to us of Meekness, and Patience, and Submission to the Divine Will, and Subjection to Government, even in the most unjust, and infamous Sufferings. We may consider farther, that Christ's Sufferings in Obedience to the Will, and Appointment of God, doth not make him unfit to be our Example. 
Ib. p. 82.  For tho' God has not so peremptorily decreed that all Christians should suffer, as he did, that Christ should suffer, yet when ever we are called to it (as we always are, when we cannot avoid suffering without resisting a Lawful Authority) our Sufferings are as much the Effects of God's Decree, and appointment, as the Sufferings of Christ were; and in such Cases every Christian may, and aught to say as his Lord did. The Cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?  
Thus St. Peter expressly tells the Christians, to whom he wrote, and gives it as a Reason, why they should suffer patiently, even for doing well. 
1 Pet. 2.21.  For even hereunto were you called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an Example that we should follow his Steps. Now, calling, in the New Testament signifies the Choice, and Election of God, and always supposes a Divine Decree, Appointment and Constitution, 
Rom. 11.29.  as the Foundation of it. Thus St. Paul tells us that the Gifts, and Calling (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of God are without Repentance, 
Ibid. p. 83.  that is, that Decree he made to choose the Posterity of Abraham for his People, which still entitled all those of them to the Blessings of the Gospel who would believe in Christ. 
2 Tim. 1.9. Heb. 3.1.  Thus the State of Christianity is our Calling, and Holy Calling, because it is the Way, and Means, God hath Chosen and Appointed for the Salvation of Mankind: and Christians are often styled the Called, because God has now decreed to choose all the sincere Disciples of Christ, as he formerly did the Posterity of Abraham to be his Peculiar People; and throughout the Scriptures of the New Testament; God is never said to call, nor any one to be called of God, but with respect to some Divine Decree, and Constitution; and therefore when St. Peter tells the Christians, that they are called to suffer, it signifies that God hath appointed them to it, by his positive Will and Decree.  
This St. Paul discourses more at large in his Epistle to the Romans, and comforts them under their sufferings, from this very consideration, that the sufferings which they underwent, were not the Effects of mere Chance and Accident, nor of the wickedness and injustice of men, nor barely of God's Permission, but of his Decree and Appointment; and therefore they might certainly conclude, that whatever their sufferings were, they should turn to their Good. 
Rom. 8.28, 29, 30.  And we know, that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are called accroding to his purpose, 
Ib. p. 14.  those who are called, that is, to suffer (which is the Argument, the Apostle is discoursing of) according to his Will, and Appointment. And a little after he goes on, and says;  
And such Persons who are thus appointed, who are thus called by God to suffer, 
Ib. p. 85.  shall be sure to conquer, and to receive the Reward of Conquerors. For thus the Apostle adds, for whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate to be conformed to the Image of his Son; that he might be the first born amongst many Brethren. This Conformity to the Image of Christ in this place, doth plainly signify a Conformity to him, in sufferings, as is evident from the whole scope of this place. Some Persons it seems there are, whom God doth predestinate, or fore-appoint to be conformed to the sufferings of Christ; for this is not the actual portion of all Christians, though it is the Condition of our Discipleship.  
So that though God hath not made us Slaves and Vassals to the humour of every Tyrant, 
Ib. p. 86.  yet all the Afflictions and Sufferings of Christians, especially those which befall them on the account of Religion; are as particularly ordered, and determined by God, as the sufferings of Christ himself were; and therefore there is no difference upon this Account, between the sufferings of Christ, and the sufferings of his Disciples; and therefore though Christ came into the World on purpose to suffer in Obedience to the Divine Will, this doth not make him ever the l●ss fit to be an Example to us. Nay, this Obedience to the Will of God in suffering the hardest things, from the most unjust, and Tyrannical Powers, is an Example to us of the same patient suffering and Submission to the Will of God.  
It is true, none of us in particular can know, that God hath decreed, 
Ib. p. 87.  that we shall suffer such, or such things; and from such or such hands, as our Saviour did; but yet this we know, that it is God's Will and Pleasure, that we should patiently endure those sufferings which we cannot avoid without sin; and since he hath forbid us by express Laws to resist the higher Powers, whatever sufferings cannot be avoided without resistance, it is God's Will, and Pleasure, that we should submit to them. And since none of these sufferings, which are unavoidable to us, befall us without the particular Decree, and Appointment of God, we have reason in Imitation of our great Master, to submit to them, with the same cheerfulness and self-resignation as he did.  
There is something indeed in the Example of our Saviour, which in our Circumstances we are not bound to imitate; for he punctually knowing, what God's Will and Pleasure was concerning him, voluntarily chose that Condition which he so well knew, God had allotted for him. He freely chose a mean, and servile Fortune, he chose suffering and Death; when his time of offering up himself was come, he went up to jerusalem on purpose to die there; but we are not bound to choose Poverty and disgrace, and suffering, we are not bound voluntarily to deliver up ourselves into the hands of Tyrants, and Persecutors, who thirst after our blood. We may, and aught to use all just and honest Arts to make our Condition easy and comfortable in the World, and to avoid the rage and fury of bloody Men, because we cannot tell, 
Ib. p. 88, 89.  that it is the Will and Appointment of God, that we shall suffer, till our sufferings are unavoidable; and then when we must either suffer, or sin, when we must either renounce our Religion, or resist the Supreme Powers; we must embrace sufferings, and Death, as that Portion which God hath allotted for us.  
I shall only here observe what a mighty security this is to all Good Christians, how absolute or Tyrannical soever the Power be under which they live; that they are safe in God's hands, and all the Powers of Men and Devils cannot touch them, till God by a positive Decree appoints, and orders their sufferings. There could not be greater, nor more absolute Tyrants, than the Roman Emperors were at this time, and yet they had no Power over the meanest Christian, but by an express Commission from Heaven. This is the special Privilege of the Christian Church above the rest of Mankind, that they are God's peculiar Care and Charge; that he doth not permit any Sufferings or Persecutions to befall them, but what he himself order and appoints. It is a great security to the World, that there is no evil happens to men, but what God permits, and that he permits nothing but what he can overrule to wise and good Ends; but it is a greater happiness to have our Condition immediately allotted by God. God may permit a great many evils to befall us in Anger and Displeasure, but when he takes us into his immediate Protection, and under his own Government, whatever evils he appoints for us, whoever are the Instruments of them, they are certainly for our good. And therefore there is no such danger in the Doctrine of Nonresistance, 
Ib. p. 90.  as some Men imagine, how absolute soever this may be thought to render Princes, sincere Christians can suffer nothing by it, for they shall suffer nothing more, nor less than what God appoints for them to suffer; but as for the absurdity you think you have brought me to, by granting that no man wants Authority to defend his own Life against him who hath no Authority to take it away, that does not extend to Supreme Powers; since though I grant they have no Authority to take away men's Lives contrary to Law; yet does it not follow that we may resist and oppose them, if they do; this I absolutely deny, because God hath expressly commanded us not to resist them; 
Ib. p. 190.191.  and I see no inconsistency between these two Propositions, that a Prince hath no Legal Authority to take away men's Lives against Law, and yet that he must not be resisted when he does so, for both the Laws of God, and of our Country, suppose these two to be very consistent.  F. 
To answer this long speech of yours, the best way may be, to show you first how far I agree with you, and wherein I must differ from you, and I will also tell you what reasons I have for it. In the first place I grant, that though our Saviour was indeed the Messias, and true King of the jews, yet was he not such a Messias as they expected, nor was he to have a Temporal, but Spiritual Dominion, and therefore would not be such a king, though the jews would have made him so. I likewise yield, that Christ submitted to the most unjust Sentence, and to the most ignominious, and painful Death, rather than he would resist the Higher Powers; though he could easily have called for Legions of Angels to his rescue: As also that he rebuked Peter, when he drew his Sword in his defence, and tells Pilate the reason why he was so easily apprehended, and without any Resistance o● Opposition. My Kingdom (said he) is not of this World, if my Kingdom were of this World, then would my Servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my Kingdom not from hence. All which plainly shows that our Saviour's Subjection was no matter of force, or constraint, because he wanted Power to resist, but it was matter of choice, that which was most suitable to the Nature of his Kingdom, which was not to be propagated by Carnal Weapons, but by sufferings; yet though it may not be propagated, sure it may be defended by force. In some Cases, as if we were invaded by a Foreign Power, who made War upon the Account of Religion, and also in those Kingdoms or Commonwealths, where Christianity, or the true Profession of the Gospel is established by Law, and makes a part, not only of the Ecclesiastical, but Civil Constitution of a Nation. In these Cases, if tho●e who pretend to the sole Legislative Power, (but have it not) should go about to alter the National Religion by force, and put Men to death contrary to the former Laws, and Constitutions of that Kingdom, I think such Illegal Powers may lawfully be resisted by the People, they having as much right to the free Exercise, and Enjoyment of their established Religion, as they have to their Liberties, Properties, or any other Civil Rights; since by this Legal Establishment, Religion becomes a part of the Civil Constitution of the Kingdom, and so may be maintained by the same means as other Rights.  
2dly. I grant, that in all other Cases our Saviour hath so far proposed his sufferings to us for our Imitation, as we are engaged by our Baptismal Vow, to suffer in the same Cause for which he himself suffered, that is, for the bearing witness, That jesus is the Christ, or true Messias, and Son of God. And this the Apostle calls (speaking of Christ himself) the witnessing before Pontius Pilate a good Confession. The like I also hold of all such Truths, as are the necessary consequences of this great Doctrine.  
3dly. I farther grant, that when our God calls any Person to suffer, for the Testimony of his Truth, by the Cruelty of those who are the Supreme Powers, (as the Apostles, and Primitive Christians were by a particular Providence,) that then those Powers are not to be resisted, but patiently submitted to by Christians at this day; whenever it proves necessary for the same great ends for which Christ at first enjoined it, (viz.) for bearing witness to the Truth of the Gospel; and for the further Propagation thereof by our constant Sufferings and Example, according to that saying of the Primitive Fathers, Sanguis Martyrum, semen Ecclesiae; yet is not this absolute Submission to the Supreme Powers in matters of Religion due by the Law of Nature, or that delivered to Moses, but (if at all) purely from the express Example of Christ; so that all the difficulty lies in discovering, when we are thus called by our Saviour to suffer, and bear witness to the Truth; though with the loss of our Lives, and all that is dear to us.  
And therefore, if I should grant that when ever we lie under the same Circumstances of giving this Testimony as the Primitive Christians then did, and that it may serve as much for the same ends designed by God, thereby we are also under the same Obligations; otherwise I think we are lawfully discharged from it: As for Example, suppose the King should, instead of a Papist, have turned Mahometan, and to propagate, or set up his own abominable Superstition here, should have sent for from Turkey, or Morocco a great Army of Turks, or Moors, and by them would force all the Christians in England to turn Mahometans, by the same Methods of Dragooning Men, and seizing their Estates, as the French King hath exercised upon his Protestant Subjects. Can any reasonable Man believe, that we lie under the same Obligation, thus to suffer in a Country where the People are all Christians, as we were if we had happened to be converted in a Country where almost all or the greater part of them were Mahometans, or Heathens, and where the Mahometan, or Pagan Religion hath been for many Ages the Established Religion of that Nation and Government?  
For in our Case, there is no farther occasion to bear witness to the Truth by patient Suffering for it; Nor yet of Propagating it by our Martyrdom; since all the People amongst whom we live, are sufficiently convinced of the Truth of it: Nor can it be reasonable that our Saviour should give up whole Nations to be thus destroyed, at the Will of one, or a few Men, only to do that, of which there is no need. For then jesus Christ had delivered us up to be mere Slaves, and Vassals to the Will and Humour of every wicked Tyrant, (which you seem to disapprove) without performing any of those great Ends, for which He at first enjoined this Submission. And though I grant, that the Afflictions and Sufferings of Christians, on the Account of Religion are as particularly ordered and determined by God, as those of Christ himself; yet, it is only, as they may be subservient to higher Ends, viz. The propagation of his Religion, and the Good, and Peace of Mankind, which I think cannot be well promoted by supposing, an irresistible Power in the Prince, or State, of rooting Christianity quite out of a Nation, or Country, after it is settled by Law, and become the National Religion thereof; and of enslaving all the People of it when ever he pleases And though I take this to be the true bounds and limits of our Submission to the Supreme Powers in matters of Religion. But supposing not granting at present that Christ hath laid any more strict Commands of Submission upon us in those matters, yet since he came not into the World to put us into a more miserable Condition in other things, than we were before his Coming, nor to take away, or abridge us of any of those Natural or Civil Rights that we enjoy as Men or Subjects, therefore if the People had a Right before Christ, to defend their Lives, Liberties, or Properties against the violent Assaults, and Oppressions of Princes or States, they have still the same Liberty left entire in all Cases, which remain not excepted by the express Precepts or Example of Christ; since it is a general rule in all positive Laws, that whatever is not excepted, or altered, by a subsequent Law, remains the same as it was before in all other Cases, which are not so particularly excepted; and therefore though I should grant that it were now unlawful in any case to resist the supreme Powers who persecute, or put Men to death for bearing witness to Christ's true Religion; yet doth it not therefore follow that it were unlawful to resist in any other Case whatsoever, though it were in the defence of our Lives, Liberties, or Properties, since such defence was lawful (as I have already proved) before Christ's coming, and is not expressly forbidden by any Place of Scripture, or express Command of Christ or his Apostles.  
And without the Considerations of these great Ends, that Jesus Christ had to enjoin his Followers, an absolute Submission to the supreme Powers in some Cases, (tho' not in all) were to suppose, that instead of a merciful Saviour he had only come into the World to patronise Tyranny, and to render the Condition of Mankind much more miserable than it was under the Law of Moses, or in the State of Nature, and seems to suppose that instead of Commiserating Men's sufferings, he only took delight to make them miserable; nor will it be any comfort, or security to Christians when they are once made Slaves under an Arbitrary Tyrannical Power, That they are safe in God's hand, and that all the Powers of M●n or Devils can't touch them, till God by a Positive Decree appoint, and order their Sufferings: For if this were a good Argument against all Resistance, it would be so likewise against resisting Pirates or Robbers, since whatever we suffer from them is by God's positive Decree, who thus order all our sufferings even from them; and 〈◊〉 I think (since men are not now to be saved by Miracles) he hath like wise also ordained Resistance as the only human means to prevent their Malice and Violence; or escape out of their hands when we fall under them; nor are the same ends unlawful against any other humane Powers, but what God himself hath ordained.  
And therefore it is a very crude Assertion to say, that though there could not be more absolute Tyrants than the Roman Emperors, yet than they had no Power against the meanest Christian, but by an express Commission from Heaven; whereas I never knew as yet (and I would be very glad you could show it me) where this express Commission is to be found, whereby Princes, or other Supreme Powers are Authorised to persecute, enslave, or take away the Lives of the meanest Christians, barely for matters of Opinion, or faults that do not immediately concern the public quiet and safety; and as you have talked a great deal of the great security it is to the World, that no evil can happen to us, but what God permits, and that he permits nothing but what he can overrule to wise and good Ends, and that God may permit a great many evils to befall us in his Anger and Displeasure, and that whatever Evils be appoints for us, they are certainly for our good, and that therefore there is no such danger in the Doctrine of Nonresistance as some Men imagine, because sincere Christians can suffer nothing by it, since they shall suffer nothing more, or less than what God appoints them to suffer. All these Arguments might as well be used for not resisting Pirates, or Thiefs, or not endeavouring to divert, or oppose a River, that had run beyond its Banks, but to let it go where it lists to the destruction of a whole Country, because forsooth sincere Christians can suffer nothing by it, for they can suffer nothing more nor less than God appoints them to suffer; indeed a wondrous use of Consolation. And therefore unless you can prove that all Tyranny is ordained by God for our good, and that therefore we are obliged under pain of everlasting Damnation, to submit to it; all that you have spoken concerning the Example and sufferings of Christ signify just nothing; so that I think the absurdity still lies at your door, since if Christ has not expressly forbidden all resistance of the unjust violence of Princes, (as I do not find he has by any of the Texts you have yet brought) every man may defend his Life against him, who you grant hath no Authority to take it away: and as for its being forbidden by the Laws of our Country, I shall answer that when you urge those Laws to me.  M. 
I hope I shall be able to prove that by and by, but in the mean time give me leave to observe, that it seems very strange to me; that you should own Christ hath obliged his Disciples to submit without any resistance in some Cases to the Supreme Powers, when they persecute them and put them to death for Religion; and that they might not take up Arms in their own defence, and that of their Religion, which is the greatest concern that men ought to have in this World; and yet that they might do it for much less considerable Matters, viz. their Lives, Liberties, or Estates, which sure ought to be of much less importance than the Glory of God, which is chiefly maintained by his true Worship; but I see you have found a Salvo for this, and will not allow Princes the irresistible Power of Persecution, when the Religion is once settled by Law; that is, when the Christians were strong enough to resist, which certainly would be no thanks at all, for their Submission, since Men who are weak and unable to resist, must needs obey, and suffer; which were matter of force and not of Duty; whereas we find by Tertullian, and all the Ecclesiastical Historians, that though the Christians were strong and numerous enough in the Roman Empire, yet they chose rather to die than to resist, as I shall show you more particularly anon, when I come to those Quotations; but I will if you please, now proceed to the two last Texts I have to cite to you out of St. Paul, and St. Peter.  F. 
That we may not confound things one with another, I pray give me leave now to answer what you have objected against what I said last, before you proceed to any fresh places of Scripture; for though in the first place I doubt whether the Nonresistance which Tertullian and other Primitive Fathers so strictly preached up, was sounded upon any express Command of our Saviour or his Apostles; yet granting at present that Christ and his Apostles enjoined it both by their Example and Precept, yet this does not reach the case now before us, for there may be very good Reasons why our Saviour might enjoin an absolute Submission to the 〈◊〉 Powers without any Resistance, though they persecute us, nay, put us to 〈◊〉 for Matters of Religion; and yet he may allow us greater Liberty for the defence of our Lives, Liberties, and Estates, when assaulted by the unjust violence of the supreme Powers.  
For, First, our Saviour ordaineth his Religion to be suitable to his Person, viz. a meek, humble, Suffering Messiah to be an Example of a meek, and suffering Religion. Secondly, Religion is a thing that no Power in the World can take from us, Persecution indeed may increase it, and render it more fervent, but can never diminish it, if it be real. And God hath expressly promised so great a Reward in another Life for our sufferings for it in this, that it will infinitely outweigh all that ever we can suffer on that Account; and Lastly, our Saviour Christ was pleased to ordain his Doctrine to be propagated by Miracles, and Sufferings to distinguish it from all the false Religions that had been in the World before his, or that should be set up in opposition to it afterwards; since neither the Pagan, nor Mahometan Superstitions, nor yet the jewish Religion can show the like; to subsist, nay increase for above three hundred years under such great and cruel Persecutions; nor yet is the Glory of God at all diminished, but rather increased under Persecution, since none are then firm to it, but such as are really persuaded of its Truth; and that they ought to suffer the worst that can befall them, rather than forsake it.  
And certainly nothing can tend more to the Glory of God, than to see it subsist and increase under a cruel and bloody Persecution; nor is it the same reason that we should suffer Persecution after Religion is become the settled Constitution of a Nation, because then every man hath the same Right to it as he hath to his Property or Freedom: And though a man may part with either the one or the other, yet is he not obliged to give them up by force, and whether he will or no; so likewise neither that Right which he hath to enjoy his Religion according to the Laws of his Country. And therefore I do not resolve the Obligation to Nonresistance in matters of Religion into the being the major party in a Kingdom as you suppose, for if the Government of England were Popish, that is, the Legislative part of it, and the Major part of the Common People were Protestants, perhaps in that Case they were under all the Obligations of enduring Persecution without resistance, as they were under the Heathen Emperors; but indeed the Primitive Christians were obliged to Nonresistance, because they lived under a Government in which Christianity was forbid, and Paganism established by Law.  
And though it is true, Constantine made several Laws, enjoining the free Exercise of the Christian Religion, and forbidding the Heathen Sacrifices, and that the Pagan Temples should be shut up; yet was not the Christian Religion for all that, the sole Religion of the State; the Senators of Rome, and the Major part of the Common People continuing Pagans still. So that it seems the Christian Religion was all this while rather established, together with Heathenism, than that this was wholly forbid; since all Civil Offices and Preferments were equally conferred upon Pagans, as well as Christians, if they deserved them; and therefore it was no hard matter for julian the Apostate, to revoke so many of those Edicts his Uncle had made in Favour of Christianity, and to abrogate those, which had been published against the public Sacrifices to the Heathen Gods, and shutting up their Temples; so that no wonder if they were now again under the same Obligations to suffer, as they were before Constantine's Time; since the Christian Religion was never the only One established by Law, so as to exclude the open Profession of any other, till the Time of Theodosius; after which, as also before, according as the Christian Religion increased, and as they got greater Privileges from the Emperors, so were they more stout and bold in standing up for, and defending the just Rights of their Religion, when ever they thought them invaded by the Arian, or other Heretical Emperors, as I shall show you by several Instances out of Church-History when we come to it; but you may now if you please proceed to the rest of those places of Scripture, which you have to produce against this Doctrine of Resistance in those Cases I have put.  M. 
I have many things still to object against your last Discourse; but since it grows late; I shall now continue myself to the Doctrine of the Apostles concerning Nonresistance; not as if the Authority, and Example of our Saviour were not sufficient of itself to make a Law, 
S. C. R. p. Ch. 4. p. 100  but stood in need of the Confirmation, and Additional Authority of his own Apostles, but we might justly suspect ourselves mistaken in the meaning of our Saviour's Words, or in the Intention, and design of his Sufferings, had none of his Apostles who were immediately instructed by himself, and acquainted with the most sacred Mysteries of his Kingdom ever Preached any such Doctrine, as this of Subjection to Princes. And therefore, to give you the more abundant Assurance of this, I shall plainly show you, that the Apostles taught the same Doctrine, and imitated the Example of their great Master. I shall begin with St. Paul, who hath as fully declared himself in this matter, as it is possible any Man can do, 
Rom. 13.1, 2.  by Words. Let every Soul be subject unto the Higher Powers, for there is no Power but of God, the Powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation.  
This is a very express Testimony against Resistance, and therefore, I shall consider it at large, for there have been various Arts used to pervert every Word of it and to make this Text speak quite contrary to the Design, and Intention of the Apostle in it: And therefore, I shall divide the Words into three general parts. 1. The Doctrine the Apostle instructs them in, Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers. 2. The Reason, whereby he proves, and enforces this Doctrine: For there is no Power, but of God; the Powers that he, are ordained of God. Whoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God. The Punishment of such Resistance, and they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation. I shall begin with the Doctrine, 
Ibid. p. 102.  That every Soul must be Subject to the Higher Powers, and here are three things to be explained. 1. Who are contained under this general Expression of every Soul. 2. Who are meant by the Higher Powers. 3. What is meant by being Subject. 1. Who are contained under this general Expression of every Soul, which by an ordinary Hebraism, signifies every Man: For Man is a Compounded Creature of Body, and Soul, and either part of him is very often in Scripture put for the whole, sometimes Flesh, and sometimes Soul signifies the Man; and when every Soul is opposed to the Higher Powers, it must signify all Men, of what Rank, or Condition soever they be, who are not invested with this Higher Power. And again, says he, The design of the Apostle, as you shall hear more particularly, by and by, was to forbid all Resistance of Sovereign Princes; and had he known of any Man, or Number of Men, who might Lawfully resist, he ought not to have expressed it in such general Terms, as to forbid all without Exception.  
And therefore, I shall now a little more closely examine your main Argument, or indeed Foundation of all that you have Urged, for Resistance, viz. That, tho' it is unlawful, for private or particular Men, to resist the Supreme Powers; yet that it doth not extend unto the whole, or Major part of a people or Nation, whenever they are outrageously oppress't, or assaulted by the Higher Powers beyond what they suppose they are able to bear; 
Ib. p. 103.  whereas the Apostle here commands every Soul to be subject, and therefore if the whole body of the People be subject to God, they must also be subject to the Prince too, because he acts by God's authority and Commission; were a Sovereign Prince the People's Creature, that might be a good Maxim; Rex maj●r singulis, sed minor universis, That the King is greater than any particular Subject, but less than All together; but if he be God's Minister, he is upon that account as much greater than all, as God is.  
And that the whole body of the People altogether, as well as one by one, 
Ib. p. 104.  are equally concerned in this Command of being subject to the higher Powers, is evident from this Consideration, that nothing less than this will secure the Peace and Tranquillity of humane Societies. The resistance of single Persons is more dangerous to themselves, than to the Prince; but a powerful Combination of Rebel's is formidable to the most puissant Monarches. The greater Number of Subjects rebel against their Prince, the more do they distress his Government, and threaten his Crown and Dignity; and if his Person and Authority be sacred, the greater the violence is which is offered to him, the greater is the Crime.  
Had the Apostle exhorted the Romans after this manner; Let no private and single man be so foolish, 
Ib. 104.105.  as to rebel against his Prince, who will be too strong for him; but ●f you can raise sufficient forces to oppose against him, if you can all consent to depose, and murder him, this is a very innocent, and justifiable, nay, an heroical Achievement, which becomes a Freeborn People: How would this have secured the Peace, and quiet of the World? How would this have agreed with what follows, that Princes are advanced by God, and that to resist our Prince, is to resist the Ordinance of God, and that such Men shall be severely punished for it in this World or the next? for can the Apostle be thought absolutely to condemn Resistance, if he makes it only unlawful to resist when we want Power to conquer? which yet is all that can be made of it, if by every Soul the Apostle means only particular men, not the united Force and Power of Subjects.  
Nor can there be any reason assigned why the Apostle should lay so strict a Command on particular Christians to be subject to the higher Powers, 
Ib. p. 106.  which doth not equally concern whole Nations. For if it can ever be lawful for a whole Nation to resist a Prince, it may in the same Circumstances be equally lawful for a particular man to do it; if a Nation may conspire against a Prince who invades their Rights, their Liberties, or their Religion, why may not any man by the same reason resist a Prince when his single Rights and Liberties are invaded? 
Ib p. 106.  It is not so safe, and prudent indeed for a private man to resist, as for great and powerful Numbers; but this makes resistance only a matter of Discretion, not of Conscience; if it be lawful for the whole body of a Nation to resist in such Cases, it must be equally lawful for a particular man to do it; but he doth it at his own Peril, when he hath only his own single force to oppose against his Prince. So that our Apostle must forbid resistance in all men, or none. For single Persons do not use to resist, or rebel, or there is no great danger to the Public if they do; but the Authority of Princes, and the Security of public Government, is only endangered by a Combination of Rebels, when the whole Nation, or any considerable part for Numbers, Power, and Interest, take Arms against their Prince. If resistance of our Prince be a Sin, it is not the less, but the greater sin, the greater and the more formidable the resistance is; and it would very much unbecome the gravity and sacredness of an Apostolical Precept, to enjoin Subjection to private Christians, who dare not, who cannot resist alone; but to leave a powerful Combination of Rebels at liberty to resist; 
Ib. p. 107.  so that every Soul must signify all Subjects, whether single or united; for whatever is unlawful for every single Person considered as a Subject, is unlawful for them all together; for the whole Nation is as much a subject to the higher Powers as any single Man. Thus I am sure it is in our Government, where Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament own themselves the Subjects of the King, and have by public Laws disclaimed all Power of raising any War either offensive, or defensive against the King.  
Let us now consider what is meant by the higher Powers, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which signifies the Supreme Power in any Nation, in whomsoever it is placed, Whether in the King, as in Monarchical Governments; or in the Nobles as in Aristocratical; or in the People as in Democracies; At the time of writing this Epistle, the Supreme Power was in the Roman Emperors; and therefore when St. Paul Commands the Roman Christians to be Subject to the higher Powers, the plain meaning is, that they should be subject to the Roman Emperor. 
1 Pet. 2.13.  And thus St. Peter explains it: Be subject to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake, whether to the King as Supreme, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word used in this Text, as to him who hath a Supereminent Power, and is above all others, as also unto Governors that are sent by him, etc. From which Text Epiphanius proves, that subordinate Magistrates under the King are ordained of God. And therefore that the Power of Under-Officers, since it is the Ordinance of God, ought no more to be resisted than the King's, from whom it is derived.  F. 
I hope I shall not be very tedious in answering your long Speech, since a small share of Natural Reason, and Grammar will do it; therefore to be as short as I can, I do freely acknowledge, that not only private men, but whole Nations are by this Precept of St. Paul, to be subject to the higher Powers, without any Rebellion against them, as well as particular Persons, as far as they are Powers ordained by God. And therefore it is necessary, that you should consider what is the true signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which if it be once discovered, you will find it carries its own limitation along with it▪ for it excludes both the Usurpation of the supreme Power, and also the illegal and wicked Exercis● of it; and of this Opinion is the Learned Dr. Sanderson in his Lectures of the Obligation of humane Laws, where in his 5 th ●ecture, § 12. (as I remember) he speaks to this purpose, in answer to an Objection▪ That then all those who have the Power of the Sword, that is, of compelling those who are under their Power to perform their Commands, ought then to be obeyed in Conscience. His Answer is to this purpose, That the Power he means, and on which alone lies the Obligation of Conscience, is not that Power which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Natural, or Physical Power or Force; or else that which is only de facto, by which any one is able to do whatever he pleases, without any hindrance; but that Power which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, lawful Power, or of Right, to wit, that which belongs to him that hath it by the Law of Nature, Nations, or Civil Constitutions▪ by reason of the Person who bears it, and in respect of those, who are to be subject to it; to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or lawful Authority the Apostle doth now so much press an exact Obedience, that he names it five times in the space of three Verses, but says not one word of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or force. So far he. And if our Translators of this place had rendered the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Authorities, instead of Powers, as they have rendered it in other Places, and as they were forced to do in the first of Peter Ch. 3. Ver. 22. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming together in the same Verse, they are forced to render the former word by Authorities▪ and the latter by Powers, which if they had constantly done, they had effectually prevented the false application of this Text, since no Man in his Wits can imagine that when a Prince (for Example) destroys, oppresses, and enslaves his Subjects, he acts thus as a lawful Power or Authority, or that belongs to him (as Dr. Sanderson very well expresses it) by any Natural, or Municipal Laws, much less can be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, true, or just Authorities, or Powers which are here meant by St. Paul to be ordained by God; and that these words may be so rendered, instead of the Powers that are, 
Vid. Lexicon Scapulae.  appears from Plato, who more than once hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for vera Potestas, true Power or Authority.  
So that if this Text were to be understood in your sense, this place of Scripture would serve to countenance and defend all the Tyranny, Cruelty, and Oppression which the most wicked Tyrants can commit, all which must be ordained by God, by virtue of this equivocal word Power. But that you may the better see the absurdity of this Interpretation, Pray let us put these things into the Text instead of Powers, and see how it will run then. The●● is no Tyranny, Violence, or Oppression committed by Princes, or their subordinate Officers, but what is ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resists this Power, resists the Ordinance of God. You'll say perhaps, that this is not your meaning, yet is it the true sense that must arise from your Interpretation of this place. Which is no more than the Voice of God approving all just and lawful Governments, and confirming from Heaven those Moral Duties of Submission, Obedience, and Nonresistance, which were always due, and must ever be to lawful Authority, that is, such as is agreeable to the Laws of God, and Nature, which you plainly see are not due to mere Force, Violence or Cruelty, for that is absolutely excluded out of the Text, which will by no means admit of it. The higher Powers ordained by God having no Commission from him for any of these wicked Purposes.  M. 
I doubt for all your Confidence, that you very much mistake the sense of these Words, 
S. C. A. p. 19  for in the first place your (or rather the Dr's) Criticism between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not do; for they both signify the same thing in Scripture, either Force and Power, or Authority, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will not be brought under the Power of any thing, 1 Cor. 6.12. must signify force, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signify Authority and Dignity; thus Ephes. 1.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are several Names, and degrees of Dignity, and Authority, as well as Power. And in the second place, you do much more mistake, when you suppose by this word Powers to be meant only the true, or just Exercise of Civil Authority, whereas the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the persons themselves, who exercise Authority, and Dominion, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Rulers, v. 3. the Ministers of God which bear the Sword, v. 4. in St. Peter, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ the King, and his Governors, and Magistrates, 1. Pet. Ch. 2. v. 13, 14. And therefore Imust tell you, you do very ill to separate the Power, or Authority from the Persons instructed with it.  
But suppose I should grant you, that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth here signify the Exercise of Authority, 
U. S. A. S. p. 133.  yet doth it not signify the Right and lawful use of this Power, but the Right to Exercise this Authority; whether well, or ill, 'tis all one, as to the Submission due to it, because no Resistance can be lawful for want of a superior jurisdiction over it. The truth of this is evident from john 19.10, 11. Pilate says to Jesus, Knowest thou not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have Power to crucify thee, and have Power to release thee, Jesus grants it, and answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Thou couldst have no Power against me, 
Ib. 138.  except it were given thee from above. And therefore I shall reduce your Argument into the form of a Syllogism, that you may more plainly see the absurdity of it. Powers not ordained by God, may be resisted without danger of Damnation.  
But Powers used Tyrannically, are not ordained of God,  
Therefore we are not forbidden to resist them.  
In this Syllogism the Minor is not true; for though Tyranny be not the Ordinance of God, yet the Power, or Authority (of which this Tyranny is but an abuse) is of Divine Institution: For though the Supreme Power is commanded to rule justly, yet is it withal enabled to act otherwise; for the good, or ill use of it is left indifferent in respect of the Subjects subjection, though not of the Magistrates commanding, or acting Power; so that the abuse of this Power doth not make void the Authority, though acting contrary to the Laws of God, or Nature. The Obligation not to resist the Supreme Powers receiving not any Validity from their Justice, nor is it weakened, or annulled by their violence, or injustice. Saul was God's anointed, and Pilate had his Authority from above, notwithstanding their high abuse of it.  
So that upon the whole matter, I incline to believe, that the reason which made St. Paul call the Magistrates by the abstract, Powers, was this▪ He wrote to Christians living in the Roman Empire, and it was the Custom of the Latin Tongue to call Persons endued wit● Power, 
Ib. p. 133.  Potestates. You may observe it in Ulpi●n, L quid sit. D. de Aedil. edict. §. 19 And in Augustine, Epist. 48. who says, sive Potest●s veritati savens aliquem corrigat, laudem habet ex illo, qui fuerit emendatus; sive inimica veritati in aliquem saeviat, laudem habet ex illo qui fuerit Co●natus, and mark that, Potest●s inimica veritati must needs signify a Man abusing his Authority. And in I●venal we read An Fidenarum Gabirunque esse Potestas. A●d in Suetonius▪ jurisdictionem de si●ei commissis 〈…〉, & tan●um in urbe deligari M●gistratibus solitam, in perpetuum atque etiam per Provincias Potestatibus delegavit: The modern Languages, Italian, and French, which were bred out of the Latin, retain this ancient way of speaking, for potestat in old French, and podesta in Italian, express not the Function only, but the Person who manages it. Thus anciently the Latin word for the Chief justice, was justitia, as you may find in Glanvil, Lib. 2. Cap. 6. and Roger Hoveden's Annals; so our King is called in the abstract, Majesty, as the Grecian Emperors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Many dangerous Consequences flow from thence, but I desire not to make sport with that unhappy distinction, which had almost ruined as flourishing, and strongly tempered a Kingdom as any in the Christian World. It exposes Magistrates, and all in Authority, to the 〈…〉 and Injuries of the basest sort of People; for when discontented, it is very obvious for them to tell them, tho' Reverence is indeed due to the● Function, yet that setting their Office aside, they will take the liberty only to kick their Persons, and that the Magistrate is not at all affronted, though the Man be sound beaten. Indeed it is against common sense to put such a difference between the Person and the Authority of Kings, for if it were real, neither God, nor the Laws of the Land have made any Provision for the King's safety; for his Authority is not capable of receiving any benefit, and therefore it must be acknowledged by all sober and reasonable men, that this Authority doth but convey such and such Privileges upon the Person, who only can be sensible of them, and consequently whatever is attempted against his Person, is attempted against his Authority likewise.  F. 
I doubt you will have no better luck in Criticisms, than my se●f, and that they will do your cause as little good; for if there be no difference in the Scripture between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as you affirm, and that both of them signify, not the Authority alone, but the Persons endued with it, and that they are all from God, than Tyrants, and Usurters are ordained likewise by God, and consequently Oliver Cromw●ll was as much the Ordinance of God, as King Charles, and if this be your Doctrine much go●d may it do you. But pray keep it to yourself, lest i● your Friends the Old Cavaliers, come to know it, they will quite banish you their Company; besides, I can show you other Consequences that will follow from it, which I have not now a Mind to urge, but may hereafter, for I have no Mind to enter into that troublesome debate any more, for I told you enough of my Mind concerning it the last time we met save one.  
But since you will needs have these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to signify Powers, or Authorities, but the Persons themselves, you shall have your will for once, only I pray now Answer me one short Question, when for Example, Charles the sixth King of France, fell mad, and would have killed his Servants, by what Authority did they distinguish and separate between his Person, and his Power? and thought that they might very well resist and bind the one, without any Diminution to the other. Or by what Right did the Portugueses seize, and imprison their late King, and make his Brother Regent in his Room because the former used sometimes in a Frolic to murder his Subjects, out of the Window, or as he met them upon the way, and was besides found by Reason of incurable Folly to be utterly uncapable to govern? Pray tell me did not the Servants, and Subjects of these Princes then separate the Authority, from the Person? if not, they must have let them alone to have done what they would, the Consequence of which you may easily imagine.  M. 
These Instances of the Folly and Madness of Princes are the main things that you Gentlemen of Commonwealth Principles have to defend them withal; but to show you there is a great difference between Mad, or Foolish, Princes, and Tyrants, who are in their Right Wits, I will show you my Reasons, why the one may be bound, or resiste●▪ and not the other. In the first place, I suppose, you will not deny, but that Folly, and Madness do so far incapacitate the Persons, that are under those misfortunes, that they hinder them from acting like rational Men, much more from performing any of the functions of Civil Government. In the next place, they ought to be restrained for the Common good of their People, as well as themselves, lest they should not only Murder and Hurt their Subjects, but themselves too. And lastly, because it is the highest Courtesy, and benefit, that can be done such Mad, or Foolish Princes, to shut them up close, and ●inder them from exposing their Folly, and Madness, and reddring themselves ridiculous to the World; whereas a Tyrant, whom I suppose in his Right Wits, tho' he never so much enslaves or oppresses his People▪ yet Civil Government may be well enough carried on, and maintained under his Personal Conduct, and as long as he hath Wit and Sense enough to govern, he is so long to be obeyed as the Ordinance of God, without any Resistance whatsoever.  F. 
But this much I suppose you will not deny, but that this Power of resisting, and shutting up Mad, or foolish Princes is wholly exercised by the Law of Nature, since I never heard of any Civil, or Municipal Law that made Provision for it.  M. 
I shall not much dispute that with you, it may be so, but what do you infer from thence?  F. 
Why, no more than this, that if I can prove to you, that there is no such great difference, between Madmen, and Fools, and 〈…〉 incurable Tyrants (as you imagine) there is a like R●ght in the people by the Law of Nature to resist, and defend themselves against the one as the other; and therefore I will examine each of your three Reasons, one after another, and see whether they may not as well be applied to such Tyrants, whom alone I suppose may be resisted, as to Madmen, or Fools, and if they do, I suppose you will not deny the Consequence. Your first Reason is, that Folly, and Madness do so far incapacitate their Reasons that are under those Misfortunes, that they hinder them from acting like rational men, much more from performing any of the functions of Civil Government: Now pray tell me, doth no● Anger, Lust, Pride, Cruelty, and Ambition, and unreasonable Self-love which are the Passions, and Vices which disturb the Souls of Tyrants, and make them to take a delight to enslave, destroy, and oppress their Subjects, as much incapacitate their Reasons for performing these functions of Civil Governments, as Folly and Madness themselves? and I think I have already proved, that when Princes bring things to this Pass, they do as much deserve Tutors or Guardians to keep them from doing mischief, and to manage their Kingdoms for them, as the most Mad, or Foolish Prince we have read of in History: But the mischief of it is, that such Tyrants, not being Mad enough to be shut up like Madmen, or Fools, nor yet having judgement, nor Good Nature sufficient to perform the Main Ends of Civil Government, by the greatness of the Rewards that they are able to bestow upon their followers, they may soon bring the best Government into a State of War, and Confusion: And till then, I do not allow their Subjects to resist them.  
Your next Reason is, that they ought to be restrained for the Common good of their People, as well as themselves; lest they should not only hurt, or Murder their Subjects, but themselves too. Now, pray consider, if these Mad, and Foolish Princes may be restrained, and resisted, because they only Murder, or hurt a few of their Subjects, that may come in their way; then have not such Tyrants much greater Reason to be resisted, and secured, that through unreasonable revenge or Superstition, make War upon and destroy the People, for no other cause, but because they will not Submit themselves to their unreasonable Lusts? Or that burn Cities, Massacre whole Towns of Innocent Subjects, and enslave, and oppress a late flourishing Kingdom; ought not these as well to be restrained or resisted for the Common good of Mankind, tho' perhaps they will not hurt or make themselves away, as Mad men or Fools may? Or can any reasonable Man show me, why the Extravaganoles of such Mad or Foolish Princes may be resisted, but the furious, wicked and Tyrannical Actions of the other, must be submitted to as the Ordinance of God? Or lastly, why a Natural Infirmity, or Weakness, such as Folly, or Frenzy, shall make a Prince uncapable of Government, and why insufferable Tyranny, which is but a moral Disability, shall give Princes a greater Privilege, I cannot understand; since the latter is much more destructive to the main Ends of Government, i. e. the Preservation, and good of the People, than the former can possibly be.  
As for your last Reason, that it is the highest Courtesy, that can be done to such Mad, and Foolish Princes to shut them up and hinder them from exposing their Folly and Madness, and rendering themselves ridiculous to the World, I think the Reason will hold more strongly for the one, than the other. For as such Foolish and Mad Princes would, if they could come to themselves, thank those, who had done them so charitable an Office as to resist them, and shut them up; So likewise, I verily believe, that if the Grace of God, or some Natural Means or Accident could so far open the Eyes of such a Tyrant, as to let him see the Folly, and Wickedness of those Courses he takes against the People, he would, instead of being Angry, thank his Subjects for resisting him, because, thereby they had not only hindered him from making himself any farther the Common-hatred of his own Subjects, as well as his Neighbours; but also from committing such heinous Sins and Offences against God, as Murder, Violence and Oppression. To conclude, I grant, that as long as a Cruel, or Wicked Prince can so far restrain his Vices and Passions, as to maintain the Ends of Civil Government above mentioned, he is to be Obeyed as the Ordinance of God: But when he will set no Bounds to his Tyranny, but resolves that his Lust shall be unconfined, whereby he becomes insupportable to his People, they may as well distinguish his Person, from his Power, as they do in the Case of Princes, when they are either Fools or mad Men.  M. 
But Pray consider the rest of the Consequences, of my last Discourse, and will not then the supposing a Power in the People of making this Distinction when they please, and of Judging when the Prince's Government becomes intolerably Tyrannical, make them to take upon them to judge it so, when it is quite otherwise; and so not scruple to Rebel, or to Resist, (as you call it) when ever they are in the mind to do it? And we have the more reason to be afraid of this because from the Long Parliaments and their Adherents making use of this Distinction among other Specious Pretences, were derived all the Miseries of our last Civil War. And therefore, tho' I own it is an easy thing to judge of the Madness and Folly of Princes as well as other men, yet (the Wickedness and Partiality of Human Nature considered,) it is a much harder Task to judge rightly, what Actions of Princes are destructive to Civil Government, and tender them as uncapable of it, as the most Extravagant Actions of Foolish and Mad Princes can be pretended to make them so.  F. 
If the Instance of mad Men and Fools seem to displease you, because it is very pat to the Subject in hand, I think I may likewise remark, that those Inconveniences, you suppose of making the People judges in this Case, is the Sole Objection, I can find you have against what I have said; for otherwise I do not see you have any thing to allege against the fitness of the Parallel. But I have already, I believe, made it pretty plain, that Murdering, Enslaving and Robbing of the People of their Properties are thing as easy to be Judged of, as Folly or Madness, and if a few Domestics about the Prince shall be allowed to judge, when their Monarch is mad or foolish enough to be resisted, and shut up; I cannot see any Reason, why the whole Body of the People, may not as well be able to judge, when, by his Tyranny and Oppression, he hath dissolved the Government, and entered into a State of War with them.  
But to return now to the last part of your former Answer, wherein you grant that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth sometimes signify not only the Person, but the Exercise of Authority; but that it doth not signify the Right or Lawful Use of it, but Abuse too; and for the Proof of this, you allege the Speech of Pilate to our Saviour; I am very well satisfied, that that Text will make nothing for your Purpose; For tho' I grant that the Word in that place denotes Power, or Authority, yet doth it not there signify the Abuse of it too? For certainly, Pilate would never have told our Saviour, that he had a Power to abuse his Authority, and to condemn him, tho' innocent: Neither would our Saviour have answered him, that he had that Power from above. And therefore, I think I may very well maintain my Syllogism to be true, notwithstanding your denying of the Minor Proposition; For since you cannot affirm Tyranny to be the Ordinance of God, yet that the Power or Authority, of which this Tyranny is but an Abuse, is of Divine Institution; which is but a Fallacy if it be looked into. For tho' you may, vulgarly speaking, call all Tyranny an Abuse of Civil Power, yet some Tyranny is more than that. For it is not so properly an Abuse, as a Corruption of it, into quite another thing▪ which God never Instituted, and consequently therefore is not to be submitted to out of Conscience. It is an old saying, Corruptio optimi, est pessima, and you may as well tell me, that Vinegar, notwithstanding its Acidity, continues Wine still, as that Civil Government, when it degenerates into the rankest Tyranny, continues still God's Ordinance? and if this be the true Consequence you draw from your Argument, it signifies little, viz. that the Abuse 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 assert, viz. that the Obligation not to resist Supreme Powers, doth receive some Validity from the justice they execute, and is weakened, and at last annulled by their Intolerable Violence, or Injustice.  
Nor are your Instances of Saul, or Pilate to the Question in hand; I grant Saul was God's Anointed, and could not have been Lawfully resisted by David, notwithstanding his Murdering of Abimelech, and the rest of the Priests; And Pilate might have his Authority from above, notwithstanding his Abuse of it; Yet doth it not therefore follow, that if either the one, or the other, had declared themselves Sworn Enemies to the whole Nation of the jews, and that instead of Governing and Protecting them, they had gone about utterly to destroy them, I think they had then ceased to be the Ordinance of God, and their Divine Commission had been at an end. To conclude, as for the Reason you give, why St. Paul might call the Roman Emperors by the Name of Powers, I shall not deny it: But whether by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Apostle means Persons or Powers, is much at one, for if he means the former, he only urges Obedience to them as they are the means of the Happiness, and Preservation of the People, as appears by the Third and Fourth Verses of the Chapter you now quote, where the main Reason St. Paul gives for our Obedience, is, That Rulers are not a Terror to God Works, but to the Evil, and that He, (viz. the Supreme Power) is a Minister to us for our Good; and indeed it had been a very odd way of enforcing our Obedience, for him to have said the quite contrary, that this Power was to be Obeyed, because he was a Terror to good Works, and a Plague to all good Men, and a Minister to us of all manner of mischief and misery. This had been an excellent way of proving the Supreme Powers to be the Ordinance of God.  M. 
Before I can give you a full Answer to what you have now said; I must beg leave to look back to the beginning of your first Answer, where you object, that if by the higher Powers here mentioned, the Persons, and not the Authority of those in Power are to be understood, than it would follow, that Tyrants and Usurpers are likewise the Powers ordained of God, which Objection, I think, may admit of an easy Answer: First, 
S. C. R. p. 120.  can there be no wise Reason given why God may advance a bad man (or Tyrant) to be a Prince▪ If there may, than it is no Reproach to the Divine Providence. The Natural End of Human Societies is the Preservation of public Peace and Order; and this is in some measure attained even under the Government of Tyrants: But God hath a farther end than this, to bless and reward a virtuous Nation, or to punish a loose and degenerate Age; and there cannot be a greater Blessing, than a Wise and Virtuous Prince, nor a greater Plague, than a merciless Tyrant. And therefore the Providence of God, is as much concerned in setting a good, or a bad Prince over any People, as in rewarding, or punishing them. Upon this account God calls the King of Assyria the Rod of his Anger, 
Isai. 10.5.6.  whom he raised up for the punishment of an hypocritical Nation.  
Secondly, I have already proved, that by the Powers in this Text, 
Ibid. p. 121.  the Apostle means the Persons of Sovereign Princes, and therefore, according to his Doctrine, those Princes who were then in Being, that is, the Roman Emperors, were advanced by God; the Powers 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 himself tells us. 
jerem. 2●. v. 5.6.  I have made the Earth, and given it to whom it seemed meet unto me, and now I have given all these Lands into the hands of Nabuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, my Servant.  
This was also the Belief of the Primitive Christians under Heathen and persecuting Emperors. Tertullian, who wrote his Apology under Severu●, asserts, that Caesar was chosen by God, and therefore that the Christians had a Peculiar Propriety in Caesar, as being made Emperor by their God. So likewise St. Augustine, de Civitate Dei, speaks to this purpose (as I remember)? God giveth Happiness in the Kingdom of Heaven to the Godly alone: But this Earthly Kingdom, both to the Godly, and Ungodly, as it pleases him. He that gave the Government to Marius, gave it also to Caesar: He who gave it to Augustus, gave it also to Nero●● He who gave it to the Vespasians Father and Son, most beloved Emperors, gave it also to the most cruel Domitian (and not to recount the rest of them) He who gave it to Constantine the Christian, gave it also to the Apostate julian. These things without doubt, the only True God governed as he pleased, by Causes tho' hidden, yet not unjust. So likewise almost all the rest of the Fathers do own, that Wicked and Tyrannical Princes are given as Punishments to the People for their Sins, and so upon this account are to be endured, and not resisted, since it is God's Will to have it so. But as for Usurpers, I think I can give you a very satisfactory Answer, 
S. C. R. p. 128.  for the most prosperous Rebel is not the higher Power, while our natural Prince, to whom we owe Obedience and Subjection, is in being: And therefore, tho' such men may get the Power into their hands by God's Permission, yet not by God's Ordinance, and he who Resisteth them doth not Resist the Ordinance of God, but the Usurpations of Men. Whereas in Hereditary Kingdoms the King never dies, but the same Minute, that the Natural Person of a King dies, the Crown descends upon the next of Blood; And therefore, he who Rebelleth against the Father, and murders him, continueth a Rebel in the Reign of the Son, which commences with his Father's Death.  
It is otherwise indeed, where none can pretend a greater Right to the Crown than the Usurper▪ for there the Possession of Power seems to give a Right. Thus many of the Roman Emperors, came to the Crown by very ill means, 
Ib. p. 129.  but when they were possessed of it, they were then the higher Powers: For the Empire did not descend by Inheritance, but sometimes by the Election of the Senate, sometimes of the Army, and sometimes by Force and Power, which always draws a Consent (and Submission) after it. And therefore, the Apostle doth not direct the Christians to inquire by what Title the Emperors held their Crowns, but commands them to submit to those who had the Power in their hands. For the Possession of the Supreme and Sovereign Power is Title enough, when there is no better Title to oppose against it, for than we must presume, that God gives him the Irresistible Authority of a King, to whom, he gives an Irresistible Power; which is the only means, whereby Monarchies and Empires are transferred from one Nation to another: There are two Examples in Scripture, which manifestly confirm, what I have now said.  
The first is in the Kingdom of Israel, 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 jeroboam the first King, it is plain by the Story in the Books of Kings and Chronicles, that for some Successions, there was nothing but Rebellion, and the Murder of one King by another, so that the Kingdom rarely descended from the Father to the Son▪ and in the whole Succession of these Kings, it only remained in the House of Ie●u for four Generations, and then it returned to its former uncertainty, as you may see in the 15 th'. Chap. of the 2 d. of Kings: 
Ibid. p. 131.  All which plainly shows that where there is no regular Succession to a Kingdom, there Possession of Power makes a King, who yet cannot afterwards be resisted and opposed without the Gild of Treason; And this was the Case of the Roman Empire at the Writing of this Epistle: And therefore the Apostle might then very well say, that the Powers that be, are ordained of God, and that whoever had the Supreme Power in his hands, was the Supreme Power, that might not be resisted.  
But it was otherwise in the Kingdom of judah, which God himself had entailed on David's Family, as appears from the Examples of joash and Athaliah, which we discoursed of at our last meeting but one; which Examples plainly show, that no Usurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of a Natural or Hereditary Prince; such Usurpers, tho' they have the Possession of the Supreme Power, yet they have no Right to it, and tho' God for wise Reasons, may sometimes permit such Usurpations, yet whilst his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from Violence, he secures their Title too.  
But to prove more plainly that no Resistance is to be made against the Persons or Authorities of the Supreme Powers, let them be never so Cruel and Tyrannical, as it is evident not only from what St. Paul hath here written; but I shall crave leave to insist farther on that Text of St. Peter, before cited in his 1 st. Epistle 2 d. Chap. Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake, 
V. 13, 14.  whether it be to the King as Supreme, or unto Governors as unto them that are sent by him, for the punishment of Evil Doers, and for the Praise of them that do well: where by Ordinance of Man whether we understand, as some do, every Human Law, or with others more justly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every human Creature, (as it is in the Original) that is, every man endued with Supreme Power, it comes all to the same sense, and the King as the Supreme Power, and his Ministers, or Officers, as Pours subordinate to him, and acting by his Commission are to be submitted to and obeyed as much as himself: And it had been in vain for St. Peter to have concluded this Exhortation with Fear God, and Honour the King, if he had allowed it Lawful in any Case to resist him; since certainly no Man can Honour him, whom he Resists; and that this is a Doctrine everlastingly true, appears by the time in which St. Peter and St. Paul wrote these Epistles, which was either under the Reigns of Claudius, or Nero, and I suppose you will hardly meet with two worse Men, or more cruel Tyrants in all the Catalogue of Emperors: Since the former committed many wicked and Cruel things by his Freedmen, and Officers, and also banished the jews, and Christians together with them, from Rome. And the latter is so notorious, for his Cruelty and Persecution of the Christians, that his Name passes into a Proverb. And yet these were the Higher Powers, to whom the Apostles commanded them to be Subject. From whence you may see your Error in interpreting the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify just and Lawful Authority, whereas it plainly signifieth in this place, the Men vested with this Authority howsoever Tyrannically they abuse it.  F. 
You have made a pretty long reply, and I have heard it patiently, because I confess, that on this depends the whole Controversy between us; and therefore, I shall beg that you would hear me with the like Patience, because what you have now said, I grant to be of that weight as to require a large, as well as a considerable Reply. And therefore, I shall make bold to consider the last part of your speech in the first place, because I can soon dispatch it: As for your Argument, that we ought to be Subject to the most Tyrannical Governors without any Resistance, because Claudius or Nero, whom you suppose to be cruel Tyrants, then governed the Empire, and persecuted the Christians.  
In Answer to this, I must tell you, that if you please better to consider of it, you will find it very doubtful, whether St. Paul wrote this Epistle to the Romans during the Reigns of Claudius, or Nero. The Learned Monsieur Capel in his Discourse which he hath written, on purpose, concerning the time of the writing of this Epistle, proves this Epistle to the Romans, to have been written during the latter End of the Reign of Claudius. But those Learned Men, who will have it written during the Reign of Nero, do all agree, that it was in the beginning of it within the first five years, when the Administration of Affairs was under the Ministry of Seneca, and Burrhus, and when the Government of the Empire, was most just and moderate, and divers years before ever Nero burned the City, or persecuted the Christians, and did so many extravagant Cruel, and Tyrannical Actions, as forced the Senate to declare him the Enemy of Mankind. But as for Claudius, he never persecuted the Christians at all, as I know of.  M. 
I pray Sir, give me leave to interrupt you a little; Did not Claudius persecute the Christians, when under the Notion of jews he banished them from Rome, as appears by Acts the eighteenth, when Aquila, and Priscilla were forced to quit Italy and come into Greece, because of that Edict? And yet it was this very Claudius, to whom St. Peter (if not St. Paul) doth require all Men to be Subject without any Resistance.  F. 
I think this difficulty will easily be answered, for in the first place, tho' I grant that Claudius towards the latter End of his Reign banished the jews from Rome, yet did he not banish the Christians from thence, as we know of, any otherwise than as they were jews by Nation, and upon this account it was, that Aquila being a jew by Birth, was forced to quit Rome with the rest; but neither Suetonius, nor any other Author tell us, that he likewise banished the Christians, tho' I know indeed there are some learned Men, that would interpret this Passage in the former Author, in his life of Claudius: judaeos tumultuantes, impulsante Cresto Româ expulit: to be meant of the Christians being expelled Rome, as instigated by Christ their Prophet to Sedition. But tho' I own that our Saviour, was sometimes called Chrestus by the Pagans, by way of contempt, yet, that by this Chrestus here mentioned, cannot be understood our Saviour Christ, is very evident, for it had been very improbable, for Suetonius to have made Christ who was dead above thirty years before, to have excited the jews to Sedition: And therefore, the Lord Primate Usher, in the second Volume of his Annals, (with much better Reason) supposes, that not our Saviour, but some Seditious jew called Crestus, who headed this Sedition, was the Cause of the Banishment of the jews from Rome: So that this was no more a Persecution for Religion, than it would have been for the Parliament in King Charles the seconds Reign during the heat of the Popish Plot to have banished all the Papists out of England, upon the Account of their former Rebellions, and constant Machinations to overturn the Government, and Religion established by Law; but supposing this Edict to have banished the Christians as well as jews, it had signified nothing, for it was no Persecution for Religion: and besides, being made in the last year of Claudius, it was but a temporary Edict; and we find the jews to have lived quietly at Rome in the Reign of Nero, as appears by the last Chapter of the Acts.  
But as for Claudius' Government, it was so far from being an insupportable Tyranny, that there was no Prince, that did take more care to do impartial justice, according to that small Capacity he was Master of, than himself. And tho' I yield that by his Proconsul's, Precedents, and Freemen there were many Oppressions, and Cruelties committed in the Provinces, yet it was only against some Private Men, and did not extend to the destroying, and enslaving the whole Body of the People, who during his Reign generally enjoyed their Liberties, and Properties with as great Freedom, as under any of his Predecessors.  
And as for Nero, all Ecclesiastical Historians agree, that if this Epistle of St. Paul was written in his Reign, it was within the first five years of it, which was in his Nonage, under the Administration of Seneca, and Burrhus, during which time all the Historians agree, that the Empire was never better governed▪ and as for the wickedness, and Violence that Nero committed afterwards, when he persecuted the Christians, murdered his Mother, his Wife, and most of his best, and most intimate Friends, and set the City on Fire: St. Paul was so far from knowing any thing of them, that sure he would not have urged it to the Romans, as a Reason of their Subjection to him, that Rulers are not a terror to good Works, but to the Evil, or that he was a Minister to them, that is, to the Subjects, for good; nay even in the worst of his Reign, as far as justice was duly administered by himself, or his Under-Officers. I grant, he was not to be resisted, notwithstanding his Personal Crimes, which could only reach a few Persons, since a wicked Man may often make a Tolerable Prince.  
And tho' Domitian was in his own Person, a Cruel Tyrant, yet he was so far commendable; and to be born with by his Subjects, that during his Reign the Proconsul's, Precedents, and other inferior Magistrates, were never freer from Corruption, and Oppression: Whereas when Nerva (who was a mild good natured Prince) succeeded him; by his too great Lenity, towards those inferior Magistrates, all things presently degenerated into a most sad Condition, justice being sold, and Perverted, and the Poor robbed and oppress't, by the Violence of the Rich, and Powerful. And even Nero himself had this Commendation from his greatest Enemy, Suetonius, that he would not be governed by his Officers, and Freedmen (as Claudius was) to do foolish, and unjust things. So that if Nero himself had not by burning the City, and by murdering the Innocent Citizens in the Night, made himself a public Enemy: I do not see, but his Government might very well have been born with, notwithstanding his Personal Crimes, and Vices. For if you please to remember, I have already excepted Personal Faults in Princes, from being any just Cause of resisting their Authority, if they are such as can any way consist with the Common safety, and welfare of the People.  M. 
I must confess, I never yet considered this matter, concerning the time when St. Peter, and St. Paul wrote these Epistles, and you'll pardon me, if I do not readily allow what you say, but I promise you to consider farther of this Story, and examine the Authors you have quoted; but however, whether the Christians were then actually persecuted, or not, or whether these Emperors were then actually Tyrants, or not, signifies very little to me; for these Holy Apostles might very well foresee not only by Divine Revelation, but by Natural Prudence, or Foresight, that the Emperors would prove great Tyrants, and Persecutors of the Church, and the late Example of the Emperor Caligula had showed them not only the Possibility, but also the great likelihood, that it might happen again; and therefore it is no wonder, that these Apostles do, in consideration of this, command all Christians, to submit to, and obey all Supreme Powers, and their Subordinate Officers, upon pain of Damnation; and if St. Peter in this Chapter last quoted commands Servants to be Subject to their Masters, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward, (that is, to the Cruel, and Ill-conditioned) and gives this Reason for it. For this is thankworthy, if a Man for Conscience towards God endures grief, suffering wrongfully: And enforces it with this great Motive, For even hereunto were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an Example, that ye should follow his Steps: And if Servants, or Slaves were to be Subject to their Masters, let them use them never so cruelly; it will, I think, hold more strong for Sovereign Powers who are the immediate Ordinance of God.  F. 
You need not have made your Answer half so long, if you had been pleased to take notice, that I have still excepted any Resistance, which might be then made against the Roman Emperors, upon the account of Persecution upon the mere score of Religion, since I grant, that our Saviour hath for those particular Reasons, I have already alleged, commanded us to a patient Suffering, and bearing Testimony to the Truth of his Religion by Martyrdom, or any other Sufferings which he shall think fit to inflict upon us by Lawful Authority, and for the like ends for which they were to suffer. Yet hath he not therefore taken away, all those Natural Rights, which whole Nations had of Self-defence against Tyranny, and Slavery, whensoever they are exercised upon them. Nor doth your Argument from particular Slaves, to their Masters at all concern Subjects, much less whole Nations; For, I hope, there is a great deal of difference between them, and perfect Slaves, who have no Interest in their own Persons, and so had neither Liberties, nor Properties to lose.  
But besides, if you please better to consider this Text, you will find, that this did wholly concern such Christian Slaves, who were for their Religion's sake oftentimes the more cruelly treated by their Heathen Masters. And therefore those Words you have but now repeated, If a Man for Conscience sake suffers wrongfully, as likewise those in the 20 th' verse, if you do well, and suffer for it, can only be meant of Suffering for the Profession of Christ, since no Heathen Emperors, nor Masters ever persecuted their Subjects, or Cruelly treated their Slaves, for well doing, that is, doing those duties and services that they owed them, and therefore, this place makes nothing at all to the Question in Hand.  M. 
But, pray, tell me▪ doth not the Apostle Paul expressly command every Soul, that is, every Man whatsoever, (not whole Nations excepted) to be Subject to the Higher Powers. And since you grant it to be true as to particular Men, why it should not likewise hold as to whole Nations, I can see no Reason, unless you will be wiser than the Apostle, and make exceptions out of this General Rule where the Scripture itself makes none; for can any thing be more express than this, that they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation; and the Word is in the Plural Number, they, and must therefore take in all Men, none excepted: I have urged this already, and I finding you have not given me an Answer to it; I make bold to re-mind you of that Omission.  F. 
I beg your Pardon, if the multiplicity of your Objections hath made me omit any thing, that was material, to be answered; but the Truth is, I supposed, that I had in effect done it already: But since you will needs have it made plaine● to you, I hope you will pardon me, if in the doing of it, I am forced to use some Repetition. Therefore in the first place, I shall not deny the Interpretation, which our Translators put upon this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which tho' it sometimes signifies not Eternal Damnation, but Temporal judgements: Yet I will own, it will not well agree with what follows in this place, which are only temporal Reasons, and Motives for this Duty, now understand this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Scripture Sense, and tho' I do, it will be much at one, for I have already proved to you, that whether you take these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Powers, or Persons, they are not absolutely irresistible, and I have St. chrysostom▪ on my side in the Interpretation of this Word, who understands 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 Person, endued with this Authority, I have also shown you, that when they degenerate into intolerable Tyrants they lose their Character, and may be resisted, as well as Madmen, and Fools; So much in respect of the Powers themselves, and now to come to the People: I think I have given very good Reasons already, why a whole People or Nation, or the Major part thereof, may have a Right to resist the Supreme Powers, and yet that I need not allow particular, private Persons the same Liberty; and one great Reason is, because they cannot, and the other, because they ought not to do it. The first you yourself do acknowledge, since you say, A private Person, when he makes such Resistance doth it at his own peril, when he hath only his own single self to oppose against his Prince. And that single Persons don't use to resist, nor is there any great Danger to the public if they do; to which I shall likewise add a much better Reason, which I have also given you before, why private Subjects ought not in a Civil State to make public disturbances, to avoid any Violence that may be done to their Particular Persons, or Estates, because every private Subject aught to prefer the Peace, and Happiness of the Commonwealth, whereof he is a Member, before his own private Interest, which being a Dictate of the Law of Nature, or Right Reason cannot extend to the whole Nation, or Civil Society: Since it is as much against the Law of Nature, for that to be destroyed, beggared, and enslaved, as it is that God should ordain all Mankind to be so. And therefore our Saviour, and St. Paul never intending to alter any of those great Laws of Nature, it cannot be believed, that they would tie Mankind to such strict, and severe Rules of Nonresistance, and Subjection, as should expose them to Beggary, and Slavery, and Ruin, with all the Miseries of this Life: Nor do I find that our Saviour, or his Apostles have either promised Eternal Life for such slavish Subjection, nor threatened Damnation for such Resistance.  M. 
To answer what you have now said, I must in the first place take notice, that tho' I grant, St. chrysostom, for fear of making Tyrants, and wicked Princes to be ordained by God, gives that Interpretation of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you have now done, yet he owns the Doctrine of Nonresistance, because the Power is from God, as you may here see in these Quotations out of him, which the Learned Primate hath made use of in the second part of his Treatise of the Power of the Prince, which you may, if you please, read with me; and compare the Greek in the Margin: 
pag. 111, 112.  For it is the pleasure of God, that the Magistrate whom he hath stamped with his own Image should have also his own Power. And he that obeyeth not him, makes War in a sort with God who hath appointed these things. Let us not therefore invert this Order, nor Fight with God: demonstrating by our deeds, that saying of the Apostle, Whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God. So likewise in another place, If we reverence, and fear those Magistrates that are elected by the King, altho' they be Wicked, altho' they be Thiefs, altho' they be Robbers, altho' they be unjust, or whatever they be; not despising them for their wickedness, but standing in awe of them for the Dignity of them that did Elect them: 
Ib. p. 116.  much more ought we thus to do in the Case of God. But it is no matter in what Sense this, or any other Father takes these Words, so long as the Doctrine of Nonresistance is secure.  
But it seems very strange that you cannot find that our Saviour and his Apostles have neither promised Eternal Life for slavish Subjection, nor threatened Damnation for Resistance; for as sure as the Words are, that they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation, so sure it will likewise follow, that they that do the Contrary, and are Patiently Subject, shall receive Eternal Life. I beg your pardon for this Interruption, therefore pray go on with the rest of your reply. And let me see how you can avoid Damnation, if the Words of the Apostle are true.  F. 
The Question is still the same, as it was before, notwithstanding what you have now said; for it is not, whether some Resistance be not unlawful, but whether all Resistance whatsoever, be that Resistance forbidden by the Apostle. And to let you see, that you do not put such a strict Interpretation upon other places of Scripture, pray tell me the Reason, why, when our Saviour expressly commands us, Not to resist the Evil, 
Mat. 5.39, 40, 41, 42.  (that is, the Evil Doer) but whosoever shall smite thee on thy Right check, turn to him the other also▪ And if any Man will sue thee at the Law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy Cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a 〈◊〉, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not thou away. [Or yet those more severe commands] of pulling out the Right Eye, 
Ver. 28.29:  and cutting off the Right Hand if they offend us, of making ourselves Eunuches for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake, and that be that can receive it, let him receive it. What is the Reason, I say, why those places of Scripture, which taken literally, are as strict as this you now quote; That they that resist shall receive Damnation, yet that most of the Fathers, as well as the more modern Commentators put a Figurative, and not a Literal Sense upon these Texts, pray tell me your Reason why they do so.  M. 
I think the Reason is very plain, because to understand them in a literal Sense, were utterly unpracticable, and contradictory to the common Sense, and Notions of Mankind, and those Natural Dictates of self▪ Preservation, which St. Paul approves of, when he says, No man yet hated his own Flesh; and it was altogether unsuitable to the Doctrine of Christ which was intended for the perfection of human Nature, that is, of Men's Souls, and natural Reasons, and for the Quiet and Happiness, not Hurt and Destruction of their Bodies.  F. 
I grant your Reasons are very good, and self-evident, but pray tell me, is it not as much against the Common Sense and Notions of Mankind, that God should give any Civil Sovereign an Arbitrary Irresistible Power to Murder, Destroy and Ruin their People, if they should think fit so to do, or that jesus Christ, who you say came into the World for the Perfection of our Human Nature, and not for the Destruction of our Bodies, should give the Supreme Powers, an Authority to do the same things with Murderers and Thiefs, and that it was unlawful for men to defend themselves against their Violence, if they could. So that I can see no Reason why this Precept against Nonresistance, may not be taken in a Limited or Rational Sense, as well as Swear not at all; which tho' as express as words can make it, yet Commentators interpret it to extend no farther than against Swearing in Common Communication. So likewise this Precept, Children obey your Parents in all things, which without the reasonable Interpretation of all things Lawful, would oblige Children to obey their Parents in whatsoever they commanded them, whether good or bad.  
But to come to your Quotations out of St. chrysostom, which you would oppose against mine; I think they will not serve so much to your purpose, as you imagine. For I grant, that the Supreme Magistrate derives his Power from God, but not a Power to Murder and Destroy; so likewise he that obeyeth him not, wars in a sort with God, and that whosoever resisteth the Power, (that is, when it is executed according to God's Will) Resisteth the Ordinance of God; And as for the last Quotation concerning the Reverence, that is due to subordinate Magistrates elected by the King, tho' they are Wicked, Thiefs and Robbers, etc. And consequently, much more the King who sends them; this, tho' the strongest place of the Three, yet will not do the Business: For I believe you cannot suppose, that St. chrysostom there means that subordinate Magistrates sent by the King were really Thiefs and Robbers, and took away Men's Goods upon the common Road, but only that by Bribery, and Corruption, in their Offices they did Robb, and Peel the People, as much as if they had been really so, which extending only to some few Persons, was rather to be born with (as any intolerable Inconveniences in civil Government are) than for the People to take Arm and Resist them. But I think the Case would have been much otherwise, had these Subordinate Magistrates by virtue of the Emperor's Commission, made use of his Forces to Murder, and Robb the Subjects of those Provinces over which they were set; and that it would not have been any Rebellion in the People if they should have taken Arms, and Resisted them, since the Emperors did not Empower such Magistrates to murder or rob, but to protect his Subjects.  
But to give you a Quotation out of St. chrysostom, in lieu of yours, I shall show you his Comment upon these Words in his 23 d. Homily on the Romans, Let every soul be subject to the Higher Powers, (that is, says he) that Christ might show that he had not instituted his Laws so, that he might overturn all Common Policy and Government, but that he might reform it to the better, and might also teach us that superfluous, and unnecessary Ways were not to be undertaken, because it was then a Common Discourse traducing the Apostles as Seditious and Innovators, and doing all things they could to overthrow the Common Constitutions of their Country; and therefore he stops their Mouths with these Words.  
From whence we may infer, that St. chrysostom did not believe that St. Paul wrote this only to give Tyrants a Power, to do what ever they pleased against their Subjects without any Resistance; Nor yet that Subjects should begin unnecessary and unlawful Wars, by Resisting upon every slight Occasion: Nor doth this Father here forbid Subjects to Resist in Cases of the Highest Tyranny, or Oppression that could befall them; so that I take the true Sense of these places of St. Peter, and St. Paul to be no more than this: Let every Christian submit to the Supreme Powers, i. e. to the Emperor, and all other subordinate Magistrates sent and appointed by him. For all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Civil Authority is from God, and Magistrates justly exercising this Power are from him, and in his Stead, all Supreme Powers under what ever different Names or Titles they be, are by God's Providence appointed in the World, for its Order, Peace and the well Governing of it. He therefore that Resisteth such Supreme Powers, whoever he be, Resisteth the Ordinance of of God, that is, the means that God hath ordained for the Restraining the Disorderly Lusts and Passions of Men. And they that will not obey their Laws as far as the Laws of God and Nature may permit, but will Resist, shall receive to themselves Damnation. And thus far even Tyrants and Usurpers may be Obeyed, tho' not as such, but as Dispenser's of Public justice, and Executors of the Laws, and so are God's Ministers for good; that is, for the public Peace and Safety. But neither the Apostle, nor St. chrysostom his Commentator, any where say, that either the Power however exercised, or the Persons that thus abuse it to the Destruction of Mankind, are likewise from God.  M. 
But pray consider the Medium a little more closely, by which the Apostle proves, and enforces this Doctrine of Subjection, or Nonresistance. For, says he, There is no Power but of God, the Powers that be are ordained of God. 
S. C. R. p. 116, 117.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God. The plain meaning of which is this, That Sovereign Princes whether good or bad, Tyrants, or good Governors, being advanced to the Throne by God, are his Ministers, and Vicegerents invested with his Authority, and Power to govern, and therefore, when we resist our Prince, we resist the Ordinance, Constitution, and Appointment, of God: and such men do not resist, rebel, or fight against Man, but God; as he who resisteth any subordinate Magistrate, resisteth his Prince, from whom they receive their Authority, and Commission. And this is a very forcible Argument for Subjection to Princes, for whatever our Prince be, it is certain, that God hath an absolute, and uncontrollable 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 of the World, into what hands he pleases, who will dare to oppose God▪ or ask him, Why hast thou done so? Whoever hath any sense of God's Dominion, and Sovereignty, dares not Rebel against him, and he who believes that Princes are made by God, will no more dare to Rebel against his Prince, than against God himself. Since (as I said before) Evil Princes may be sent by God for a punishment to a Wicked People, as well as good ones for a Blessing to a pious Nation.  F. 
If you had pleased to have considered what I have already said, you might have spared this Objection; for it is no more, than what hath been already answered; for tho' I grant that Sovereign Princes are advanced to the Throne by God, and are by him invested with Power and Authority to govern, and that when we Resist our Prince, we Resist the Ordinance of God; yet I desire to be judged only by your own words in this matter; the Prince receives from God Authority to Govern, but is the murdering, ruining and enslaving the People, any part of Civil Government? and when we Resist our Prince, we Resist the Ordinance of God; but is the Resisting of an Implacable Tyrant▪ and an Enemy of Mankind, Resisting the Ordinance of God, or fight against him? And I desire you only to consider the force of your own Comparison: for (you say) he who Resisteth any Subordinate Magistrates, Resists the Prince from whom they receive their Authority and Commission, yet it is only in such things, which the Prince hath given them Authority, or a Commission to do; as for Example, a Bailiff may Arrest me for Debt, by virtue of the King's Writ, yet if he goeth about to Rob, or Kill me, I may lawfully Resist him, and if I kill him, it is no murder. The same may be said of all other Subordinate Ministers, how great soever they are, therefore to carry on your Parallel, the same that Subordinate Magistrates are in Relation to Princes, the same are Princes in respect of God: Therefore if they never received any Commission, or Authority from God to destroy and enslave their People, they so far cease to be the Powers ordained by God, and sure may then be Resisted by their oppressed people. As for the rest of your Speech, as far as Earthly Princes, are placed in the Throne by God, and Govern there like his Vicegerents, I own they are not to be Opposed, but since you will have them to be submitted to, because they may be Ordained by God for a Punishment, for a Wicked People: I thank you for putting me in mind to answer what you have before said upon that Subject: I do not deny, but God may often for the Punishment (as you say) of a sinful Nation, give them a wicked, or Tyrannical Prince, and likewise that such a Prince, when thus Imposed by God, is to be born without Resistance, as far as is possible, or that may consist with their being a People, and with those Enjoyments of Life, which are necessary to their being Subjects, and Freemen, and not Slaves: And tho' I grant, that God doth likewise sometimes punish a wicked Nation, by appointing Conquerors, such as the King of Assyria, to carry them away captive, and to reduce them to the Lowest Condition of Poverty, and Slavery, as in this Case of the jews by the King of Babylon, who was then the Rod of G●d's Anger, and whom he raised up for the punishment of an Hypocritical Nation. Yet when he doth so, excluding all farther Resistance in the People, it can only be known by D●vine Revelation, and cannot extend to all Conquerors whatever, whether by Right or Wrong. And therefore, as God doth often in his Arger deliver the People, up to the Power of some Cruel Conqueror, or Tyrant; so likewise will he in his good time, and upon their Repentance, deliver them from it again: Now this Deliverance must be performed either by Miracles, or Human Means. Now Miracles are ceased, and therefore, since only Human Means remain, these must be either 1 st. by changing the Hearts of such Tyrannical Princes into a better, and more merciful Temper towards their Subjects as Solomon says▪ 
Prov. 21.1  The King's Heart is in the Hand of the Lord, as the Rivers of Water, he turneth it whithersoever he will. Or else 2dly. by taking away, such a Tyrannical Prince out of the World, and putting another in his stead, who may Govern the People more mercifully, and who will not any more destroy, or oppress them▪ as his Predecessors did. Or 3dly. by stirring up some Neighbour Prince to revenge the Injuries, and Oppressions done unto such a persecuted, and almost ruined People; and to restore them to the Enjoyment of their former Liberties, Religion and Estates. Or lastly, by stirring up the People themselves to Rise, and Resist those Oppressions, they lie under, by their own single Forces, or by imploring the Assistance of some Powerful Neighbouring Prince, or State. Now I suppose you will not deny, but that the first of these ways does never happen, the second very rarely; and as for the 3 d. we seldom find that when a former Prince is taken out of the way, his Successor grows so sensible of the Tyranny, and Misgovernment of his Predecessors, as to let go any of that Arbitrary Power, which he hath usurped, or to remit any of those intolerable Taxes and Oppressions which He hath laid upon them▪ but are commonly like Rehoboam, when they come to the Crown, so far from making their People's yoke more easy, that they rather lay it more heavy upon their Necks, as we may see in the Kingdom of France, in these three last descents, where every Prince hath been still more severe, and Tyrannical than his Predecessor; for finding himself invested in this Absolute and Despotic Power, without any unjust Act of his own, he will exercise it as he found it, and will think himself not at all obliged in Conscience to restore any of those just Rights his Predecessors had formerly usurped upon the People, since we find, Princes seldom lose any thing they have once got, and this may continue to all generations, for aught we know, (which is much too long for a punishment) unless some extraordinary Accident fall out, as we now see by the Example of the Greek Christians, who having lain divers Ages under the Mahometan Yoke, are now restored to the Liberty of their Religion, by the Arms of the Germane Emperor, and Venetians, and are so far from being blamed for joining themselves to their Deliverers, that they are rather commended by all Christendom for so doing. And I see no Reason why all good French men, as well Protestants as others, may not as justly join themselves to the Prince of Orange, or any other Foreign Prince, who will be so generous, as to undertake their Deliverance from that Cruel Yoke, they lie under, and will restore them to their Antiens Liberties, and the Protestants to the Free Exercise of their Religion: Nor can I see any Reason, why God should deliver a People into Servitude, when ever a Tyrannical Prince hath sufficient Power to oppress them, and why God may not be as well said to deliver them, as often as the People find fit means▪ and opportunity so to set themselves free. For doth such a Tyrant derive his Power from God to oppress, only because he hath Power? And may not the People likewise from the same Original, derive a Right to defend themselves against such an intolerable Oppression? Otherwise, God would chiefly regard, and provide for this destructive Tyrannical Power of Princes, as the chief end of all Civil Society, and make the Good and Happiness of the People as subordinate to that, or rather only by the by, which is contrary to Reason. 'Tis true, the Prophet Amos saith, That there is no Evil in a City which God hath not sent: 
Ch. 3.6.  So likewise are all Natural Evils such as Famine, Pestilence, Inundations and Foreign Enemies, and yet have not the People in these Cases a Power to rid themselves of them, if they can, by all natural human means, and yet they may be likewise Punishments sent from God? And if they may Resist, and decline such common and natural judgements without staying for an express Revelation for that purpose; why may they not for the same Reason rid themselves of such a judgement as Intolerable Tyranny, when they are able, and have an Opportunity to do it? since they proceed from the like Common Dispensations of God's Providence; or else we must believe that the Wickedness of one, or more persons, for the Destruction of Civil Society the is more particularly derived from God, than the Power of the whole People for their own Preservation, and the common Good and Happiness of the Commonwealth: By which means, Princes would have the same Power, and Right over their Subjects Bodies, and Estates, as they have over those of their Beasts, to sell, kill, and devour them at their Pleasure.  M. 
Tho' I grant it may be lawful for a People to remove Natural judgements by human Means, yet doth it not follow, that they may therefore remove by Force, such Punishments as God pleases to lay upon them from the Abuse of Civil Authority, by the Supreme Powers, since He hath particularly enjoined them to bear such Punishments patiently without any Resistance, because they are inflicted by those whom God hath Ordained for our Temporal Governors, and Masters, and whose Violences and Oppressions, as long as they continue in their Sins, God hath very good reason to continue upon them, and if they Repent, they may be assured that in his good time, he will either remove them, or turn them to the best: For all things (even Afflictions) work for the good of them that fear him. And God will not suffer those that trust in him to be afflicted beyond what they are able to ●ear: And if this Doctrine of yours might take place, both Servants and Children in the State of Nature, might upon the like Pretence both Resist, and turn their Father, and Master out of doors, because (forsooth) their Government was so severe, and Tyrannical, that it was not any longer to be endured by them; And tho' such severe Fathers or Masters may be Ordained by God for the Punishment of such wicked Children, and Servants, yet that being no more than other natural judgements, they may be without any Sin removed by Force, or Resistance, when ever they thought themselves strong enough to do it: And if this Doctrine be wicked, and absurd in private Families, then is it much more so in Kingdoms, for certainly there is as perfect a Subjection due to a Sovereign Prince, as to a Father or M●ster, for he is more Eminently the Minister of God, and Acts by a more Sacred, and inviolable Authority. And notwithstanding what you have said to the contrary, that the Precep given to Servants by St. Peter, doth not concern Subjects, I think I can very well prove that it doth; as appears from the Example of Christ, which the Apostle there recommended to our Imitation, who was the most innocent person in the World, and yet suffered the most barbarous Usage, not from the hands of a private Master, but of the Supreme Powers. And therefore, when he commands, in the same Chapter, to submit to Governors, as to those who are for the punishment of Evil doers, and the praise of them that do well, it is evident, that he did not intend this, as a Limitation of our Subjection, or as if we were not bound to be subject in other Cases, since in the very same Chapter he requires Subjection not only to the Good, and Gentle Masters, but also to the froward, in Imitation of the Example of our Lord, who suffered patiently under unjust, and Tyrannical Powers. I observe therefore, that the Apostle doth not allege this as the Reason of our Subjection, but as a Motive, or Argument to reconcile us to the practice of it. The Reason of our Submission to Princes, is, that they are advanced by God, that they are his Ministers, that those who Resist them, Resist the Ordinance of God, and therefore, we must submit for God's sake, out of Reverence to his Authority. But it is only an Encouragement to Subjection to consider the great Advantages of Government, that Rulers are not a Terror to good Works, but to the Evil. But tho' this Motive should fail in some Instances, yet whilst the Reason of the Subjection lasts (and that can never fail whilst we own the Sovereign Authority of God) so long it is our Duty to be subject, whether our Prince do his Duty, or not.  F. 
Although what you have now replied, is no more in effect than ● Repetition of what hath been said before▪ yet I forgive it, since your Cause will admit no other, nor can I see any Reason, why Natural judgements may 〈◊〉 removed by Force, or Natural Means, but not Moral or Civil ones, unless you could also prove▪ that it is God's Express Command that we may remove the one, but not the other: nor have you proved it otherwise than by telling me, that Princes are God's Ordinance, and are endued with Irresistible Power, all which hath been already considered. And I have already shown you, it is neither Commanded by God, nor yet Ordained for the Common Good of Mankind. And tho' I own that Afflictions may sometimes serve for a Punishment of a sinful Nation, yet it is as likely that such a great, and lasting Punishment, as a merciless Tyrant, may as well bring the People to Repentance, and when they are sufficiently amended, they may very well enjoy the Benefits of it, and they may as well expect, that God will bless all Lawful Means, for that end, whereof I take Resistance, or self-defence to be the Principal; since Miracles are ceased. And of this we have an Example in the 2 d. of Kings, chap. 18. For tho' Ahaz the Father of Ezekiah had submitted himself, and become Tributary to the King of Assyria, yet when H●zek●ah his Son turned to the Lord, it is said, that he was with him, and that he rebelled against the King of Assyria, and served him not, and yet he was then as much subject to him as jehoiachin, or Zedekiah, were afterwards to Nabuchadnezzar. So that all that is new in this Answer of yours, is only the fatal Consequences, that it would bring upon all Families in the State of Nature, for then (forsooth) Children and Servants might likewise pretend, that the Government of their Fathers and Masters were so insupportable, that it was no longer to be endured, and so might Rebel against them, and depose them, which doth by no means follow, for I have already proved at our first Conversation, that some sort of Resistance for the Preservation of Life and Limbs, may be lawful against the Outrages or Violence of a Father, or Master of a Family; Yet do I by no means allow, that they should Resist them for any other Correction or severe Usage which they shall inflict upon them, since Servants, or Slaves whilst they continue under their Master's Power, can have no Liberty, or Property of their own to defend; and a Son whilst he remains part of his Father's Family, I grant, differs not from a Servant, so that all that aught to be done either by Sons or Servants in case the Government of their Father, or Master grows so Cruel and Tyrannical as not to be endured, is to run away, and leave their Family. And thus we read that Hagar upon the severe Usage of Sarah her Mistress, fled from her, nor was blamed by the Angel for so doing.  
Nor is what you have now said, to prove the Subjection of Servants, and Slaves to be as absolute the one as the other, at all convincing for I have long since proved, that a Family and a Kingdom are very different things, and that Oeconomical and Civil Power do not only differ in Specie, but in Genere too. For tho' I grant, that Slavery might begin by Compact as well as by War, yet Subjection to Civil Power, could Regularly commence by Compact only; and therefore, since the Natural State of Mankind is that of Freedom from Slavery, all Subjects are supposed to be in that State of Freedom, and to have a Right both to their Liberties and Properties; which, if the Supreme Powers go about forcibly to take away, they then cease to be so, since they take away the main End of their Institution, I mean, this of such a People, who are properly Subjects, and not Slaves: For of those, who own themselves to be Slaves to their Prince, I told you already, I would not take upon me to meddle: Since I doubt whether such an Empire can be called a Civil Government, or not: So, that for all that you have hitherto said, I must still believe, St. Peter did not direct this Precept to Subjects but to Servants under the Yoke, that is, to Slaves, such as had no Property, in any thing, nor Power over their own Persons, but might be sold, and assigned with their Wives and Children to whom soever their master pleased; which, tho' not of Divine Institution, Yet since it was so ordained by the Civil Laws of the Empire, neither jesus Christ nor yet his Apostles would make any Alteration in it. Nor hath he thought fit to do so, in any of those things, which we enjoy as our Civil or Natural Rights, by the Law of Nature, or the Municipal Laws of our Country: and therefore it is not true, that there is as perfect a Subjection due to a Sovereign Prince as to a Master, unless the People of that Nation have made themselves absolute Slaves to him, instead of Subjects, which could never be but by their own Consent. It is true, a Prince is more eminently the Minister of God, and Acts by a more sacred, and inviolable Authority, than a Master; Yet doth it not therefore follow, that he acts as God's Minister, or by this sacred or inviolable Authority, when he destroys, or enslaves the Subjects. Nor can you say that God hath given him any Authority so to do. And as for the Example of Christ's Suffering, which you urge as a Reason of our absolute Subjection to Princes, without any Resistance I have answered that already, and therefore need say no more to it; But do own, that in that great Point of suffering for Religion, when we are lawfully called thereunto, we are to follow his Example, yet doth it not prove, that we are to suffer in all other Cases whatsoever, concerning which he hath given us no express Precept or Command.  M. 
I have something more to say to you about this matter of Suffering for Religion, but I shall defer it at present, and shall only now consider the Evil Consequences of your Arguments for Resistance of the Supreme Powers in any Case whatsoever, the sum of which, 
B. P. P. §. 8.  if I can well remember, is to this Effect; Shall a Prince be free from all Correction till God Almighty is pleased to chastise him? Must I sit still, and suffer my Throat to be cut, my Estate ruined, and not dare in any Case to defend myself, till God is pleased to interpose, and that in an Age in which Miracles are ceased? God is for the most part pleased to respite the Punishment of Oppressors', till the next World, and if I be ruined in this, what comfort is it to me, or mine, that the Injury shall be punished when I shall reap no Advantage by it. 
Ibid. §. 9  And suppose the Subjects of such a Prince should succeed in their Rebellion, and prevail against him, they must then submit to another Prince, of whom they have no more Assurance they shall be better treated, and if they set up many, they are all Men, and subject to be corrupted by Power and Greatness: And in an Anarchy every Man will become a Tyrant to his Neighbours, so that this Doctrine of curbing, and Resisting Princes, is calculated for the Ruin of Mankind, and tends to no bodies good but theirs, who design thereby to gain a Power of doing to others▪ what they pretend to fear: And when all is done, the Punishment of Princes, who abuse their Power must be left to God Almighty, who only can and will punish his own Ministers.  
Now suppose all this were just as it is stated, if the Injuries a Man suffer are insupportable under any Government he may Petition for relief, and in all probability find it; if not, he may fly into another Country for succour▪ if he cannot do that neither, he will scarce be able to resist: So that if it were never so justifiable, it could be of no use to any such miserable man, for no Prince, tho' never so ill natured, will attempt any such thing against any such number of Men, as are in a capacity of revenging the Wrong done them, when they will, only out of hopes, they will not, because they ought not. Nor will the Histories of all Ages put together, afford one Instance of a Monarch that 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▪ and either to take him out of the way, or to put him out of a Possibility of a Retaliation. So that all discontented, fretful Rhetoric, is of no use in any such Case.  
But then, on the contrary, if every Ambitious, and Factious Man might be left at Liberty to insinuate into the Rabble, and the Great, and little Vulgar; that Princes are to be punished when they do amiss, that they are bound to Act according to Laws, and to their Oaths, and if they do otherwise are presently to be treated as Tyrants, and the Common Enemies of Mankind: That it is Lawful for a Man to defend himself against the Injustice and Oppression of his Prince, etc. This can only serve to fill the World with Rebellions, Wars, and Confusions in which more thousands of Men▪ and Estates must of Necessity be ruined, and Wives ravished, and Murdered in the space of a few Days, than can be destroyed by the worst Tyrant, that ever trod upon the Earth amongst his own Subjects in the space of many years, or of his whole Life.  F. 
I perceive you think this place of Scripture will not carry you through: and therefore you would fain confute my Arguments by ridiculing them. But in answer to the Expedients you have now proposed, I think I may make this return. 1. As for petitioning when a Government grows insupportable, suppose then the Prince declares he will not be petitioned in this matter, but as the French King lately did, when the Protestants would have petitioned him against the Violation of the Edict of Nantes, delights to see men ruined, or suppose he lays any Man by the heels, that shall offer never so humbly to Petition him either in his own, or the People's behalf, as King james lately served the Bishops; then this Expedient can signify nothing. As for the next, flying into another Country for Succour, that is, a very sorry comfort, that a Man must be forced to go, and beg his Bread in a strange Land; and whatever this may be a Duty for Private or Single Persons, yet it cannot extend to a whole Nation, since if all the People should go away, the Commonwealth, or Civil Society would be dissolved; and farther perhaps, as now in France, and in all Tyrannical Governments, it is commonly practised, the Prince should forbid his Subjects to go out of his Kingdom upon Pain of Death, or being sent to the Galleys, than I think this expedient would signify nothing neither. But now, if nothing else will do, you say, Resistance can be of no use foe such miserable People, because a Prince will not dare to attempt any such thing against such a number of Men, as are in a Capacity of revenging the Wrongs done them, where they will, only out of hopes, that they will not, because they ought not to do it. I grant indeed that never any Tyrant when he went about thus to oppress his People, designed they should be in a Capacity to revenge the wrong he did them when they would: And therefore such Tyrants take very great Care by Guards, and Standing Armies to prevent it. But yet I can show you a Prince, who very lately received such encouragement, by the Writing, and Preaching of our high Clergy, that he seemed resolved to bring in Popery, and Arbitrary Government upon us chiefly out of Hopes, that the People would not, because (as he thought) they ought not to resist: And tho' I also grant, that few Monarches injure particular Men so much▪ but that, if they believe them able to revenge the Wrong, they took care as far as they could to prevent it: Yet this signifies nothing if once a whole Nation come to be oppressed, and disgusted against the Government: For if such a Prince, or Commonwealth have not the Assistance of some other Power, either his own standing Army, or his Neighbours, his Authority would soon be at an End: Thus we read of the Massacre, and expulsion of the French out of Sicily, it was done in the twinkling of an Eye, and before those in Power had the least Suspicion of it. So likewise in the late Revolt of the Portugueses from the King of Spain, his Government was at an End in little more than a days time, and that Nation will 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 Expense of Blood, and Treasure they were at to obtain it. To conclude, I do not speak this to encourage the Rabble, or Great, and Little Vulgar (as you call them) to take Arms, and punish Princes every time they do amiss: Nor have I at all asserted, that Princes may be punished by their Subjects unless you can prove to me, that every one who resists the Violence of another, is his Lord, and Master. Neither do I maintain, that tho' Princes are bound to act according to Laws, and to their Oaths, yet if they do otherwise they are presently to be treated as Tyrants; and the Common Enemies of Mankind, or that it is Lawful for every Private Man to defend himself against the Injustice, and Oppression of his Prince: I grant such Doctrine would serve to fill the World with Rebellions, Wars, and Confusions, and may produce all those dreadful Consequences you have here set forth.  
But on the other side, under such a Tyranny as where the whole People, or the Major part of them, shall happen to be assaulted, enslaved, and oppressed to that Degree, that no Man can tell when he is safe; I say, in such Cases a Tyrant may destroy more thousands of Men, ravish more Women, and ruin more Families, and Estates, than it is likely to be done by the Highest Resistance the People can make against him: Since they are Mad if ever they make this Resistance unless they are also morally sure either by their own Strength, or the Assistance of their Neighbours of succeeding in the attempt.  
Nor do the Consequences of such Resistance, but rarely fall out in the manner you suppose. For it seldom happens but that the New Prince to whom the People submit themselves, will (being warned by the Example of his Predecessor) take Care to govern with greater Mercy, and Moderation, and it is much more unlikely, that if they choose, or set up many Representatives out of their own Body, that they will be easily corrupted by Power, and Greatness thus to oppress the People. And lastly, it is much less probable, that the People can continue long in an Anarchy without any Government at all. So that to conclude, this Doctrine of resisting of Princes, or other Supreme Powers in Cases of Extremity is so far from tending to the Ruin of Mankind that I cannot see how they can be safe without it; and tho' the Punishment of Princes who abuse their Power may be left to God Almighty, yet I am confident the resisting of those, who tho' they have the Power of the Sword in their Hand, yet act as none of God's Ministers, is neither contrary to the Laws of God, nor Nature.  M. 
I perceive you want Testimonies out of Scripture to justify your Doctrine of Resistance, and therefore you are, when pressed by these, forced to fly to your old Refuge of Self-defence by the Law of Nature, in which tho' I have been forced to follow you, and quit the Method I proposed to myself; yet I would have you to know, it is not for want of more Texts of Scripture, and therefore I must still farther enforce the true sense of that place of the first of St. Peter, 
Chap. 2.13, etc. S. C. R. Ch. 5. p. 141.  Submit yourselves to every ordinance of Man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King, as Supreme, or unto Governors as to them that are sent by him for the Punishment of Evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. For this is the very same doctrine, which St. Paul taught the Romans, Let every Soul be Subject to the Higher Powers. For the same Word is used in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore to submit, and to be subject is the same thing which as St. Paul tells us signifies, 
Ib. 142.  Nonresistance: Only as St. Paul speaks only of not resisting the Higher Powers, that is, Emperors, and Sovereign Princes herein include all those who Act by their Authority; and St. Peter, to prevent all Cavils and Exceptions distinctly mentions both, that we must submit to all Humane Power, and Authority, not only to the King as Supreme, that is, in St. Paul's Phrase, to the Higher Powers, to all Sovereign Princes, who are invested with the Supreme Authority, but also to those, who are sent by him, who receive their Authority, and Commission from the Sovereign Prince.  F. 
You may spare your Pains for making any long Explanation on this Text, for I have already granted that all due Submission is to be given, not only to the Supreme Powers, but also to all those who are put in Authority under them, and that not only for Wrath, but for Conscience sake; yet is this place to be understood in the same sense as the former, that is, as far as they make use of this Power for the great ends of Government (viz.) the Good, and Preservation of the People, and not for their Ruin and Destruction, by taking away their Lives, Liberties, and Properties at their pleasure. So that this Precept is to be understood, according to the Reason, which both St. Peter, and St. Paul gives for this Submission, because Rulers are not a Terror to good works, but to the Evil; and because, such Governors are for the Punishment of Evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well; and even a Government, where a Heathen Prince hath such Supreme Power may, and doth most commonly in respect to most of its Subjects, give more countenance, and encouragement to good works than bad ones, and therefore Obedience to such a sort of Governors is not only Lawful, but a Duty: Nay, tho' through Ignorance, and Malice, they might persecute the true Religion: for I have already proved, that at the time of Writing of these Epistles there was no Actual Persecution begun by the Roman Emperors against the Christians; and though they did afterwards persecute them, yet even such as did so, being commonly men of good Morals, and having much of Goodness, justice, and Prudence in their Natures (such as was Trajan, and the two Antonin●u's) they would not fail extremely to encourage the Practice of such, and other virtues by their Examples, and by good Laws preserve their Subjects from the Mischiefs of Immoralities, and keep them in Order, Peace, and Sobriety. But is it true when Tyrants (be they Usurpers or not) not only govern contrary to, but also subvert all the Ends of Government?  M. 
If this be the Sense you put upon this place, I think I shall easily show you not only the Absurdity, but perniciousness of this Interpretation, which indeed doth undermine all that Obedience and Subjection that is due from Subjects to their Sovereigns, unless they rule well, that is, according to their Humours, or Fancies. Now I pray, Consider whether these great Apostles intended to oblige the Christians of that Age to yield Obedience to those Powers, which then governed the World. If they did, (as I think no Man will be so hardly as to say, 
S C. R. p. 149, 150.  that they did not) than it will be proper to inquire whether, what they here affirm, and assign as the Reason of their Subjection, That Rulers are not a Terror to good works but to the Evil, were true of the than Roman Emperors, and Governors, or not. If it were true, than 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 so this will prove an Eternal Reason, why we should be Subject to Princes, notwithstanding the many faults, and miscarriages of their Government. And if it were not true, it is very strange; that two such great Apostles, should use such an Argument to persuade Christians, to submit to the Powers as only proved the quite contrary, that they ought not to be Subject to the present Powers, because they were unjust▪ and Tyrannical, and which indeed in contradiction to the Original design, and Institution of Civil Power, we●e a Terror to good works, and not to the Evil.  
The Christians were at this time actually persecuted by the jews in Palestine, and if they were not then also persecuted by the Emperors, yet it was that which they might daily expect, considering their extraordinary wickedness, and Cruelty: And yet the Apostle exhorts them not to resist the Powers, because they were not (that is, should not be) a Terror to good works, but to the Evil. If by this he only means, 
Ibid.  that they should be Subject to them, while the, encouraged virtue, and virtuous Men, but might rebel against them when they did the contrary: How could the Christians of those days think themselves obliged by this to submit to the Higher Powers▪  
For this was not their Case they suffered for Righteousness sake, the Supreme Powers were a Terror to them, tho' they were Innocent, tho' they could not charge them either with breaking the Laws of God, or Men; and therefore upon your Principles they were not bound to submit to them whenever they could find it safe to resist. So that either you put a false comment upon the Text, or while the Apostle undertakes to deter them from Resistance, he urges such an Argument, as was proper only to persuade them to rebel.  F. 
Had you been pleased to have minded more attentively, what I said last, you would not have thus misrepresented my sense; for I have already proved, that there was no Persecution in the Roman Empire, against the Christians when those Epistles were written, nor for many years after, and I have also granted that if the Emperors had so persecuted them they ought not to have resisted: And therefore by good works, and Evil doers, etc. in both those Texts of St. Peter, and St. Paul, is not to be understood, only believing in Christ, or behaving themselves as became Innocent Christians, but in general that at that time when the Apostles wrote these Epistles under Claudius, 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 against good manners, and the public Peace of the Commonwealth, and were also a Punishment for Evil-doers, that is, those that did transgress against the Public Laws ordained for the restraining Men from committing any sort of public Wickedness, or Immorality. So that I own that neither the Heathens, nor the Christians had any Reason to take Arms or resist the Supreme Power at this time.  
But admit there had been at that time great Miscarriages, and Abuses committed under their Government, and that good Men had been often times punished, and Evil ones Rewarded, and the Ends of Government to some Degree perverted, especially at Rome, where the Emperors took a Liberty of doing many unjust, and Tyrannical Actions▪ Yet I have no where (that I know of) affirmed, that Princes ought, to be Resisted only for being Evil, or Wicked, or that all the evil Actions and Misgovernment of Princes or their Subordinate Ministers ought to be Resisted by the People; but I have all along asserted the contrary, 
S.C.R. p. 153.  for I own that no human Government can be so exact, and perfect, but it may be Guilty of great Miscarriages; Good Men may suffer, and bad men may flourish under a virtuous Prince, much more under those that are themselves wicked, and unjust: and there are many Degrees of evil Government and Tyranny, some of which may consist well enough with the common Safety of the People, which was the Condition of most of the Subjects of the Roman Empire under the Reigns of Claudius and Nero. Since they did then enjoy the Protection of the Commonwealth, and all the Civil Rights of the Subjects; and therefore, you very much mistake me in supposing, that I maintain, we are only bound to be subject to those Supreme Powers, who rule well, or who punish Wickedness, and reward Virtue: Since I grant this was scarce ever performed exactly even under the most Regular Governments, yet there is a great deal of difference between bearing with the common Infirmities of all Governments; and such intolerable Violences that dissolve the Government itself, 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 instead of hanging, he should pardon all Thiefs, and Murderers, that should rob or murder in a year or two together, and should likewise list them in his Guards to kill and rob whom they pleased, provided he had a share of the Bo●●●y; I would very fain know of you, or any other reasonable man, whether the People were bound to bear it, and whether they might not Resist them, tho' they had the King's Commission for so doing.  
To conclude, when the Apostle here says, that Rulers are not a Terror to good Works but to the Evil, and that they are for the punishment of Evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well; the Apostles only mean in general, the great Advantages of Civil Government for the Suppression of Wickedness, and Encouragement of Virtue, which is the true End, and the h●st improvement of Human Power. But this also is in great measure obtained under Evil, and (to some degree) Tyrannical Princes, and therefore this Argument for Subjection is good, even under a Tyrant. Public justice was administered under the Government of Nero, and good Men were then commonly rewarded, and bad men punished. And though justice be not so equally, and so universally administered under a bad Prince, as under a good one, tho' such a Tyrant may oppress many of his Subjects, and be the occasion of divers Calamities, yet whil● the main ends of Civil Government are maintained, it lays a great Restraint upon the unruly Lusts, and Passions of Men, and gives great security to the Just, and Innocent. And therefore, good Men are concerned to promote the Peace, and security of Civil Government, tho' the Prince be in some degree a Tyrant, for there is more security to be had under such a Tyrant, than in a Civil War.  
In ordinary cases it is very possible for private good Men to live easily and tolerably under a very bad Prince, and tho' it should be their Lot to suffer, yet since the Peace, and Quiet of human Societies is in itself so great a Blessing, and the public Good may be better consulted by the Preservation of Government, than by Resistance; it becomes every good Man rather to suffer patiently under such a Tyrant, than to shake and unsettle Civil Government, and disturb the natural Course of Justice, by Sedition and Tumults.  
Yet all this is to be understood of such Degrees of Tyranny, or evil Government, as may consist with the main Ends of a Civil Society, or Commonwealth, and as far as the public Good of the People may be better consulted, and preserved by the Preservation, than Resistance of it; I grant it to be every Man's Duty patiently to suffer many Injuries and Abuses, rather than to make any public Disturbance: So on the other side, when the main Ends of Civil Government, viz. the Common Preservation of the People's Liberties and Properties are actually, or about to be destroyed, I think every honest man that is careful of his own, and his Posterities well-being, and Happiness may, nay, ought (if no other Remedy can be had) to make Resistance, not for the Destruction, but Preservation of Civil Government, which I already look upon as good as dissolved, before such Resistance, can be Lawful.  M. 
I must confess your Doctrine, as you have explained it, is not so bad as I supposed at the first hearing, but if People may never Resist, till things come to such a State, as that by a general Invasion of men's Lives, Liberties and Properties the Civil Government be in a manner destroyed (as you suppose) the People may stay long enough before ever they shall be in a Condition to make this Resistance. For in all the small Observations that I have made out of History, I never could find the People generally reduced to so sad a Case, as this you have put: most of the Rebellions and Alterations of Government that I have read of, having begun from a few Tyrannical Actions committed upon the Persons, or Estates of some Great and Powerful Men, who being beloved by the People, were able to stir them up to revenge their particular Injuries; Thus one single Act of Lust in the younger Tarquins ravishing Lucretia, gave occasion to Brutus, and her Husband Collatine, to take Arms against Tarquin, and by expelling him and his Family to set up a Commonwealth. And therefore, since this Case of such as an extreme intolerable Tyranny as you mention, can never, or at least very rarely happen, I think I may still maintain, what I first affirmed, that it is much better to put this mischief to the venture, and suffer all the Inconveniences that may happen from it, than by allowing the People to be their own judges, when the Government proves insupportable, to give them a Right of judging and Resisting whenever they shall pretend that it is so, which they may make use of not to secure their own Liberties, and Estates, but to gratify their own Humours, or else the Ambition or Revenge of great and factious men. 
S.C.R. p. 160.  So that unless there is some Power that is irresistible, from whence there lies no Appeal, 
Ib. p. 161.  it is impossible for any Government to subsist. And tho' it is not necessary that this Power should be always in the hands of one Man, yet if God hath placed it in the hands of a Prince, there it must be irresistible too, however he uses it: For if once it be made lawful to resist the Supreme Power where ever it is placed, you dissolve human Societies, or at least expose them to perpetual Disorders and Convulsions. Factious and Ambitious Men will still find Pretences to resist good Princes as well as bad, and no Government can be any longer secure than whilst ill-designing men want power to resist.  
Now then to pass a true Judgement on this whole Matter, we must not only consider what present Inconveniences, we may suffer from the irresistible Power of the worst Tyrant, but also what an irreparable Mischief it is, for ever to unsettle the Foundations of Government. We must consider whether Civil Government be the greater Blessing to Mankind, or a Tyrant the greater Curse: whether it be more desirable to endure the Insolence, and Injustice of the greatest Tyrant, when the Power falls into such a hand, or for ever to be deprived of the Security of Government, and the Blessings of Peace, and Order. And therefore, there is great Reason why God should so severely forbid the Resistance of all Princes, tho' the Cruelest Tyrants you can imagine; and why we should quietly, and contentedly submit to this Divine Appointment, because the Resistance of the Supreme Powers, (were it once allowed by God) would weaken the Authority of all Human Governments, and expose them to the Rage, and Frenzy of Ambitious, and discontented States Men, or wild Enthusiasts. And this, I think, is a sufficient Answer to this Pretence, that the Apostle limits our Subjection to Princes to the regular Exercise of their Authority.  F. 
I see we are even come where we set out, to the necessity of an Irresistible Power, and the mischief that must follow if the People ever judge for themselves, which indeed is but the same Argument in Politics, which the Church of Rome makes use of for the necessity of an Infallible judge in spirituals, because otherwise if the People should judge for themselves, in matters of Religion, there would nothing follow but Anarchy, and Confusion in the Church, and that there would be as many Religions as there are Men; And so you likewise urge, that if the People may ever once come to judge, when they are assaulted, enslaved, or oppressed, and should have a Right of making Resistance, nothing but Anarchy and Confusion must follow in the Common wealth. 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 Christians without such an infallible judge in matters of Faith, so I think we may be Loyal Subjects to our Prince without investing him with an Irresistible Power, of doing with us what ever he hath a mind to.  
But since you have only repeated, what you have said at our last meeting, when we first began to debate this Question, so I must beg you pardon, if I refresh your Memory, and again repeat my Answers. In the first place, I deny that it must follow, that if once it be made Lawful to resist the Supreme Power, where ever placed, this must dissolve Civil Societies, or expose them to perpetual Disorder, because (forsooth) some Factious and ambitious Men will find Pretences to Resist good Princes as well as bad. For first I have all along supposed the Civil Society as good as dissolved, before such Resistance is Lawful: And therefore, the Convulsions or Disorders of a Civil War can scarce be worse than such a State, and until the People are under this Condition, I grant factious, and ambitious Men may make Pretences to Resist good Princes, as well as bad, and may find some followers as wicked as themselves, to take the● part. Yet this Infection seldom, or never seizeth upon a whole Nation, who hath always Power, and Affection enough for the Supreme Powers to join with them, to Suppress such Rebels. I grant, we ought always to consider, whether Civil Government be the greater Blessing to Mankind or a Tyrant, the greater Chrs●; But I do never suppose, such Resistance to be Lawful, but when the Power falls into such hands, that tho' they may call themselves a Civil Government, yet the People are almost as totally deprived of all that Security, and those Blessings of Peace, and order, which they may justly expect from it, as if they were in a State of War. And therefore, as you suppose that God Almighty forbids the Resistance of the most cruel Tyrants, because this Resistance, were it once allowed, by giving the People a Power of judging, would weaken the Authority of Human Governments, and expose them to the Rage, and Frenzy of Ambitious, and discontented Statesmen, or Wild Enthusiasts, And this, you think a sufficient Answer.  
So on the other side, if this Resistance be in no case lawful, tho' in never so great Extremities, and that the People must not judge, when they are so cruelly used, as that it is no longer to be endured, not only the Persons of Princes are Sacred, and irresistible, but also all those Instruments of Tyranny whom they may hire, and employ to that purpose, by which means all Government whatsoever will not only be Absolute, but Arbitrary, and without any sufficient Obligations to other Mercy, Justice, and the Common Good, than what the Tyrannical Will, or Humour of one, or more men shall please to allow. So that the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of a free People or Nation shall be in as bad or a worse Condition, than if they were Slaves, if all means of defending themselves by their own Resistance, or joining with those that would assist them be wholly denied them. And whether God can ever be the Author of such an Institution, I appeal to your own Reason to judge, when you are in a more sedate and equal Temper.  M. 
I see 'tis in vain to argue this Matter any longer with you, And therefore, I must tell you, that I cannot but look upon these Doctrines of Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance, as true Christian Doctrines; since the Ancient Fathers of the Church, and Primitive Christians did always both believe, and practise them, and in imitation of whom our own Church of England (which I think of any in the World comes nearest to the Primitive) doth likewise maintain it in her 39 Articles, Canons and Homilies, whereas you can show me no Express Text of Scripture, nor Testimonies of the Fathers, nor Examples of the Primitive Christians to justify this Resistance, which when ever you can do, I shall be of your Opinion; and if you doubt the Truth of what I say, I have here by me the Lord Primate Usher's Book of the Power of the Prince, and Obedience of the Subject, which you may, if you please, take home with you, and consult at your Leisure, in which I doubt not but you will meet with full Satisfaction in this matter.  F. 
I have already proved at our last meeting, that Resistance for self-defence against those, who have the Power of the Sword, is a Right of Nature conferred by God on all Mankind, and unless you can show me 〈…〉 place of Sculpture, which takes it quite away. I think I may very well maintain, that it is still left entire to us, and is not abrogated by the Law of the Gospel, and that it was lawful before our Saviour's coming into the World, I have proved by those defensive Arms made use of by David, and the Maccabers; And as for the Testimonies of the Fathers, and the practice of the Primitive Christians, of which the Reverend Primate hath made so ample a Collection, in that Treatise you know show me; I thank you for your kind offer of it, but I do not now need it; for since I began to consider this Controversy with you, I have carefully read over that Treatise, and I cannot find, that this vast Collection out of Profane, as well as Ecclesiastical Writers, will prove any more, than those Principles, which I own to be true, and yet will not impugn this Principle I here defend.  
In the first part of this Discourse it is proved by Scripture, as well as other Testimonies, that the Authority of all Sovereign Powers is from God, which I also allow; yet doth it not hinder, but that the Consent and Submission of the People, is a necessary means, or Condition of conveying this Authority when God doth not please, to make or Nominate Kings himself. 2dly. That the Persons as well as Power of Sovereign, tho' wicked, Princes is also Sacred, and Irresistible, yet this is to be understood, whilst they continue to act towards their whole People, as the Ordinance of God, and by virtue of that Divine Commission which they have received from him.  
In the second Part of this Discourse, it is proved from Scripture, Testimonies of the Fathers, and other Authors, that particular Subjects are bound to obey the Supreme Powers in all lawful, and indifferent things, or else to submit, and suffer the punishment in case of their unlawful Laws, or Commands. As also to bear with any Violence, and Injury that may be offered to them, rather than to disturb the public Peace, and Civil Government of the Common wealth,  
2 lie. That in the time of the Primitive Church, and before the Christian Religion was settled By Law, and become part of the Civil Constitution of whole Kingdoms and States; It was unlawful to Resist the Supreme Powers in case of Persecution, tho' to death itself, for the Testimony of Christian Religion: which I have also allowed through this whole Conversation: Yet none of these Quotations, as I can see, do reach the matter in Controversy, between us, and assert it expressly to be absolutely unlawful for the whole People of any Kingdom, or Nation to make use of defensive Arms, and Resist the Intolerable Violence, and Tyranny of the Supreme Powers, if they shall happen to make War upon their People, and go about to take away and subvert the main Ends of all Government, viz. the Preservation of men's Lives, Liberties and Civil Properties. Neither do they any where assert, that in limited o● mixed Governments such as most of those now in Europe, where the People, by the fundamental Constitutions of the Government, or the aster Concessions of Princes, restraining their own absolute Power, enjoy divers Privileges, and Liberties, unknown to those who live under absolute Monarchies: That the People may not upon the manifest Invasion of such Legal Right by force, Resist, and defend themselves, and their just Right against the violent Invasion of the Prince.  M. 
I cannot deny but you have fairly enough represented the Chief Heads, or Principles, which the Reverend Primate ●ndertakes to prove in this Excellent Treatise: And I think you have yourself granted enough to confute all you have already said For in the first place, if it be unlawful, for every particular private Subject to Resist the Supreme Powers, it will likewise follow, that it will be also unlawful, for a whole Nation. For a whole Nation, is only a Systeme or Collection of particular Persons, and Universals have no real Being in Nature, but only in our Ideas: So that if it be unlawful for every particular Person to Resist, and defend himself, in case he is injured, and oppressed, it must be also unlawful for a whole People, which consists of individuals to make such Resistance; and it is a Rule in Logic, that nothing can be affirmed of Individuals, which may not also be affirmed of the whole Species.  
So likewise if you grant, That the Primitive Christians ought not to have Resisted the Supreme Powers in case of Persecution for Religion, I think it will likewise as well prove, that they ought not to Resist upon any account whatsoever, since certainly, there cannot be greater Wrongs, or Violences committed in the World by Supreme Powers, than to allow them an Irresistible Power of putting those to death that bear witness to the Truth of the Gospel, since a whole Nation may be as well thereby destroyed, if they prove firm to the Christian Religion, and that the Prince continue obstinately Cruel. And you might as well argue that Patient Suffering without Resistance ought not to be exercised in this Case, because it is destructive to Mankind, and the Quiet of a Civil Society, as to argue from the same Reason that a whole Nation is not obliged to suffer without any Resistance; when their Lives, Liberties and Properties are invaded by the Supreme Powers. So that if the Primitive Christians might not Resist the Roman Emperors, when they made so great a part of the People, and were so vast a multitude in the Roman Empire in the time of Tertuliian, as that he tells the Emperor Sever●● in his Apology for the Christians to this effect, That had they a mind to profess open Hostility, and to practise secret Rev●nge, could they want numbers of Men, or source of Arm●? Are the Moors, the Marcomans, or the Parthians themselves, or any one particular Nation whatsoever, more in number than they, who are spread o●er the whole World? They are indeed not of your way, and yet they have silled all you have; your Cities, Islands, Castl●s, Towns, Assemblies, your very Tents, Tribes, and Wards, yea the Palace, Senate and Place of Judgement.  
Nor need I to mention at large the famous Story of the Th●baean Legion, who all of them suffered Death rather than they would either Sacrifice to Idols, or Resist the Emperour ●s Forces, tho' they were between six or seven thousand Men, and might have sold their Lives dear enough. And if an Emperor may murder so many thousands without any Resistance, I see no Reason why he may not put a whole Nation of Christians to death by the same Reason.  
Nor will one of your Reasons which you bring for it, signify any thing, that the Christians were to suffer without Resistance, because Paganism was then the Religion Established by the Law of the Empire; for if a Municipal Law, as this was, aught to be overruled by the Natural Law or self-defence when they happen to Clash, than the Christians who lived under the Heathen Emperors, might lawfully have taken up Arms against the Government because they were deprived of their Lives and ●●rt●in●s against all Equity and Humanity. For to persecute men so remarkably Regular, and Peaceable, both in their Principles and Practices, is as manifest a Violation of the Law of Nature, as is possible. And if it was Lawful for them to Resist, than they seem bound in Conscience to do it whenever they had a Probability of prevailing. For without doubt, it's a great fault for a Man to throw away his Life, impoverish his Family and encourage Tyranny, when he hath a fair▪ remedy at hand.  F. 
If you had a little better remembered, what I have already said on this Subject, you might have spared these Objections, for as to the first of them, it is rather a Logical Fallacy, than a true Answer. For in the first place, I have all along Asserted, that no Man ought to give up his Right of self defence, but in order to a greater good, (viz. the public Peace and Preservation of the Commonwealth.) And therefore, Dr. Fern, and others of your Opinion, do acknowledge, that David might have made use of defensive Arms to defend himself against those Cutthroats, that Saul send to take away his Life, tho' he might not have Resisted Saul's own person, and you yourself have already granted, that no Man can want Authority to defend his Life against him that hath no Authority to take it away. So that if this Law of Self-defence is sometimes suspended, it is only in Submission to a Higher Law of preserving the public Peace of the Common wealth, or Civil Society, which being once br●ken and gone by a general Violence upon all men's Lives, Liberties and Properties of that Nation, or Kingdom, that Obligation of maintaining the public Peace being taken away, every Man's natural Right of not only defending himself, but his innocent Neighbour, again takes place. And therefore, your Logical Maxim, that nothing can be affirmed of Individuals, which may not be affirmed of the whole Species, signifieth nothing in this Matter; for every Individual had before potentially a Right of Self-defence, though they were under an Obligation, not to reduce it into Act, till the Bonds of that Civil Society were dissolved, and then it is true, they do not then Resist to maintain that Civil Government which is already gone, but to get out of a State of Nature, and set up a New one as soon as they can.  
But as to your second Objection, which I confess hath more weight in it, than the former; I shall make this Answer, that you yourself have given a sufficient Reason why a whole Nation or Church, that professes the Christian Religion, cannot be destroyed by all the Malice and Persecution that can fall upon it by Persecuting Monarches, for you tell us, that it is the special Privilege of the Christian Church above the rest of Mankind that they are God's peculiar Care, and Charge; and that he doth not permit any suffering, or Persecutions to befall them, but what he himself order and appoints: And that it is a great Happiness, to have our Condition immediately allotted by God. So that it seems it cannot be in the Power of the Cruelest Tyrant utterly to destroy Christianity, in any Country where it is truly taught, by all the Persecution that he can use. This was the State of Christian Religion whilst it was in its Infancy, and in which, we may observe more particular Declarations of God's Providence by Miracles, and the Divine Inspirations of his Holy Spirit, than after it was grown up, and that all the World became Christians. In its Infancy, 'tis plain that Princes could not destroy it, because it was supported by Miracles, and supernatural Means, but in the other State, when Christianity was once grown up, settled and able to shift for itself, by being made the Religion of the Empire, and the greatest part of Mankind embracing it in those and other Countries, Princes than could not destroy it, if they would, because their Subjects had then a Right to it, and a Property in it, as much as they had to any thing else they enjoyed, and consequently might be preserved by the same Human Means. Thus during the State of the jewish Church in the Wilderness, and for some time in the Land of Canaan, we find the Children of Israel fed, and delivered from their Enemies by Miracles. But after they had been long settled in it, and had Renounced the Immediate Government of God, they were then left to preserve themselves by the same natural means with other Nations.  
And tho' I grant that such Persecutions, when ever they fall out, are very Prejudicial to the Peace and Happiness of those Nations that labour under them; Yet this is no sufficient Reason against Pa●ient-suffering for Religion without Resistance. For since our Saviour is the Author of our Salvation, and hath ordained that itshall be propagated not by Force or Resistance, but by Sufferings, and that he hath promised us an Eternal Weight of Glory, for our submitting our Wills and Natural Affections to his Divine Commands, it is not for us to dispute the Reason of it, since that he who pleased to bestow upon us so great a Benefit without our Desert, might propose it to us upon what Conditions he pleased, tho' never so hard to be performed. Yet is this to be so understood, as that this Suffering for the Testimony of Christ may serve for that great End for which he ordained it, (viz.) the Propagation of his own true Religion, by our bea●ing Testimony to it, in our courageous and patient Suffering, which in a Kingdom or Nation, where Christianity, or any true Procession of it, is become the general, and Na●●onal Religion, cannot now be supposed to be necessary. And this may serve also for an Answer to your last Reply; For tho' I own, that the Municipal Laws of Common wealths cannot abrogate any of our Natural Rights; but only in order to some greater good or Benefit tending thereunto, yet certainly, the Revealed Law of God may, and doth in some Case abridge us of divers of those Rights, which Men by the Law of Nature might have made use of.  
But as for your Quotation out of Tertullian, though I have good Reason to question the very matter of Fact, since I can hardly believe, that how numerous soever the Christians might be, or whatever mischief they might have done privately by setting the City on fire in the Night time, which he also mentions a little before, as one of the ways by which they might have revenged themselves; Yet do I not think, that they were then either for Strength or Number sufficient to have made any Considerable Resistance, if they would, against the Praetorian Bands, and other standing Legions which were then, if not all, yet for the greatest part Heathens: The most part of the Christians of those times, consisting of the meaner and mechanical Sort of People altogether undisciplined, and unarmed, and so perhaps these Christians were under no other Obligations, to Non resistance, than what the particular Providence of God, had brought them to, as these French Protestants, who remain still in France, are now under, that is, Obligations of Fear, and not of mere Conscience.  
And as for your Example of the Thebaean Legion, tho' it is true they might have sold their Lives dear before they had been killed, yet would this Resistance have served them to little purpose against the Rest of the Army, which might consist of 30, or 40000 men, all Heathen, and Headed by the Emperor himself. But what if after all this stir about this Story, it should not be true? for Eusebius and Socrates who lived nearer the time in which this Action is supposed to be done, make no mention at all of it; tho' they had very good occasion to do it. The first writer that ever made any mention of this Story was Eucherius Archbishop of Lions, who did not write this Act o● the Martyrs till above 150 years after the thing was done, and he is also followed by one Ado in his Martyrology, who lived likewise some time after him, when writing of Legends began to grow in Fashion. But granting all the matter of Fact to be as you relate it, it proves no more than what I have already granted, that, the Christians were at that time obliged to lay down their lives, for the Testimony of Christ rather than to make any Resistance; but that this Precept is of a Constant, and Eternal Obligation when the Ends for which it was ordained, are no longer of any use, and when our Religion is established by such Laws, as the King himself cannot abrogate or dispense with, I utterly deny: And certainly, if you were not very much blinded with the Prejudice of these Notions of Passive-Obedience and Non Resistance, you would not leave all the People of England at the Mercy of a Popish King to be dragooned out of their Lives, Liberties and Estates as the Protestants have been in France and Savoy, whenever the King shall please to put them to that severe Trial.  M. 
You have given me a very long, and I wish I could say a satisfactory Answer, and I see, provided it would serve your turn, you do not value how much you vilify the Sufferings of the Primitive Christians by making them not of Ability to make any considerable Resistance if they would. Tho' Tertullian expressly affirms the contrary, and so you likewise take upon you to follow the Example of a late D●ctor; and to Question the Truth of the Story of the Thebaean Legion, which tho' it might not be committed to writing before Eucherius published it, yet might be very well have received a faithful account of this matter either by Tradition, or by some Private Memorials that might be kept of it in that Church; since they suffered this Martyrdom, not far from Octodurum a place now called Martinach in Valla●s a part of Switzerland, and not far from Lions, so that he might very well have a sufficient Information of such a remarkable Action as this was.  
Nor doth what you say, savour less of a Latitudinarian Principle, whilst you maintain, that a Patient Submission to the Supreme Powers is not of constant, and Eternal Obligation in all Circumstances which is contrary to the opinion of the Primitive Fathers, and also of the Church of England. But if St. Paul's Doctrine be true, that we are not to do the least Evil that Good may come: And if our Saviour hath enjoined us, not to resist the Supreme Pours upon any account whatsoever, and also to lay down our Lives for the Testimony of the Truth, we ought certainly to observe his Commands, let the Consequence be what it will, tho' it were to the total Destruction of a whole Church, or Nation: Since God if he pleases may by the just Course of his Providence lay such severe judgements upon us, who can also infinitely reward us for our Patient Suffering of them, in the Life to come.  F. 
I think I may without any Crime, Question the Truth of Tertullian's account of the Power the Christians had to make any considerable Resistance in his time, for sure, he may be out in such a Nice matter of Fact: Since he could be guilty of such gross Errors in point of Doctrine, for before he turned Mortanist, he was like our Quakers, and thought all Resistance of what kind soever unlawful; and therefore, he tells us in his Apologetic, Idem sumus Imperatoribus qui & vicinis no, 〈◊〉, and a little after, Quodeunque enim non licet in Imperatorem, ●d nec in quenq●●m, and he likewise condemned all ●light in time of Persecution, as you may see in the Treatise he writ upon that Subject.  
And as for the bare Practice of Primitive Christians, they are not of any general binding Example to us, unless the Principle they go upon be true, since I doubt not but many of them suffered Death out of a pure desire of Martyrdom of which Sulpitius Severus tells us, they were more Covetous, than Men were in his time of Bishoprics, in so much, that it was a common thing even for Women, and Boys to offer themselves to voluntary Martyrdom that the Council of— was forced to make a Decree on purpose to forbid it.  
And as for the Truth of the Story of the Thebaean Legion, it not being recorded by any Writer of the Age in which it is said to have been done; I think a Man may very well question its reality without any Suspicion of Heresy: And when I can see those Arguments answered by you, or any Body else, which the Learned Doctor you mention hath brought against it, I will give more credit to it than now I do. But you may call me a Person of Latitudinarian Principles as much as you please in this matter, until you are able to prove to me by better Arguments than you have done hitherto, that the Doctrine of Nonresistance in Case of Persecution for Religion, is of Constant, and Eternal Obligation, unless it be in the same Case in which the Primitive Christians, were obliged to suffer, rather than resist; and till this be done, I fear not falling under St. Pau●'s Censure of doing Evil, that good may come of it; and unless God had in downright Terms commanded it, I will never Believe, but that I may have a very good Right in such a Government as ours to de●end my Life, against any one that would take it away upon the bare score of Religion; nor can I think it a Doctrine suitable to the justice, and Goodness of God to ordain a whole Nation to fall as a Sacrifice to the Cruelty, or Superstition of any one, or more Men.  
But since you are pleased to urge me with Examples of Primitive Christians, who chose to die, rather than Resist, or R●b●l against their Prince, pray give me leave likewise to tell you a few stories, wherein these Primitive Christians have not showed themselves, so staunch in this matter as you would make them.  
In opposition therefore to your Thebaean Legion, I may set those Legions that composed the Army in Gaul, and which saluted julian (afterwards the Apostate) Emperor contrary to their Allegiance to the Emperor Constantius, renouncing which, they took an Oath of Allegiance to the former, whilst the latter was yet alive, and had certainly fought against him and resisted him with a Witness, had he not chanced to have 〈◊〉 by the way, before they could meet to decide the Quarrel,  M. 
Pray give me leave, Sir, to interrupt you a little, tho' I cannot deny, the matter ●f F●ct to be as you say, and likewise that this Army was for the most 〈…〉 yet they were, I suppose, drawn in partly ●ut of hatred to Constantius, because he was an Arian, and p●rtly out of Compassion to julian, who was at that time upon very ill Terms with C●nst●●tius ●is Kinsman, the whole Army Suffering many 〈◊〉 for his sake, 
Vi. Ammian. Marcellin. Lib.  for whom they had a great Love and Esteem. But certainly their Loyalty to julian is very commendable, for tho' immediately after the Death of Constantius, he openly declared himself to be a Heathen; yet notwithstanding that, and his Persecution of the Christians during his whole Reign We cannot find, that either the S●ldiers, or any other Christian ever resisted▪ or rebelled against him: but that they looked upon it, as unlawful to resist him may appear by several Authorities out of the Fathers of that time.  F. 
Since you cannot deny the matter of Fact, you strive to extenuate it▪ by their hatred to Constantius for his Apostasy from the Catholic Faith: and the severe, and rigid Treatment of Constantius: But if their hatred to Him▪ because he was an Arian, could make them join with julian to rebel against him, pray tell me why they might not have rebelled also against julian, after he had declared himself an Apostate from the Christian Faith? could they have had such another Leader as julian himself? But he reigned too small a time, and was too constantly himself at the Head of his Army, to give them any opportunity to serve him as he had served his Predecessor.  
And indeed this Army of julian's was but too obedient to him, since we find that tho' they had been Christians before, yet at the time of Iulian's Death, they were then in Profession Heathens, for you will find in all the Historians, that when after the Death of julian, they chose jovian Emperor, he at first refused it, saying, that he, being a Christian, would not command Heathens, whereupon they confessed themselves to be all Christians, but certainly, this had been a very impertinent Objection, had they been publicly known so at that time.  
And tho' I grant, julian countenanced the doing of a great many violent things towards the Christians: Yet it is certain, that he never made any Sanguinary Laws against them, but rather forbid them to be put to Death, or to suffer any hardship on the account of their Religion▪ tho' I confess the Heathens, because they thought it would be acceptable to him, put many Christians to death by Force, and Violence: So that however he might be pleased with it, and connive at it, Yet did he never enact it by any public Law, or Edict, or if he had, do I allow the Christians a Liberty to have taken Arms, and resisted him upon the account of Religion. For tho' I own the Christian Religion had been established by Law, by Constantine the Great, yet was it not so throughly settled as to forbid the free and open Profession of the Pagan Superstition; the Heathens being admitted to all Offices, and Commands, as well as the Christians, and might freely perform all the Rites of their Superstition, public Sacrifices to their false Gods only excepted; so that if Constantine by his Edict could without any Rebellion, shut up the Heathen Temples, and give the Christians the public Liberty of Professing ●●eir Religion, why should not julian have the like Prerogative 〈◊〉 ●is Power was alike Supreme, and absolute, to recall those E●icts, and to make quite contrary ones, if he had so pleased?  
And tho' I also own that the Christians did not actually rise in Arms against julian yet that there were many of them wou●d have done so, is very like●● since they openly prayed for his Destruction, and gave him very undict●● 〈…〉 ●ay reproachful ●angitage, upon the account of his Apostasy, whene●er 〈◊〉 came 〈◊〉 their way▪ And thus some of those who are called Fathers, were 〈◊〉 opinion that an Apostate tho' an Emperor might be put to Death. pray Bread▪ what I have lately transcribed out of the Writings of Lucifer ●a●arit●nus (whom St. jerom calls, 
See Biblioth. Vet Patr. Tom. 4. Colon.  a Man 〈◊〉 a wonderful Constancy and of a Mind prepared for Martyrdom) who writing to the Emperor Constantius says thus to him. Pray show but one of the Worshippers of God, that ever spared the Adversaries of his Religion: And then he reads him his own Doom, out of Deut. 13.1. If there rise among you a Prophet, or a Dreamer of Dreams, saying, let us go after other Gods (for the Orthodox always charged the Arians with Idolatry) that Prophet, or Dreamer of Dreams shall be put to Death: You see what you are commanded to suffer. [And again] Hear what God hath ordained by Moses, is to be done with you, for persuading me to revolt from God, Deut. 13.6. If thy Brother, the Son of thy Mother, or thy Son, etc. Entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go, and serve other Gods, thou shalt surely kill him, etc. Here it is commanded that my Brother shall be put to Death, for inviting me to forsake God. [And in pursuance of this Doctrine, he tells him little farther to this purpose,]" That if he had been in the hands of Mattathias, or Phineas, and should have gone to live after the manner of the Heathens, without doubt they would have killed him with the Sword, which he repeats twice for fear he should forget it.  
And this Treatise being sent for by the great Ath●●asius, and being by him perused, he was so far from condemning any thing in it, that as you may see in his Letter to this Lucifer, (which is in the same Volume from whence I transcribed this) he highly praiseth him for Writing it, and calls his Book, the Doctrine of the true Faith, besides many other Commendations too long here to be repeated. And as for julian himself, Sozomen the Ecclesiastical Historian, writing of the manner of his Death, says, that it was believed by many, that he was killed by some Christian Soldier of his Army, whom he applauds for so doing.  M. 
I cannot deny, but the carriage of some Christians of those times, even of those who are called ancient Writers, or Fathers, might be too undutiful, and may be attributed to the Morose, Monastic temper of the Father you have quoted, tho' a great deal of this sort of carriage may be attributed to that Christian Zeal, which the jews called the Spirits of Fortitude, and the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we render Boldness of Confidence, and which did often transport them to say those things to persecuting Kings, or their Governors, which had been insufferable to any man else on another occasion, and this was not only in words but Actions too. Thus when the Emperors Numerianus, or De●●us, (for my Author doth not know which it was) would have entered into the Cathedral Church of Antioch, in time of Divine Service, Babylus the Bishop, standing in the Church-Porch, shut the Door against him, telling him that He would not suffer him, who was a Wolf, to enter into the Sheep fold of Christ. And we also read that Valentinian (who was afterwards Emperor) being then an Officer under julian, and wanting upon him to the Door of a Heathen Temple, gave the Priest a Box on the Ear, because he offered to sprinkle him being a Christian, with his Profane Holy Water. Yet I confess, Theodoret commends the Action, and says, they after chose that Valentinian Emperor, him who had before struck the Priest▪ And therefore, I wonder to what purpose, you quote such Passages ●ut of Ancient Writers▪ and the Actions of Primitive Christians, which, if you are a Man of that Loyalty, or good Breeding, as I hope you are, you will not yourself approve of.  F. 
I do not tell you I quote them for our Imitation, but only to let you see, that the Actions of those you call Primitive Christians, and Fathers, are not by your own Confession to be the only Pattern for us to follow; so that indeed their Practices, can signify nothing to us, unless the Principle they acted by, were suitable to the Laws of God, and right Reason; unless you will have no Precedents to be good, but what shall suit with your Humour, and those Principles you have already imbibed, and if Babylus the Martyr, might without any sin, shut the Emperor out of the Church by Force, and that Valentinian was commended for striking the Emperor's Priest on the Face, I think here are by your own Confession two sufficient Primitive Examples of Resistance, both of the Emperor's Person, as also of those commissioned by him, as certainly this Priest was, or else he could have had no Right to have exercised his Idolatrous Worship, after the Temples had been shut up under Constantine, and Constantius.  
But I now desire your Patience to let you see, that not long after these times, the Christians as well Soldiers as others, were not so through, paced in these Doctrines of Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance, as you would make them, for it was by the Rebellion of the Christian Legions in Britain, that Maximus took the boldness to Rebel against the Emperor Gratian, and making himself Emperor, marched into Gaul against him, where the poor Prince being also deserted by his Christian Army, and forced to fly away, with a few followers, was not long after murdered by Andragathius, after which this Maximus had so good Success, that he possessed himself, not only of Britain, but Spain, Gaul, and part of Germany, and was also acknowledged for Emperor by all the Subjects in those Provinces as well Clergy, as Laity, tho' the Emperor Valentinian, the Son of Gratian, was then alive. All the Bishops making their Applications to him, and desiring him to call a Council in Gaul, to suppress the Heresy of Priscillian, which he did in Compliance with their Desires, wherein they condemned him, and his Followers of Heresy, who afterwards at the Instance of Ithacius, and some other Bishops by this Usurping Emperor, were condemned with dive●s other of his Followers to suffer Death; being the first that ever, suffered that Punishment for Heresy. This Maximus after five years' Reign was overcome, and killed in Battle By the Emperor Theodosius, who restored that part of the Empire to Valentinian the II.  
And farther, to let you see that the common People of these Primitive Times, tho' they were not able to make Emperors so well as the Army, yet they were not so streight-laced, as not to Resist the Emperor's Orders, whenever they thought they entrenched upon their Religion, or that they went about to persecute them for it; I can give you a great many Examples out of Ecclesiastical History, of which I will only here set down some few: 
Ch. 30.  The first is out of Socrates, Eccl Hist. Book 2 d. when the Emperor Constantius at the Instigation of Macedonius the Arian Bishop, had persuaded him to send some Bands of Soldiers into Paphlagonis, to terrify the People ●punc; and make them turn Arrians. The Inhabitants of Mantinium, inflamed with a Zeal for the Orthodox Religion, marched against the Soldiers, with a good Courage, and having provided themselves with the best Arms they could, they gave them Battle, in which few, or none of the Emperor's Soldiers escaped. And tho' I confess, (the Historians say) these People were most of them Novatians; yet this Action ought not to be condemned only for that Cause, since they were rather looked upon as Schismatics, than Heretics, and were in all things else, except that one point, about reconciling the lapsed, very Orthodox, but in all other things were more strict and scrupulous, than the Catholics themselves.  
So likewise when the Orthodox at Constantinople, had chosen Paul for their Bishop, 
Ibid. cap. 10.  but the Emperor resolving to make Macedonius Bishop in spite of their Teeth, and had sent Philip the Precedent, to fix Macedonius in that See; as he was about to give him Possession of the Church, tho' they were guarded all along with Soldiers; Yet when they came near the Door, the People made that Resistance, that they could not get in till several thousands of them were killed.  
And some years after, when the Emperor Theodosius the II. had banished St. chrysostom about the Year 404. The People flocked together about the Palace, so that the Emperor to pacify them, was forced to recall him from his Banishmen.  
And when St. Ambros● was banished by Valentinian at the Instigation of his Mother justina, 
Hist. Tripartit. L. 10. cap. 13. Hist. Ruffini L. 11. cap. 15.  the People did Resist such as came to carry him away; and such was their Zeal for the Truth, and Love to their Injured Bishop, that they chose rather to lose their Lives, than suffer their Pastor to be taken away by the Soldiers, that were sent to drag him out of the Church; I could give you more Instances of this kind, from the e Primitive Times, but these may be sufficient to show you, of how little account the Doctrine of Nonresistance was in those times▪ aft●● Christianity was once settled, and that the People supposed they 〈◊〉 the Law on their side. Neither do I produce them as fit to be imitated 〈◊〉 like Cases, but only to let you see, that the Example of those times, you call Primitive, are no Sufficient Argument of what was lawful, or unlawful to be done.  M. 
Since you yourself do allow All, or however most of these Actions to be unlawful, I think you might very well have spared the mentioning of them; since I grant, that about the End of the Fourth Century, when these things happened, not only the common People, but also 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 justify Resistance in Christians, unless you could have shown me any, before the time of Constantine, which I am sure you are not able to do, much less any Authority from any of the Primitive Fathers, which justifieth Resistance of the Supreme Powers, upon any account whatsoever.  F. 
'Tis a very hard matter to satisfy you by Quotations, for before the time of Constantine, it is evident, the Christians were not only weak, dispersed and disarmed, but had also the Laws of the Empire against them. And I have already granted, That Self-defence against Persecution upon account of Religion was unlawful; but when, in the time of Constantine's Son and Successor, the People having the Law on their side, stood upon their defence against those that would have taken away their Lives, as in the Examples I have brought of the Inhabitants of Paphlagonia, than the Instances come too late, and the Age is grown so corrupt, that they are no longer Primitive Christians, than they observe your Doctrines. But as for express Precepts, or Testimonies out of the Scriptures, and Fathers, to justify Resistance, I think it is very needless to bring any, for the great Mr. Hooker, shows us very well, that it is the intent of the Scripture to deliver us all the Credenda, and Agenda necessary to Salvation, but in other Matters, within the compass of our Reason, it is enough if we have evident Reason for them, Scripturâ non contradicente; and if the Scripture doth not forbid such Resistance, for Self-defence (as I hope I have now proved to be Lawful) I do not value whether there be any Express Authority, to be quoted out of the Fathers for it, or not. For whatever the Scripture leaves free, I think the Fathers have no Power to forbid.  M. 
I see it is to no purpose, to argue longer with you from Primitive Examples, or Testimonies; And therefore, I come now to the last thing I proposed, 
H. p. O. c. 2.  which is to show you, that the Doctrine of our Church of England, as it is contained in the 39 Articles, Canons and Book of Homilies, is as expressly for passive Obedience, and against All Resistance of the Supreme Pours, as the Primitive Church itself. And therefore, I shall begin with the Infancy of the Reformation, under Henry the VIII: For there I begin the Restoration of Religion to its Purity in this Kingdom.  F. 
I pray Sir, give me leave to interrupt you, for I must tell you, I will not be concluded by any thing that the King, or Church in those times did publish concerning matters of Faith, or Practice, since unless it were in that one Political, rather than Religious Article, concerning the Pope's Supremacy, the Church in all other Speculative and Practical Doctrines, was as much infected with Popery as it was before. And therefore, if you will have me to be converted by your Authorities, I pray begin with the Purer Times of Edward the VI and Queen Elizabeth.  M. 
I shall comply with your desires, since you will have it so▪ And therefore, I shall begin with the 39 Articles of the Church of England, 
H. P.O. ch. 1.  where in the 37 Article, (as they were passed under Queen Elizabeth Anno 1562) you may find it runs thus. The Queen's Majesty hath the Chief Power in this Realm of England, and other her Dominions, unto whom the Chief Government, of all the Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical, or Civil in all Causes doth appertain, and is not, nor aught to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction.  
It is true, this Doctrine is not limited to the particular Case of Subjects taking up Arms, but it seems to me by two necessary Consequences, to be deduced from it; First, Because if the Pope, who pretended by a Divine Right, had no Power over Kings, much less have the People any such Power, who pretend to an Inferior Right, that of Compact. Secondly, Because the Article makes no distinction, but excludes all other Power, as well as that of the Pope. And in truth, the Plea is the same on either side, the Pope says, as long as the Prince Governs according to the Laws of God, and the Church (of which He is the Interpreter,) so long the Censures of the Church do not reach him; and say the People, as long as the Prince governs according to the Laws of the Land, (and of the meaning of those Laws, they themselves will be the Interpreters) so long are they bound to be obedient; but as soon as the King doth any thing that may contradict the Pope, than he is (deservedly, say the Romanists) excommunicated, deposed, and murdered; and when he usurps upon the People's Liberties, than he ought to be deposed by the People. The Arguments on either side are the same, and for the most part the Authorities.  F. 
I must confess this is the first time, that ever I knew any Man go about to prove Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance out of the 39 Articles; and indeed I should have thought you might have deduced any thing else from these Articles, as well as that. But let us see, how, what I have sai● in this Discourse, can come within the Contents of this Article, which only says, that the King, or Queen of England, is Supreme Governor over all Persons, as also in all Causes, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, and is not subject to any foreign jurisdiction; from whence you raise this Argument, that if the Pope, who claims by a Divine Right, hath no Power over our Kings, much less have the People, who can pretend to no such Right, as he does, but only that by Compact. Now pray tell me, whether this be conclusive: I assert, that the People have by the Law of God and Nature, a Right to defend themselves, against the Supreme Powers, in case they are violently Assaulted in their Lives, Liberties or Estates. Now I would very fain have you prove to me, how Resistance for Self-defence, doth subject a Prince to any jurisdiction, either Foreign or Domestic, and whether the People can have no Right to Resist such Violence, unless they have also an Authoritative Power over them▪  M. 
It is not worth while, to dispute this any longer with you to so little purpose; 
H. P. O. p. 3, 4.  And therefore, I shall come to the Canons of the Church, and in particular, those of the year 1640, which I look upon as a full Explanation of the Belief of our Church in this Point, where you may see in the first Canon, these two plain Propositions, among others. First, That the most Sacred Order of Kings, is of Divine Right, being the Ordinance of God himself, founded in the Prime Laws of Nature, and clearly Established by express Texts, both of the Old and New Testaments.  
Secondly, For Subjects to bear Arms against their Kings, 
Bo. Sparrow's Collection of Canons, etc. p. 347.  offensive or defensive upon any Pretence whatsoever, is at least to resist the Powers, which are ordained of God: And tho' they do not invade, but only resist, St. Paul tells them plainly, they shall receive to themselves Damnation. From which you may plainly see, that this Convocation, which consisted of as great Men, as I think, had been for divers Ages, do clearly maintain Monarchy to be of Divine Right, and Resistance to be in no Case lawful.  F. 
I should grant the Canons of this Convocation, to be a good Proof of the judgement of the Church of England, were it not for two very good Reasons, I have against them. The one I will tell you presently, and the other I will keep a while to myself; In the first place therefore, I suppose you cannot but very well know, that this Convocation sat and passed these Canons, which likewise received the King's Confirmation, after the Parliament (that was summoned, together with this Convocation) was dissolved: And, I suppose, you know that by the Law of England, the Convocation having from all times been looked upon as an Appendix to the Parliament, was till then always dissolved with it. For which Reason all Acts, and Proceedings of this Convocation were condemned, 
Vid. Rush. Collect. 2 d. part 2. vol. f. 1365.  and declared null and void, by the Long Parliament▪ that began to fit the latter End of the same Year. And which is more, was likewise condemned by the first Parliament after the Restauration of King Charles the second. And therefore, I think, I have very little Reason to own th●se Canons as Conclusive.  M. 
In the first place, I might reply to what you have now said, that that very Parliament, which first condemned these Canons, 
H. P. O. ch. 2.  afterwards ruined the Monarchy itself. In the next place that in old time the General, or Provincial Synods were not Dependant upon the Assembly of the States at the same time. And I likewise farther Answer, that these Canons were made, and confirmed in a full Convocation of both Provinces of Canterbury, and York, and the making of Canons being a work properly Ecclesiastical, these Canons were made by the Representatives of the whole Clergy of this Kingdom. 2. The Canons were confirmed by the King (which was all that was of old required in such Cases) and tho' the Convocation sat after the Dissolution of the Parliament, yet this is not without Precedent even in the Happy Days of Queen Elizabeth, not to look back unto Henry the eighth, or the Primitive times. And as for your Objection that these Canons were reprobated since the Restitution of Charles the II. I say, that I quote them not as Law, but as the known Sense of the Church of England at that time.  F. 
Your first Answer in behalf of these Canons is altogether Invidious. For it was not this Parliament that ru●ned the Monarchy, but only the Rump or Fag end of it, after it had suffered divers Violences, and Exclusions of Members by the Army, and that the House of Lords (being by this junto voted useless, and dangerous) were shut out of doors; nor is your second Answer any more true, for anciently in the Saxons time, the Wittena Gemot, or Great Counsel, and the General Synod made one and the same Assembly consisting both of Clergymen, and Lay men and then all matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline were enacted and confirmed by the King, as also the Spiritual, as well as Temporal States: Nor can you show me an Example of any General, or Provincial Synod which met independently, and without the States of the Realm, until after the Reign of Henry the first, when the Popes took upon them to encroach upon the Royal Authority, as also upon our Civil Rights, and by his Lega●s to call Synods, and make Ecclesiastical Constitutions, in which neither the King, nor the States of the Kingdom had any thing to do. And tho', I grant, that upon the Reformation the King was restored to those Rights as Supreme Governor of the Church, which the Pope had before usurped, yet is not this Act of the Supremacy to be so understood▪ as to give the King all that Power, which the Pope unjustly took upon him to execute before, for that had been to make their Case no better than 〈◊〉 was before; and therefore, this Act of the Supremacy being only an Act of Restoration of the King to his Pristine Rights (of which that of Calling Synods and Convocations was one of the Principal) the King could not call nor continue those Assemblies in any other form, or after any other manner, than they were held before the Pope's Usurpation, in taking upon him to call such Independent Synods, and notwithstanding what you tell me, I am confident you cannot show me any Precedent of a Convocation so turned into a Synod as this was in all the Reigns of Henry the eighth, and Queen Elizabeth.  
But as for your last reply, that you quote not these Canons, for a Law that obliges the Church, but as the Sense of the Church of England at that time; if they do not now oblige the Church neither in Point of Belief, nor Practice as you may seem to grant, it signifieth no more to me, what was the Sense of the greatest part of the Members of that Convocation in this matter, nor doth it any more show me what is the true Doctrine of the Church of England, than if I should tell you, that because in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the Major part of the Bishops, and Clergy of our Church were rigid Calvinists in the Interpretation of that Article about Predestination, that therefore Calvinism was then the Doctrine of the Church of England, but is not so now. And therefore we ought not to take that for a Doctrine of any National Church, unless the Synod, or Assembly that declares such Doctrine be solemnly, and Lawfully assembled according to the Laws, and Customs of that Nation, or Country wherein they are so declared.  M. 
Since you so much contest the Authority of these Canons, I shall no longer insist upon them, but I shall here show you out of the Books of Homilies, 
H. P. O. p. 8.9.  to which all the Clergy in England are bound to subscribe, by Act of Parliament (as well as to the Articles and Canons) as containing wholesome Doctrine, and nothing contrary to the Word of God, so that these Homilies do indeed thereby become a part of the known Laws of the Land, that in these very Homilies there are divers passages so very full, and Plain against all Resistance of the Sovereign Powers for any Cause whatsoever, that if you are a true Church of England Man, as I hope you are, you can have no just Reason to deny their Authority.  
The Homily, or Exhortation to Obedience was made An. 1547. in the Reign of King Edward the sixth, in the second part of which Sermon of Obedience, we are told in these Words, (which I desire you to read along with me.)  
That it is the Calling of God's People to be patient and on the suffering side, and to render Obedience to Governors, altho' they be wicked, and wrong doers, and in no Case to resist, and stand against them▪ Subjects are bound to obey them (i. e. Governors) as God's Ministers▪ altho' they be evil, not only for fear, but also for Conscience sake, and here good People, let us mark diligently, that it is not Lawful for Inferiors and Subjects in any Case to resist and stand against the Superior Powers; for St. Paul's words are plain, that whoso withstandeth, shall get to themselves Damnation. Our Saviour Christ, and his Apostles received many and divers Injuries of the unfaithful, and wicked men in Authority; yet we never read that they, or any of them caused any Sedition, or Rebellion against Authority; we read often that they patiently suffered all Troubles, Vexations, Slanders, Pangs, Pains, and Death itself obediently without Tumult, or Resistance. Christ taught us plainly that even the wicked Rulers have their Power, and Authority from God; and therefore, it is not Lawful for their Subjects to withstand them, altho' they abuse their Power. Let us believe undoubtedly (good Christian People) that we may not obey Kings, if they command us any thing contrary to God's Commandments, in such a Case we ought to say as the Apostle: We must rather obey God than Man; but nevertheless in that Case we must not in any wise, withstand violently, or Rebel against Rulers, or make any Insurrection, Sedition, or Tumults either by force of Arms, or otherwise against the Anointed of the Lord, or any of his appointed Officers, but we must in such a Case patiently suffer all Wrongs and Injuries, referring the Judgement of our Cause only to God. And see part the third of the same Homily. Ye have heard before of this Sermon of good order, and Obedience manifestly proved both by Scriptures and Examples, That all Subjects are bound to obey their Magistrates, and for no cause to resist, or withstand, or rebel, or make any Sedition against them, yea altho' they be wicked men.  
I could find many more such places in our Homilies, but I shall trouble you, but with one other Passage out of the second Book of Homilies, compiled in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, in which Book the Homily against Wilful Rebellion is full to this Purpose.  
In reading the Holy Scriptures we shall find in very many, and almost infinite places, as well of the Old Testament as of the New, that Kings and Princes, as well the Evil as the Good, do Reign by God's Ordinance, and that Subjects are bound to obey them. The farther, and farther any Earthly Prince doth swerve from the Example of the Heavenly Government, the greater Plague he is of God's Wrath and Punishment, by God's Justice unto the Country, and People over whom God for their Sins hath placed such a Prince and Governor. What shall Subjects do then? What a perilous thing were it to commit to Subject 〈◊〉 judgement, which Prince is wise▪ and Godly, and his Governs 〈◊〉 good, and which otherwise? as tho' the Foot must judge of the ●ead; a● 〈◊〉 very heinous, and which must needs breed Reb●●●●●●; and is not ●●●●llion the greatest of all mischief's: A Rebel is worse than the 〈◊〉 Princepunc; and Rebellion worse than the worst Government of the worst Prince, that hitherto hath been. If we will have an Evil Prince (when God shall send one) taken away, and a good one in his Place, let us take away our wickedness, which provoketh God to place such a one over us. Shall the Subjects both by their Wickedness provoke God for their deserved Punishment to give them an undiscreet, and Evil Prince, and also R●bel against him, and withal against God, who for the Punishment of their Sins did give them such a Prince? And this Doctrine is more strictly enforced in the second part of that Homily, from the Example of King David in his Carriage towards Saul, from which it will appear, that they did not suppose David to have used so much as defensive Arms against him, as you may see by this Passage in it: That when for his most painful, true and faithful Service King Saul yet rewarded him not only with great unkindness, but also sought his Destruction, and Death by all means possible, David was fain to save his Life not by Rebellion, or any Resistance, but by flight, and hiding himself from the King's sight. From all which Passages out of the Homilies, I think, we may draw these plain Conclusions. 1. That as well Evil, as Good Governors are to be obeyed as God's Ordinance. 2. That therefore they are not to be resisted for any cause, tho' they abuse their Power never so Tyrannically. 3. That the People are not to judge when the Prince thus abuses this Power, so as thereby to make any disturbance. 4. That not only Offensive, but also Defensive Arms, if made use of against him, are utterly unlawful, and also against God's express Command.  F. 
I grant these Homilies seem to be very strictly penned against all Resistance, and aught to be (like all discourses of this Nature) Positive, and General, and perhaps if I were to preach a Sermon to the Common People on this Subject, it should be much to the same Purpose, and yet for all that I might not believe, that it was absolutely unlawful for a whole Nation to defend themselves in Case of such extreme Violence, or Oppression as I have already supposed, for when Preachers speak to Vulgar Auditors, they are not bound like Casuists to tell them all the reserved Cases in which they may be dispensed with in their Duty, lest they might use this Christian Liberty for a Closed of Maliciousness (as the Apostle tells us.) Thus if a good Preacher makes a Sermon against Stealing, or Murder, he may very justly tell the People, (a● the Authors of these Homilies do) that they ought not in any wise, or for any Cause to commit Theft, or Murder; without telling them all those Cases of mere Necessity, in which it may be Lawful to make use of the Goods of another, and also to commit Homicide; as when a Man is forced to take Victuals tho' without the owner's consent for mere Preservation of Life, or to kill a Thief, or any other Man that assaults him, to save his own Life. So tho' the Authors of these Books of Homilies do say, that we may not in any wise, and for no Cause withstand Violently, or Resist the Supreme Pours, but that we must suffer patiently all Wrongs, and Injuries, referring the judgement only to God; yet since they have not particularly put the Case as I have now done, viz. what is to be done in Case a whole Nation, or People are about to be destroyed, ruined or enslaved, and made Heathens, or Papists, by the unjust, nay illegal Violence of the Supreme Pours; we may rationally suppose, that since they were good Men, and never intended to urge these things further, than what the Scripture, and Fathers have already done, that they never really intended that a whole People, or Nation together with the Religion established should be thus ruined, and destroyed, rather than that such Resistance should be made.  M. 
But pray tell me, can there be any thing more express against your Interpretation, or more plainly oblige us to a patient Suffering without Resistance of the cruelest and most intolerable Tyranny, than these Words I last read. The farther, and farther any Earthly Prince doth swerve from the Example of the Heavenly Government, the greater Plague be is of God's Wrath, and Punishment, by God's justice, unto the Country, and People, over whom God for their Sins hath placed such a Prince and Governor. And by what there follows, you will see that tho' such a Prince be so great a Plague to them: Yet they cannot without Sin judge such a Prince, or Rebel against him, but must patiently wait God's Leisure to remove him.  F. 
I confess, this is the strictest Passage of any in the whole Book, yet doth not this expressly reach the Case here put; or if it had, do I think myself, or any Body else, obliged because of one, or two unwary Passages in this Homily, which perhaps neither the Parliament nor Convocation closely considered the evil Consequence of, or so much as knew they were there; things of this kind usually passing such great Assemblies by the Lump, as relying upon the Testimony of some Leading Bishops or Clergy men, without considering the Book of Homilies strictly, Or reading over the whole: So that the Parliament might very well declare, that they contained sound Doctrine, and nothing contrary to the Word of God, without asserting the literal Truth of every particular passage in them, much less that all, that is contained therein is to believed upon pain of Damnation; and therefore, I must beg your pardon, if I cannot suppose that all Resistance whatsoever, tho' in the most necessary Cases of Self-defence which I have now pu●, is absolutely unlawful, and rebellious; or that the Fathers of our Church ever intended to lay so hard a Yoke upon the Neck of this Nation, which neither they, nor their Fathers were ever able to bear, much less that there is thereby taken away from this Nation, defending those fundamental Rights, and Privileges, which are essential to the Nature of the Government, and which as it distinguisheth it from a Despotic Monarchy, So it doth the Subjects likewise from those of other Nations; for if the Scriptures themselves were never intended to alter Civil Constitutions, much less certainly can either our Canons, or Homilies do it. And therefore, to deal freely with you, if the Canons, and Homilies had been n●ver so express on your side; yet as long as no such Consequence can be drawn from the Holy Scriptures, I should not much value what they say, unless you can prove the Church of England to be infallible. And for this, I have the sixeenth and twentieth Article of the Church of England (made in the Year 1562.) to bear me out. The former of which concerning the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures, for Salvation runs thus, The Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to Salvation. So that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any Man, that it should be believed as an Article of Faith, or be thought necessary or requisite to Salvation. Therefore if I have plainly proved by sufficient Authority, that your Doctrines of Passive-Obe●ience▪ and Non Resistance are not expressly found in Scripture, nor by necessary Consequence may be rationally deduced from thence, they cannot be required of any Man to be believed, or practised as necessary to Salvation. And therefore, if either this Church or any other, imposes such a Burden upon me, I am not obliged to bear it: And this, the latter of these Articles of the Authority of the Church expressly asserts in these Words: It is not Lawful for the Church to ordain any thing contrary to God's Word Written, etc. (after which it follows thus.) So besides the same, it ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation. Where Note that besides the same, is to be understood any thing, that is not found therein, or may be proved thereby, by necessary Consequence as was said before; and if the whole Church itself cannot do this, certainly no Particular Church can.  M. 
Methinks Sir, it is a great Presumption in you, and those of your Party to make yourselves the sole Interpreters of those Places of Scripture, which so expressly forbid all Resistance of the Supreme Powers, and then, when you have wrested the Scriptures to your own Mind, to cry out, that you are not bound to believe these Christian Doctrines, because you suppose they are contrary to Men's humane Reason, and the too great Love they have to their own concerns, which is but the same way of reasoning, which the Socinians, and Arians, make use of against our Saviour's God head; because their narrow Understandings cannot comprehend it▪ But besides all this, I could show you out of the best Writers of the Reformed Religion, both in this, and other Protestant Churches, who interpret these Places of Scripture, against all Resistance in the same Sense, as our honest Homilies have done, but I find it grows late, and I have not time now to show you them, or if I had, do I believe you would be much Edified by them; since you make so slight of the Authority of our Homilies.  F. 
You are very much in the Right of it, and indeed, I do not desire you should put yourself to that trouble, for the Papists themselves, will not own any thing for a Doctrine of their Church, which is not expressly found in the Council of Trent, or the Catechism, composed according to its Decrees, and therefore, will not be concluded by the Sermons, or Theological Treatises, of any of the Divines of their own Church, as to any thing, or matter in debate between us. And I think, I that am a Protestant, may certainly claim alike Christian Liberty, especially, since I am very sensible upon what account, too many Men have carried these Doctrines of Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance, to so great a height, as they have done of late years: But since you tell me, that so many Learned Writers both of this, and other Protestant Churches, have been of your Mind. So I could also (if I had a mind to Cap Quotations with you) produce a sufficient number of places out of Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, and other first Reformers, as also of our own Writers at home, who have in many places of their Works allowed Resistance for self-defence, in case of Intolerable Violence, and Oppression to be Lawful, and of these I can give you a Large Catalogue, whenever you please to command me. But since they will convince you, as little as I suppose your Writers would do me, I shall forbear mentioning them any further.  M. 
I value not much, what Luther, Calvin, or any other violent Men of that sort, may out of Passion, or Inadvertency, have written on this matter, and yet I can show you a Passage out of Calvin's Institutions,, which expressly forbids Subjects, or private Persons to take up Arms against the Supreme Powers, as you may see by his own words, in the fourth Book, cap. 20. Neque enim si ultio Domini est essraenata Dominationis correctio ideo protinus de mandatam nobis arbi●remur. Quibus nullum aliud quam parendi & patiendi datum est mandatum, de privatis Hominibus semp●r loquor, and tho' I grant, some Divines of our Church have allowed Resistance in some Cases, where the People by the Laws, and Constitutions of their Country, might lawfully have made such a Defence of their Liberties, yet have they denied it in ●ll other Cases, and particularly in our own Government, which is sufficient to show, that what ever your Thoughts may be of it, yet that they thought it absolutely Unlawful, for the Subjects of this Realm to take up Arms against the King, or those who acted by his Authority, upon any Account whatsoever; and therefore, I must needs confess to you, that I look upon these Doctrines of Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance, as the distinguishing Characters of the Church of England, from all other Churches.  F. 
Tho' I do not much value the Opinion of Divines in matter of Politics, since most of 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 show you, that some Learned Men of our Church have not thought all Resistance to be unlawful, in case the main, and Fundamental Constitutions of our Government, shall happen to be assaulted, or ourselves in respect of our Liberties, and Estates, like to be reduced to absolute Vassalage, and Slavery. And therefore, if your Divines will own Resistance, where by the Constitution of the Government it is allowed, to be Lawful, I think I can also prove, that it is not only lawful, but necessary, in some Cases in our own, for the Preservation of the Original Constitution; and if this should prove so, I know not what your distinguishing Character of the Church of England will signify, unless you will make it necessary for particular Churches to have other distinguishing Characters, than the Scripture requires, or the Constitution of the Government will allow of; and if so, I doubt the Church of Engla●d would get as little Credit by such distinguishing Characters, as the Calvinist Churches abroad do by making absolute Predestination one of the Terms of their Communions, the Scriptures (without their rigid Interpretation) teaching no such Doctrine. But as for your Quotation out of Calvin, it amounts to no more than what I have all along granted, That single private Subjects, ought never to take up Arms, or resist those in Power, but when the good of the whole Commonwealth requires it. And therefore, he in the same Book, places a Power of Resistance in Subordinate popular Magistrates, whereby you may see he grants the thing lawful, but will not leave the Power of judging only in the common People, or Mobile, and so far I confess he is in the Right, though I grant those Magistrates are in respect of the Monarch, as much subject as the People.  M. 
I should be glad to know what Divines of our Church they are, who have granted Resistance of the Subjects of this Kingdom, to be in any Case Lawful, for if there are any such, I confess they are Authors unknown to me, nor do I know any, but one, who was seemingly in the Communion of the Church of England, who hath asserted this Doctrine in his Book of julian the Apostate; But you see he was presently confuted, by those learned Men of our own Church, who undertook him, and I think have so well performed it, that I cannot tell whether it hath been more for their Eternal Glory, or his Disgrace  
But as for what you say, against making Passive Obedience, the distinguishing Character of our Church, I confess, indeed, it is very bad for a Church to hold evil or indifferent distinguishing Doctrines, but it is as certain, that it is very convenient for a Church to have distinguishing Doctrines, provided they be good ones, unless a Church can be obliged to Err for Company; and to avoid distinction, which will not very well agree with the Text, that forbids us to follow a Multitude to do Evil, nor with the Practice of the Primitive Christians, when the Orthodox were so few in comparison, that had there not been some Names of Note among them, they would hardly have been reckoned a Number. But it agrees admirably well with the Principles of Popery, thus to avoid Distinction, which hath its Numbers to boast of, when nothing else is to be said.  
But there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, and St. Paul reproves the Corinthians, because one cried, he was of Paul, and another of Apollo's, a third of Cephas, and the fourth of Christ; And must not then those that held one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, necessarily distinguish themselves, from all that held more than one? And if some would say, they were of Paul, and some of Apollo's, and some of Cephas, might not others distinguish themselves from them, by saying they were of Christ?  
But by this Doctrine, you pretend we distinguish ourselves from all other Churches in the World, and so from the Catholic Church; and therefore, you cannot comprehend, why any one should value a Doctrine, so much on that score; but you may comprehend, if you please, that it was never pretended that this Doctrine 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 Protestant Churches at this day; But this is evident, by fatal Experience, that Passive Obedience, is the distinguishing Character of the Church of England, by Law Established; whereby it is distinguished from the Separate Congregations among us, both of fanatics, and Papists, and to justify this Distinction, we have the express Testimony of several of our Princes, since the Reformation, and of the Laws themselves too, that are still in force, which abundantly show how dangerous the Principles of other Persuasions are to the State, as well as to the Church ● Yet if other Churches have not so well preserved this Doctrine in its Purity, as ours hath done, as we would not provoke them to a comparison, so we have no Reason to be ashamed of it. But that many among them have taught this Doctrine, might be proved from the Writings of many of the most Learned, and Pious Foreign Divines, and particularly from a Book of a French Protestant lately written, 
Traité du Pouvoir absolu des Souverains, etc. Cologne, 1685.  who in the midst of Persecution, writes in defence of Passive Obedience, when he at the same time suffered, what we have feared.  F. 
Tho' I confess at a time, when it was made criminal for any Man publicly to maintain, that it was lawful to Resist, in case the King should go about to introduce Popery, and Arbitrary Government, among us by Force, and that whosoever went about to assert the Lawfulness of such Resistance, was sure to meet (if not with Punishment) at least with loss of Preferment, and Disgrace; when the Doctrine of Passive Obedience ran so High, both in the Press and Pulpits, it was no wonder if any of our Church, who consulted their own Safety, durst stem so violent a Current; and yet even in these times, the Learned Dr. Falcone●, in his Treatise of Christian Loyalty, Chap. 5. Sect. 2. doth, tho' cautiously, allow Resistance in such great Cases, as of a Prince's Alienating his Kingdom, or of destroying his People in an hostile manner, to be Lawful, if ever it should happen; But out of a needless fear, lest this Doctrine of Resistance may be made use of as a Pretence for Rebellion, will not allow it can scarce seem possible ever to happen in a King. Compo● mo●t●, towards, his whole Dominions. But I think I have already proved the possibility of it, and why they may not do the same in an absolute Empire, where the Prince would make them Slaves and Beggars, by invading their Liberties and Properties, I can see no Reason, but think, I have given very good ones for it.  
But as for the other Person you mention, who did openly in Print oppose this Doctrine of Resistance, whether He, or his Opponent, had the better in this Dispute. I leave to the indifferent Readers, who I believe will acknowledge, that the Author of that Treatise, did not so much forfeit his Reputation, by asserting a Right of Defence, where the Religion, and Liberty are Established by Law, and became a part of the Civil Constitution, as his Opponent did, by introducing an Arbitrary Imperial Power in this Nation, unknown to our Laws, whereby a few Mercenary Red Coats, either of th●, or a Foreign Nation, should have by the King's Commission, an irresistible Power over the Lives, Liberties and Estates of all Protestants. But since he went about to make us all Slaves by his Imperial Law, I do not 〈◊〉 all envy him so generous a Performance: And yet for all that, I had much rather have that man's Reputation, whom he appyled tho with all his Suffering, than the Gentleman's, tho' attended with all his Learning and Preferments.  
But as for what you say in 〈◊〉 of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance in all Cases whatsoever; it signifies little, since it is grounded upon a wrong Supposition, for you still take that for granted, which is the Question yet to be proved, that because the Primitive Christians were against Resistance, in case of Persecution, therefore, this must needs extend to whole Nations, a●d Common we●lths in all States, and Conditions whatsoever: which, whether you have well proved, or not, I leave it to your own Conscience to judge; for my own part, I cannot say you have convinced me, with what you have said on this Subject: So that if these Doctrines, as you have put them, are neither good in themselves, nor necessary to be believed, nor practised in all Cases, I doubt God may justly ask those, who either practice or impose them on others, Who hath required these things at your hands? And as for those Divines of Foreign Churches, who you say, have writ for these Doctrines, as well as ours, as I know not who they are, nor in what manner they have defended them, so do I not much value their Opinion; since there are many more altogether as Learned, and Pious, as they, who have held the Contrary; Nor are all Divines who maintain Passive Obedience and Nonresistance of your side, who write (which I also allow) that for particular Private Subjects, to Resist Princes in Revenge of private Injuries, and Rebel against the Supreme Powers, for not being of their own Religion, or to take upon them to call Princes to an Account, or pass judgement upon them, or punish them for their Actions, is altogether wicked and unlawful: Ye● doth it not therefore follow, that they have maintained all Resistance to be unlawful, in any Case whatsoever; though perhaps, if you were to make use of their Authority, you would produce them of your own side.  
To conclude, I own myself for Nonresistance, in that limited Sense 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 submit, to, and suffer the greatest Injustice, rather than Resist, and disturb Government, yet when the Main Foundations thereof are once begun to be pulled up: As I am an English Man, I think I am more obliged, by all Ties, both Sacred and Civil to defend, and maintain the Government, or Constitution, of which I am a Member, than I am to obey the King's personal Commands; and that being the Primary Obligation ought to be discharged in the first place.  M. 
I shall no longer compare, whether the Divines that write for, or those that write against Resistance, are the wiser, or more Learned; since you yourself, it seems, at last are feign to own a limited Nonresistance, which you will have extend to private Persons, but not to the whole Civil Society, or People; But I think I may venture still to maintain, that the Supreme Power, where ever it is placed, must be Irresistible, and that a whole Civil Society, or People, who are not invested with part of the Sovereignty, can have no more Right to Resist, than single Persons: For to say, that whole Societies have a Power to Resist, and that particular private Persons, as Members thereof, have it also, is such a Diminution of Supreme Power, as can never be consistent with it, for all Inferiors, whether Private Persons, or whole Societies can have no Power, but what is derived from the Supreme, and therefore, if they have a Right to Resist, even that must be derived from the Supreme Power, and so that Power, must destroy itself.  
But as for what you allege in your justification, that Resistance may be Lawful, to avoid Subversion of the Government: To this I may reply, that if Subjects be no longer in Subjection, to the Supreme Powers, the Government is hereby destroyed for what more manifest Subversion can there be, than this, That Subjects are now no longer in Subjection, nor Governors can be no longer able to Govern? So that this Argument tends only to prove, that Subjects may Subvert the Government one way, rather than suffer the Sovereign Power to do it another. So that upon the whole matter, if the Government m●st be Subverted, you would have no body, have the doing of it but yourselves.  F. 
However false your Premises are, and however weak the Proofs that you have brought for them, yet I see you are resolved to stick close to your Conclusion, (i. e.) That all Supreme Powers are absolutely Irresistible. In which Dispute, whether you or I, have been in the wrong, I dare appeal to any indifferent judge; for I think I have sufficiently made out, that Resistance, by the whole People, or Major part of it, against a general, and Intolerable Tyranny, is no Diminution of Supreme Civil Power, nor inconsistent with it; nor is your Reason for your Opinion, any truer than the rest, that Private Persons, whether taken single, or in a whole Civil Society, can have no Power, but what is derived from the Supreme, which is by no means so, for every private Man of the Society, than acts by a Power precedent to it, viz. the Natural Power of Self-Preservation, or Defence; which no man ever absolutely gave up neither for himself, nor his Children, when he became a Member of that Commonwealth: Tho' he was obliged for the Peace of the Government, or Civil Society, to suspend that Right in order to a greater Good, which once failing, upon the Dissolution of the Government, every Man's Original Right takes place.  
As for what you say against my Notion, that Resistance is Lawful, when it may prevent the Subversion of the Government, your Reply to this is really Equivocal, and consists in that false, or wrong Notion, you have of the Nature of our English Government, which you suppose only consists in the Preservation of the King's Personal Pow●r, without any respect to the Laws, or Fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom, and that as long as the People are in Subjection, whether to Legal Government, or illegal Force; it is all one, the Government is still preserved, which is a great mistake, for the King receiving his Power from the Law, and having no Authority but what that gives him, when he overthrows the Fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom, he doth himself destroy the Government. And therefore, when in that Case the People do resist, it is either to maintain it, or else to restore it to the state that it was in before; so that it is not the People, in this Case, who have subverted it, but the King.  M. 
It now grows late, and it is high time to give over, but if you please to give me another Meeting, I doubt not but to show you, that by the Original Constitution of this Government, the King not only hath the sole Supreme Power, but that by several Acts of Parliament all Resistance of the King, or those Commissioned by him, is absolutely against the Laws and fundamental Constitutions of this Kingdom; and that they are all by our Laws Rebels that dare presume to make such unlawful Resistance: And I desire, that you would give me a patient bearing in this matter, because I have so great a Kindness for you, that I would not have you lie under so dangerous an Error, which may happen to prove fatal to your Happiness, not only in the World to come, but also to the Safety of your Self, and Family in this Life, if you should offer to put in practice, what you have here maintained.  F. 
Sir, I give you many thanks for your kind Intentions towards me, since I do believe it proceeds from that real Friendship you have for me, tho' as for the former of those Judgements you mention, I hope I shall have no Reason to be afraid of it; for any thing I can yet see from th●se Arguments you have hitherto urged: But as for what may happen to me in this Life, I hope I have as little Reason to fear it, since I believe this great Revolution will not only justify, but for the future defend those Arms that have been taken up for the restoring the true Ancient Government of the Kingdom.  M. 
I confess, Sir, that you have now too much the advantage of me during these times of Anarchy, and Confusion; but yet I hope one day to see this unhappy Nation again recovered from this sad Apostasy; into which I confess too many have lapsed, and then I doubt not, but these Primitive, and Loyal Doctrines of Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance will be again restored to their former Integrity, and Vigour.  F. 
Well Sir, all I can say to you is, that I see you are not only in Love with Slavery, but also with th●se that would bring it in upon us; yet however I think: I may give you this good Advice, that if you are not pleased with what hath been already done, since you have had no hand in the doing of it, you would be contented quietly to sit still, and enjoy those Benefits, that may thereby accrue to the whole Church, and Nation; since I thereby expect a firmer Settlement of the Protestant Religion, as also of our Civil Liberties, than we ever yet enjoyed.  M. 
I thank you for your Advice, and you know as my humour is not to be Troublesome, or Clamorous against that which is not in my Power to help, so on the other side, I heartily wish that the Prince may now agree with his Majesty upon such Terms, as may prove for the good of the Church, and security of the State. But pray tell me, when I may be so happy as to see you here again, that we may fully resolve this last Question?  F. 
To Morrow I shall be engaged, but the day after being one of the Christmas holidays, I shall not fail to wait on you at the same hour, and I am very well pleased to wait on you here, since I foresee a great part of our next Conversation, will depend upon Authorities out of Books, with which your Study is very well furnished, and my own are not in Town.  M. 
I shall expect your Coming with Impatience, and in the mean time, I am your humble Servant.  F. 
Sir, I am yours.  
FINIS.   

Bibliotheca Politica: Or, A DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE, WHETHER The King be the Sole Supreme Legislative Power of the Kingdom; and whether our Great Councils or Parliaments, be a Fundamental Part of the Government, or else proceeded from the Favour and Concessions of former Kings.  
Collected out of the most Approved Authors, both Ancient and Modern.  
Dialogue the Fifth.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, near the Oxford-Arms; where also may be had the First, Second, Third and Fourth Dialogues. 1692.   

THE Bookseller's Advertisement to the READERS.  
THE Author has ordered me to beg your Pardons on his behalf, that he hath made bold in this Discourse to deviate from the method he at first proposed for the subject of the ensuing Dialogue, since instead of treating of the Original of Civil Authority, and in what sense it is derived from God, and in what from the People (as he promised in his Epistle to the first Discourse) he hath now made the Supreme Legislative Power, and the Fundamental Constitution of our Government, together with the Antiquity of Great Councils or Parliaments in this Nation (whether they always consisted of Bishops, Barons, or Temporal Lords and Commons or not) the Subject of this as well as of the ensuing Dialogue; so that th●se grand Questions taking up two entire Discourses, had the Author pursued the Method he at first proposed, he could not have brought his whole design within the compass of Eight Dialogues, as he at first intended, and still hopes to do; and therefore to ease you of the trouble of buying, or reading more Discourses on these Subjects, than what he takes to be absolutely necessary, he hath reduced all that he had prepared for the Fifth Discourse upon the Subject above mentioned, into the two last Dialogues, wherein he designs to treat of the Justice, and Lawfulness of the late Revolution, and the Settlement of the Crown upon their present Majesty's, where the then Questions he intended to treat of will properly enough fall in.  
But it is time to speak somewhat concerning this present Discourse, since it treat of a Question to be decided only from the History and Laws of this Nation. And the Author bids me assure you, that he hath laid down nothing therein on either side, but what he hath produced good Authorities for; either from the Histories and Governments of our own or other Neighbouring Nations, or from the Colle●●ions of our English Saxon Laws, and ancient as well as modern Writers upon the Laws of England, and lastly from our Statutes or Acts of Parliament since the reputed Conquest, which he found necessary to these Subjects, without omitting any Authority that he judged material to be urged on either side.  
But as for the Quotations themselves, I hope they are truly cited, for the Author assures me upon the word of a Gentleman, that he is not conscious of any unfair dealing in that kind, either by any wilful omission, or concealment; and as for the Books, Chapters or Pages here quoted, if there be any error or mistake of that kind, I pray impute it to the Press, and not to the Author as well in this, as all the rest of these Discourse; since he could not be in Town to correct them himself, but he intends God willing) to rectify all such mistakes by a Table of Errata at the end of the whole work, to which he intends also to add an Exact Index of all the Principal Matters that are debated in it; but though I take the Author for an honest Gentleman, and one who scorns the mean advantage of a false Quotation, yet since many Writers (like Montebanks) are apt to cry up their own sincerity even when they deceive you most; the best advice I can give you is, that if you have the le●st distrust of any thing here quoted, you consult the Authors or Books themselves, from whence he hath transcribed them, and then you will be best able to judge how far you may trust him another time.  
As for those Parliamentary Records here cited, they are either such as have been already Printed from the Rolls in the Tower, or other Offices at Westminster, and so are allowed for Authentic, or else are s●ch as have not yet been made public, as for which as well as the former, if you have the least distrust of any of them, I leave you to search the Records themselves, which are I hope now communicated without any reserve to all that are willing to take the pains to consult them; I have no more to add; but to assure you (not from my own, but better judgements) that you will find more in this small Treatise than ever was yet published at once (or perhaps at all) upon these important Subjects.  
Note. If the Author hath made one of his Opponents call the Entrance of King William 1. into England, and his taking the Crown upon the same condition as his English Predecessors, a Conquest; it may be understood in the largest Acceptation of that word, and for Brevity sake only.   

Authors made use of, and how Denoted.  

1. Harmony of Divinity and Law. H. D. L.  
2. Dr. johnstons' Excellency of Monarchical Government. I. E. M. G.  
3. Huntons' Treatise of Monarchy. H. T. M.  
4. Sir R. filmer's 

Freeholders Grand Inquest. F. F. G.  
Anarchy of a mixed Monarchy. F. A. M. M.    
5. Dr. Heylin's Stumbling-Block of Rebellion. S. B. R. The Folio Edition.  
6 Mr. Petyt's Preface to his Ancient Rights of the Commons of England, Asserted. P.P.R.C.  
7. Dr. Brady's Answer to the said Treatise. B. A. P.   
The Folio Edition.   

THE Fifth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman.  M. 
YOU are welcome Sir, I pray set down by the Fire; I was thinking before you came in, of the best method of managing this Important Question, whether by the Laws and Constitutions of this Kingdom, it can in any Case whatever be Lawful to Resist the King, or those that Act by Virtue of his Commissions. I shall therefore proceed in the next place, to the Proof of the Second Proposition, in the Argument I at first proposed, or to speak Logically, the Minor in the Syllogism, viz. That the King of England is the Sole Supreme, or Sovereign Power in this Kingdom; and therefore is irresistible, and that not only as to his own Person, but also with respect to all such who act by his Orders or Commissions, though the things commanded be in themselves Illegal.  F. 
I do not dislike your method, though if you could never so plainly make out to me the truth of this Minor Proposition, yet it will come too late to prove, that all Resistance of Supreme Powers is unlawful in all Cases whatever, since I think you have failed in the Proof of that your fi●st Proposition: But since I do not deny the truth of this second Proposition in some sense; I pray be as short as you can in the proof of it.  M. 
I shall observe your desire, and shall briefly recite some Authorities, as well Ancient as Modern, as also Acts of Parliament, which declare an Absolute and Imperial Power, to be Solely in the King. To begin with the Saxon times: 
I.E.M.G. ch. 17. p. 122. et. ●ein.  First, as to the Title of King or Emperor used Promiscuously: Our King Edgar frequently in his Charters, ca●s himself Albionis & Anglorum Ba●ileus, and the Grecians esteemed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be of full as Eminent a Signification, as Emperor; and King Ed●ar● the Confessor, in a Charter to the Abbey of Peterburg Styles himself, Rex Anglorum, and his Government a Monarchy: 
God. Vigorn. & Mon●st. Ang. part. 2. p. 64.  And King Ethelred in his Charter to Canterbury, Stiles himself Angligenum, Orcadarum, necnon in Gyrojacentium Monarcha, & Anglorum Induperator. So that you hereby may see, that the Kings of England long before the Conquest, looked upon themselves as Emperors, or absolute Civil Sovereigns. So likewise after that time, we find W. Rufus Dates his Charter to the Monastery of Shaftsbury; Secundo anno Imperi● mei: And tho' the Title of Emperor hath been disused, yet we shall find the Substance of it, sufficiently Challenged in that Letter of W. Rufus to Archbishop Anselm, telling him, That he had all the Liberties in his Kingdom, which the Emperor▪ 
Vi. Mat. Paris in vita Will. 2●.  challenged in the Empire: And the like was challenged by Henry the First, in all his Disputes with the Pope concerning the Investiture of Bishops and Abbots; and in all the Statutes of Praemunire, made by Edward the Third, the King's Sovereignty independent from the See of Rome, is expressly Asserted; and the Statute of the 16th. of Richard the Second, expressly declares: That the Crown of England hath ever been so free, that it is under no Earthly Subjection; but immediately subject to God in all things, touching the Regality of the Crown, and to no other. And the Statutes of the 24th, and 25th. of Henry the Eighth, expressly declare: That this Realm of England, is an Empire Governed by one Supreme Head and King; and the Crown, or Royal Authority, is also thereby declared Imperial, and the Kings of England are therein Sti●ed Kings or Emperors of this Realm. So that I think, no Man needs to doubt where the Supreme, or Sovereign Power of this Kingdom resides.  F. 
I will not deny any of those Authorities, you have now made use of: Since, Titles alone are no proofs of Power; for it is very well known, that the German Emperor, yet, notwithstanding that great Title, is not therefore unaccountable, or Irresistible; Since the College of the Prince's Electors may Depose him for Maladministration, or for Violating any of the Fundamental Constitutions of the Empire. And Mr. Selden hath very well observed in his Titles of Honour, that this Supremacy or Freedom from all Subjection is not only challenged by our English Sovereigns; but also by the Kings of Denmark, Sweden and Poland: The former of which, yet was so far from being an absolute Monarch, that before the Reign of this King's Father, he might have been Deposed for Tyranny, for Misgovernment by the Estates of the Kingdom, as the King of Poland may at this Day: And therefore these Titles may indeed, prove a Freedom from all Foreign Jurisdiction; but doth not prove that the King is Endued with an Absolute Sovereign Power within the Kingdom, as you may see in these Examples I have now given you.  M. 
If you are not Satisfied with these Proofs; I doubt not but to give you other Authorities, both out of Ancient and Modern Lawyers, as also Acts of Parliament, which sufficiently declare, where the Supreme or Sovereign Power Resides. In the first place, I suppose you will not deny; but that it hath been the Prerogative of the Kings of England, time out of mind, to Co●● Money, Dispose of all Offices, and Create new Dignities, as he should think fit, as also to make War and Peace, to make Laws, and in short, to do all things whatsoever that are Essential to a Monarch; and that he alone, is the Sole Sovereign Power in this Kingdom, Exclusive of all others: Our Ancient Lawyers, Gla●vil, and Fortescue, plainly declare; The former of which, 
Lib. 7. c. 10.  says thus. Rex nullum ●ab●re potest▪ parem multò minùs Superiorem. The same thing is also repeated by Bracton, and a very good Reason given for it, in these words; 
Lib. 3. c. 9  Omnis quidem sub eo, & ipse sub nullo, nisi tantum Sub Deo, parem non habet in Regno Suo, quia Sic amitteret praeceptum, 
* i e. His power of Commanding.  cum par in parem non ●abe● Imperium Item n●c multò fortius Superiorem nec Potentiorem habere debe●, quia sic esset inferior sibi Subjectis & inferiores pares esse non possunt potentioribus.  F. 
But pray read what immediately follows: Ipse autem Rex non debet esse Sub bomine, Sed Sub Deo & Sub L●ge, quia Lex facit Regem, attribuat igitur Rex Legi quod Lex attribuit ei, viz. Dominatiorem & Potestatem, non est enim Rex ubi dominatur Voluntas, & ●on Lex. And though I grant the King is Subject, or Inferior to no particular private Man: Yet that he hath a Superior, or Master within the Kingdom, besides God and the Law (and so is not the Sole Supreme Power) appears by a Passage out of the same Author, 
C. 16.  in the Second Book: Rex habet Superiorem Deum item legem per quam factus est Rex, item Curiam Suam, viz. Comites & Barones, quia Comites dicuntur quasi Sociè Regis, & qui habet Socium habet Magistrum, & ideo si Rex fuerit sin● froena, i. e. Lego, debent ei froenum ponere. From which words, it seems apparent to me, that this Author thought the King was not only Inferior to the Law; but was also to his Court of Parliament, called here Curia Baron●●, who might Bridle or Restrain him if he Transgresed the Laws, which are here called the King's Briale▪ Nor can I conceive how this could be done without some kind of Force or Constraint, if he refuse to receive this Bridle, they would lay upon him.  M. 
I do not desire at this time, to enter upon this Question, concerning that Power; which I know some Parliaments have pretended too, of C●●bing and Resisting the King by force, if they supposed He Invaded the Fundamental Rights and L●b●r●ies (as they call them) of the Nation; and that fo● two Reasons: First, because it is not pertinent to our present purpose, of proving that the King is not the Sole Supreme Power, as also▪ because you very well know, that both Houses did in 13 Car. 2. by an Act of Parliament concerning the Militia, Solemnly Renounce all Coercive Power over the King, or any Right in either, or both of the Two Houses, of making Offensive or Defensive War against him. But if you have a mind hereafter to course further on this Subject I doubt not, but to prove to you from divers other Passages out of Bracton, 
H. D. L. p. 41.  and that old Treatise called Fleta, that it was no Political Superiority in the Curia Baronum; but only a Directive Power or moral Superiority, which they had of Advertising the King of any Arbitrary Proceeding, or Injustice he should happen to do; and by Complaint, Admonition and Entreating to impose upon him to amend the same, according to his Oath, but not by Coaction, or Constraint; And in this Sense they may be said (in a Moral way) to put the Bridle of the Law upon him, which may be called Civil Resistance; but as for Military Resistance against an Unjust King, it is as Inconsistent with our English Government, as with any other Monarchy in the World.  
But you very much mistake, if you suppose that the King of England is not Supreme; 
H.D.L. p. 29.  because he is Limited by Laws, which realy is no Objection; Because a Sovereign without any Diminution to his Sovereignty, may be limited in the Exercise of his Sovereign Power, either by his own Acts, or Condescensions, or else by those of his Predecessors, under whom he claims. This is so certain, that there is no Supreme Power in Heaven, or in Earth, which is not limited and confined in the exercise thereof. Thus the Omnipotent Power of God himself, is limited by his own Wisdom, Goodness and Justice, which are himself: So likewise the Powers of all Absolute unlimited Monarches are only so comparatively with respect to positive Laws; but as for the Laws of God and Nature, which bind their Consciences as firmly, as any Civil Laws, they are bound to observe them, and exercise their Sovereign Power within those Limits, which they set and prescribe. For whether they have their Supreme Power from Go●, as we say, or from the People, as you allege it; it is all one as to this matter, for they can have no Right neither from God, nor the People to make unjust and Tyrannical Laws. And this Political Limitation of their Power in the exercise of it, doth no more destroy the Essence thereof, than its flowing in Pipes or Channels, destroys the Essence of a Spring, since it is still the same, whether it runs confined through Pipes, or flows free and unconfined through the open field. The Application is obvious.  
But as for the precedent words in this place of Bra●ton, which seems to intimate, that the King ow● his Authority to the Law. He there only means the King, in Opposition or Contradiction to a Tyrant, who makes his Will, his Law; according to that of Chancellor For●escue, Rex est ubi bene regit, Tyrannus, dum populum sibi oredi●um violentâ opprimi● Dominatione, quod hoc sanxit Lex humana quod Leges ligant Suum Latorem. Where you may observe, that this Author makes a King's governing well, i. e. according to Law, a mark of Distinction from a Tyrant, who oppresses his Subjects by a violent Domineering over them. And though he here supposes the King to be obliged by the Laws, yet that this Obligation is only Moral, appears by what immediately follows, when he says, the Laws do oblige their Legislator. Now if the King be the Sole Legislator (as He here seems to intimate) He must also be the Sole Supreme Power, and if so, cannot be accountable to, or under, the Coercion of any Superior Power; for than he would not be Supreme, as you yourself have granted long since.  F. 
Since you are not willing to enter upon that Ancient Power which you cannot deny; but the Great Council formerly had, of putting a Bridle upon the King, and Restraining his Actions, in Case he Invaded the Rights or Liberties of the People: I shall not ●●sist farther upon it now, for the Reasons you have given; only I must make bold to tell you thus much, that if they have not a Power of defending their just Rights, if forceably Invaded by the King, it would be all one; as if they had none at all: Tho' I grant, that what you have said concerning the Limitation of the Exercise of Sovereign Power, that it doth not Derogate from the Absoluteness of the Power itself, is very true in all such Limitations; which proceed from the Intrinsic Nature and Perfection of the Being, in which it Resides, as in your Example of God's infinite Power, being Limited by his other Attributes. So likewise all Human Powers (I own) are limited by the Revealed Laws of God, or those of Nature: But as to positive Laws, you yourself assert, that absolute Monarches are only obliged by them, as long as they please; and consequently, that they may alter them, or Derogate from them, as oft as they think good, as the Roman Emperors could revoke any Privileges or Immunities they had formerly granted to particular Persons, Cities, nay to Tributary Kings, or Commonwealths; and all this very justly, because as all such Grants were made only for the public good of the Empire: So they being the sole Judges thereof, when ever they found such Confessions to prove prejudicial to it, they might justly alter or revoke them. Now if the Power of our Kings be as absolutely Sovereign, as that of the Roman Emperors: and only limited by their own free Grants or Condescensions to the People, and not from any Power ab extra; Such Grants or Condescensions, though never so Solemnly passed into Laws in the Parliament, or Assembly of the States, are still no more than positive Laws: And then if the King is the Sole Sovereign Power (unlimited by any thing, ab extra) how can He so tie up his own Hands, as that he may not Break or Rescind all those Concessions he had made, and those limitations which he had put upon himself, if he think, or declare it is for the better benefit of the Commonwealth so to do. I cannot Comprehend, if He be by the Original Constitution, the sole Lawmaker and Judge of what is for the public Good? Much less can I understand, how he can oblige his Successors (who must still be supposed as Absolute Monarches as himself) to observe them. And therefore if all our Civil Rights and Liberties, were no other than what you would have them (the free Condescensions, or Self-Limitations of Sovereign Power) I desire you would show me what security we can have for the Enjoyments of them, longer than the King pleases: For it seems plain to me, that when ever He shall fancy the Liberties and Properties of the Subjects (both which you suppose were derived from him) to be injurious to, or inconsistent with, his Prerogative, or Sovereign Power, he may lawfully Disannul, or revoke them; and in what Case we then should be (considering how things had like to have gone lately) I leave any indifferent Man to Judge.  
Nor Is your Interpretation of Bracton's words, Lex facit Regem, etc. Any more than an absolute Wresting of them, from their true meaning, which is not (as you would have it) to Distinguish a King that governs by Law, from a Tyrant that makes his Will his Law; for every absolute Monarch that doth so, is not a Tyrant, provided he direct his Actions according to the Laws of God and Nature; as you yourself assert, and a Prince may as well govern thus, as the Great Turk, Czar of Muscovy, and all the Eastern Monarches do at this Day, who are not counted Tyrants in so doing; But certainly you will say, that He would make a very Scurvy English King, who would observe no other Rule. Nor do you less wrest Fortescue's words, when you render them, Rex est, ubi bene regit, Tyrannus, etc. Supposing the meaning of it to be, that this Author makes a King's governing (that is, say you) according to Law, the only thing to Distinguish him from a Tyrant, etc. Whereas he says no such matter: but only Rex est, ubi bene regit, which he may do without any Set Laws, as well as with them, as the first Kings you suppose did before they were limited by Laws.  
But as for Fortescue's supposing the King to be the Sole Legislator, that word Sole, is of your own Addition; for if he had said so, he would have contradicted himself, as I shall show you presently; It is true, the King hath a great share in the Legislative, yet hath he two other Bodies to join with him by a Concurrent or Cooperative Power in it: And I think I have all the Ancient Lawyers of England on my side. To begin therefore with Ranulph de G●anville, who was Chief Justicear in the Reign of Henry the Second, He giveth us in his Prologue to his Treatise of the Laws of England, this Testimony. Leges namque Anglicanas lice●●on Scriptas. Leges appellari non videtur absurdum (cum boc ipsum Lex sit, quod Principi placet & Legis habet vigorem) ●as Scilicet quas super dubljs in con●ilio definiendis Procerum quidem consilio, & Principis accadente Authoritate, constat esse promulgatas: So likewise Bracton in his very first Chapter, speaks much to the same purpose; Cum Legis vigorem habeat quicquid de Consilio, & de Cons●nsu Magnatum, & Reipublicae comm●ni Sponsione, Authoritate Principis pr●ce●●nte, justè fuerit defini●um, & approbatum. And also in his third Book, Chap. 2. When he speaks of the Ancient manner of making Laws in England, he says; Quae quidem fuerint approbate concensu utentium, & Sacramento R●gum confirma●ae non possunt mutari, at● destrui fine communi consensu utentium, & consilio eorum. quorum consilio, & Consensu fuerint promulgata. Where you may see these Ancient Authors plainly declare, that nothing hath the force of a Law in this Kingdom, but what is approved of, and consented to, by all Orders of Men, either by themselves, or their Representatives: And which is very Remarkable, Bracton supposes the King's Authority, or Royal Sanction of a Law, may precede the Consent of the Great Council; which quite destroys that Notion, That it is the Kings giving his last Assent, which gives it the Essence and Vigour of a Law.  
And with these more Ancient Sages of the Law, Fortescue also agrees in his 9th Chap. D● Laudibus Legum Angliae, where he says; Rex Angliae Populum guberna● non mera potes●● to Regid sed politica, Populus & enim iis Legib● guber●●tur quas ipse fert, etc. What follows, is word for word the same with what Bracton had before in his first Chap and therefore needs not to be Repeated, so likewise in the 18 Chap. speaking of the Absolute Legislative Power of Kings in some other Kingdoms, he thus proceeds: Sed non Sic Angliae Statuta oriri possunt dum nelum Principis voluntate, sed & to●ius Regni Assensu ipsa conduntur, quo Populi laesuram nequiunt, vel non eorum Commodum procurare. But if they after prove inconvenient, he immediately adds: Concito reformari ipsa possunt, sed non fine Communitatis & Proterum Regni illius Assensu quali ipsa primitùs emanarunt. To which I may also add an Authority out of that Learned Author St. German, who in his Dialogue, called the Dr. and Student, written in Latin, in the 10th. Chap. Entitled de Sexto fundamento Legis Angliae. The Student thus speaks, Sexium Fundamentum Legis Angliae s●at in diversis Statutis per Dominum Regem, & Progenitores suos & per Dominos spirituales, & Temporales, & per Communitatem totius Regni in Parliamentis Editis ubi Lex Rationis, Lex Divi●a, Consuetudines, Maxima, sive alia fundamenta Legis Anglia priàs Sufficere minimè videbantur. Where you see the Legislative Power is here Attributed to the Lords and Commons, jointly with the King. And therefore my Lord Coke in his Notes upon the Statute of Westminster, I▪ calls it a Complete Parliament, as consisting of all the Estates necessary thereunto; for says he, a Parliament concerning making or enacting Laws, Consists of the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, and 〈◊〉 is no Act of Parliament, unless it be made by the King, Lords and Commons.  M. 
I shall not much concern myself with what your Common Lawyers, either Ancient or Modern have writ upon this matter; much less what Sir Edward Coke, a known Enemy to the King's Prerogative, doth maintain: Since I have as good, or a better Authority than he, 
p. 3. a. b.  viz. that of the Year-Book of 22 Ed. 3. Wherein it is expressly declared by divers Earls and Barons, and by all the Justices, in the Case of one Headlow and his Wife, who had a Suit with the King, That the King makes the Laws by the Assent 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 Houses have a Cooperation; but no Co-ordination of Power with him. And though at this Day, I grant that Custom hath made the Assent of the Lords and Commons necessary to the passing of all Laws, yet it is still the King's word, or le Royal veul●, that makes them so; and I much doubt, whether even this were part of the Ancient Constitution of this Kingdom, or not, or proceeded at first from the Gracious Favour and Permission of former Kings, as I could show by the whole Series of Councils, in the Saxon times, if it were not too tedious to mention them particularly, therefore I shall only Select some of the most Remarkable.  
For though I confess the English Saxon Kings, performed all Great and Considerable things by the Counsel, and Advice of their Bishops and Noblemen, comprehended under the general names of Wits; yet you will find by the Titles of almost all the Councils in spelman, Lambard, and that these Kings alone made their Laws, though by the Advice and Council of their Wittena Gemote; which was then no other than the King's Greater Council, Since He called what Great Men and Bishops he pleased to it, and omitted the rest. And it is never mentioned, that they were made by their Consent, as necessary thereunto. Nay, sometimes we find that some of the Ancient Saxon Kings, made Laws without the Assent of their Great Council. 
I. E. M. G. p. 151. vi. Mat. Paris in vita Off p. 171.  Thus Off● King of the Mercians, being at Rome, out of his Royal Munificence, gave to the Support of the People of his Kingdom, that should come thither, a penny to be paid Yearly for ever, out of every Family, by all whose Goods in the Fields, exceeded the value of Thirty pence. And this He made a perpetual Constitution, throughout all his Dominions, excepting the Lands Conferred upon the Monastery of St. Alban. This Imposition and Law, continued a long while in force, though we find it not Confirmed by any great Councils in the time of his Successors, only in the Laws of King Edgar, 
Vi. Spelman 's Councils.  and King Edward, it is enjoined to be paid, as the King's Alms; which implies it was the King's Gift, and that Solely without the consent of a Great Council.  
But to give you a more particular Proof of the Supreme and Absolute Power of our Saxon Kings, 
I. E. M. G. p. 190. & dein.  as well during the Heptarchy, as afterwards, in making ad establishing Laws: I shall begin with the first we have extant, which are those of Ina, King of the Westsaxons, who began his Reign, Anno. 712. In the Preface to his Laws, 
Vi. L●mbard. Archaionom. in the Laws of K. Ina. p. 1.  we find it thus expressed; which I shall render out of the Saxons Copy, Published by Mr. Lambard. I Ina, by or with God's Gift, King of the Westsaxons, with the Advice or Council of Cenred my Father, and Heads my Bishop, and Ercenwold my Bishop; and with my Aldermen, and Eldest Wites, or Wisemen of my Kingdom do command, etc. Then in the first Chapter the King speaks in the first person plural, We Bid or Command, that all our People shall after hold fast, or observe these Laws and Dooms. From this Preface, you may observe: I. That Kings are the Gift of God, and that God's Gift signified the same with Dei Gratia, they are not the Creature of the People, 2. That Princes or the better Government of their People, in the Settling of Laws in Church and State, did then Consult, Deliberate, and Advise with their Bishops, noblemans, and eminently Wise Men of their Kingdoms; whom for their Wisdom, they Honoured with public Employments in their Dominions. 3. That after such Consultation, Deliberation and Advice to the Sovereign, Establisheth and makes the Laws.  
The next Instance I shall make use of, is out of the same Author, 
Ibid. 21.  in the Laws of King Alfred, where, in the Conclusion of his Laws about Religion, and Prefatory to the Secular Laws; He saith, I Alfred King, have gathered these (Sanctions) together, and caused them to be written; and then Recites, that those that he liked not, with the Council of his Wits, he had Rejected; and those he liked, he had or commanded to be holden. And we may observe, that the King here speaks in the Single Person, that He himself Collected or Chose, and also Rejected what Laws he pleased. The next material illustration where: the Legislative Power then Resided may be found in the Laws of King Edward the Elder, where after the Charge given to the Judges; the first Law begins, I will, and so in others; in the fourth, it is thus expressed: Edward the King, with his Wits, that were at Exeter, strictly enqui●ing by what means it might be better provided for Peace and Tranquillity, etc. In the 2d. and 3d. Chap. it is: We also Declare, Pronounce or Sentence; And in the 7th. and I will. In which Laws we have none mentioned with the King, but his Wits; and his Commanding, Willing or Pronouncing in the Imperative Mood, is observable.  
The next Laws I find, 
Ibid. p. 45. Spel. Concil. p. 396.  are those of King Athelstan, which begin thus: I Athelstan King, with the Advice of Walfelm my High Bishop, and other my Bishops, Commanded, or bid all my Rieves (i e. Praefects) of what degrees soever to pay Tithes, etc. And this He commanded his Bishops, his Aldermen, and Praepositi (who were the Judges in the Country Courts) to do the same: In these Laws, We cwaedon is used; which I suppose, is something more than Somner understands by his ●uide: a Saying, Speech or Sentence, and properly is, we will. But the absoluteness of the King, appears most in the 26th. Chap. wherein it is expressed, T●at if any of the Graeves (i. e. judges do not perform these Commands, or be more Remiss in the Execution of those he hath enjoined, He shall be punished for his Excess of Contumacy, according to the Fines there set down.  
King Edmund is the next of our Kings, whose Laws are Transferred to us, 
Spel. Concil. p. 419.21. An. Ch. 944.  and the Proem tells us, that King Edmund Assembled a Great Synod, or Council to London, on the Holy Eastertide, and the Persons Summoned are Styled Godskind, and Worldskind, i. e. Clergy and Laics. After the first six Chapters of Laws, in the Proem to the 2d. part of them; the King Signifies to all Men, Old and Young, That he had asks Advice in the Assembly of his Wites; both ecclesiastics and Laics; and in the Laws, it is often said, Thonne cwaedon▪ These we pronounce or appoint, and sometimes the single person is used; and in other places, us betweonan Heol●an, it is holden betwixt us. Here we find the Great Council Summoned by the King, and the Constituent Parts of it, to be the Clergy and Lai●y; yet still we find the Legislative Power in the King alone.  
So likewise in the Title to King Edgar's Ecclesiastical Laws, 
Spel. Concil. p. 444. An. Ch. 967.  it is thus; The Laws which King Edgar in a frequent Assembly or Council of the Servants of God hath ordained, 
Spel. Con. 455.  whereby you may see, that the Enacting Part Relates wholly to himself. The same King Edgar in his Charter to Glastonbury Abbey, concludes it thus, ●a●e privilegij paginam Rex Edgarus XII. Regni sui, sacro scripto apud Londo●iam communi Concilio optimatum suorum confirmavit. So that though it appears this was in the Presence of a Great Council: Yet the Granting and Enacting part, proceeded wholly from himself.  
The Preface to the Laws of King Canutus, by Sir Henry Spelman runs thus: 
Concil. 552.  These are the Worldly Constitutions, that I will with my Wites advice, that Men hold all over England. In most of the Chapters it is said, We Teach, We Bid or Command, We forbid; and in the Conclusion, it is in the single Person of the King. Now I command all, and bid every Man in God's Name. And the Preface to the Latin Version of them, saith; Haec sunt Instituta Cnude Regis Anglorum, Dacorum, Norwegarum, vene rando Saplentum Concilio ejus, ad Laudem, & Gloriam Dei, & suam Regalitatem, etc. Of this Canutus; William of Malmsbury, saith; that He commanded to be observed for ever, 
Gest. Regum Lib. 2. ●. 11.  all the Laws of Ancient Kings, especially those made by King Ethelred his Predecessor, under the Penalty of the King's Fine, to the observing of which, He saith in his time, it was Sworn under the Name of King Edward's Laws, not that He had appointed them; but had observed them. So that I think upon the whole matter, nothing is more plain, than that our English, Saxons and Danish Kings, did not only call Councils, and preside in them, but that the Legislative Power was lodged solely in themselves.  F. 
I perceive the Authority of our Ancient Lawyers, is a little too hard for you to answer with your usual Distinctions; and therefore you seemingly deny their Authority, though in effect, you grant it as I shall show you by and by: But as for your Quotation out of the Year-Book, which you think sufficient to Counterbalance all the Authorities I have brought; I think I may much better question the Judgement of those that gave that Opinion, since I can show you, that you yourself cannot allow it in all points for Law; For in the first place, it is not there said, that it was so judged by all the Lords and Judges who were appointed to hear the Cause there mentioned; but only Fuit dit, que le Roy, etc. By which it seems to have been the private opinion only of some one, or more of the Lords and Judges there present; For it is not said, fuit adjuge. And if you will have it to have been the Opinion of them all, pray read what follows after. Fuit dit quen temps le Roy Henry, & devant, le Roy fuit implede comme Seroit auire homme de People. Mes Ed. Roy son fils ordeign que home sueroit vers Roy per Petition, Mos unques Roys ne seront adjugez Si non per eu● melmes & lour justices. So that if the former part of it ●e Law, the latter must be so too, and then it will directly contradict what you have quoted before out of Bracton. That in the time of Henry the 3d, (in which he lived) there lay no Remedy against the King, but only by Petition: Whereas this Opinion, makes him before the time of Edward the First to have been liable to the same Legal Process with other Men. But notwithstanding this Passage in the Year-Book, may very well bear a legal Interpretation, only by supplying what is indeed to be understood after the Words, non pas les Peers, & le Commune [viz. Sans assent du Roy] which as it was then true, So I hope it will ever be so.  
But I think I can give you a much better Authority than this Year-Book, to prove, where the Power of Making and Dispensing with Laws, 
Chap. 21.  doth truly reside, viz. The Solemn Declaration of the King, Lords and Commons, in the 25th. Henry 8. (a Prince as Jealous of ●is Prerogative, as any of his Predecessors) where in the Preamble, read these words: It standeth therefore with Natural Equity, and good Reason, that in all and every such Human Laws made within this Realm, or induced into this Realm by the said Sufferance, Consents and Custom, your Royal Majesty, and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, Representing the whole State of your Realm, in this your High Court of Parliament have full Power and Authority, not only to dispense with those, and all other Humane Laws of this your Realm, as the Quality of the persons, and matter shall require. And also the said Laws, and every of them to Abrogate, Annul, Amplify and Diminish, as it shall seem to your Majesty, and the Nobles and Commons of your Realm, present in your Parliament, Meet and Convenient for the Wealth of your Realm, etc. Whereby you may plainly see, that the Power of Making, Abrogating, and also Dispensing with Laws, is by this Act ascribed jointly to the King, and the Two Houses of Parliament.  
But though I do not affirm, that they have a coordinate Power with the King in making Laws, yet they have a Co-operative Power therein, which yet is no more than your Co-operation; for what is a Co-operation, but a Power of working together; and how can three Distinct Bodies work together, without each contribute their share, to produce the Intended effect.  M. 
Perhaps I may have been too unwary in my expression; but pray answer the Authorities I have brought from our Ancient English Saxon Laws: Wherein it seems plain to me, that the King had then the Sole Legislative Power.  F. 
I grant he had a chief share in the Legislative Power; but not the Sole Power, that is, He could make no Laws, but in the Great Council, and by their Consent; And this you might have seen as well as I, if you had not slyly passed by what made against you; and therefore in the first place, to begin with your Instance of Offa's giving that Boon to the Roman School, I think the Authority you bring for it, is very 'Slight; for though I own that Matthew Paris who writes his Life, Relates this Donation, to have been made at Rome, without mentioning any Consent or Confirmation of his Great Council: Yet this seems but an imperfect account of the matter, and according to the usual way of the Writers of those times, who are not so exact in such matters, as they should be: And therefore, though Offa did give, or vow these Pence at Rome; yet the Gift might receive its force from the Consent of his Great Council, after he came home: Since all his Laws, and the Acts of his Councils are lost, unless it be one, which Sir H. Spelman hath given us from such Remains as have been saved out of the Libraries of several Monasteries at their Dissolution; And this contains no less, than the Consent and Confirmation of his Great Council Assembled at Calcuith, Anno 940. for the Foundation and Endowment of the Abbey of St. Alban, as also that of another Council at Verulam; for the Conferring of divers other Lands of his own to that Monastery. Now I leave it to any indifferent Man to judge: Whether that King who could not bestow his own Demesnes upon the Church, without the Consent of the Common-Council of the Kingdom, could give away at once, the 30th, Penny of all his Subjects Estates for ever, without their Consents: I am sure the Donation of the same sort of Pence by King Edward the Confessor, which is now to be found among the Laws of King William the First, is said to be granted, Communi Confilio Regni, and that the Saxon Kings could not bestow their Lands upon Religious Uses: 
Spel. Concil. 1 vol. p. 340.  See Sir H. Spelmans Councils, where Baldred King of Kent, is an evident Example, who though he had given the Manor of Mallings in Sussex, to Christ-Church in Canterbury: Yet because his Principes and Great Men, that is, his Great Council consented not thereto, it was revoked until King Egbert, and his son Ethelwulf did afterwards renew the said Grant, 
Ibid p. 340.  with the Consent of a Great Council held at Kingston, An. 840. as you may see in the same Volume, last cited. And I am sure after the Heptarchy, when our Kings were more Powerful, the same King Ethelwulf, could not by his mere Prerogative, Grant the Tithes of his Subjects Estates to the Clergy, without the Consent of a Great Council of his Bishops and Principal Men, held at Winchester. An. Gratia 855. and Entitled thus, Celebris il● donatio Ethelwulfi Regis decimae manfionis & omnium benorum per terram suam Deo & Ecclesiae factae confirma●●●. 
Vid. vol. p. 348.   M. 
I Grant, that perhaps these Kings could not dispose of their own Lands, or the Estates of their Subjects, without the Consent of their Great Council, any more than the Kings of France could formerly; yet I hope they were Absolute Monarches for all that.  F. 
I beg your pardon, if I have been somewhat long in answering your Example of King Offa. But I will now show you, that they could no more make Laws, than dispose of their own, or their Subjects Estates, without their Consent, and which you yourself might easily have seen, if you had pleased to have Consulted Sir Henry Spelman, as Diligently as you have done Mr. Lambard; for there you might have found that about the Year 712. 
Spel. Con. Tom. 1. p. 219.  King Ina, Assembled a Great Council or Parliament, wherein he made Ecclesiastical Laws concerning Marriages, etc. and did other things, ad concordiam publicam promovendam pe● commune Consilium, & Assensum Episcoporum, Pri●cipum, Procerum, 
Vid. Chronic. Bromp. Col. 848. lin. 54.  Comitum, & omnium Sapientum Se●iorum, & Popillorum totius Regni. So likewise, if you will please to look into the Decem-Scrip●ores, you will find how Althesian's Laws were made, by the Title of them, which runs thus: Haec sunt judicia quae Sapientes Exoniae Consilio Adel●●●i Regis instituerunt, & iterum apud Feuresham, & tertia vice apud Thundresfeldium, ubi hoc definitum simul & confirmatum est. So also King Ethelred held at London, 
Flor. Wigorn A. D. 992.  a Great Council, and made Laws, Consilio jussuque Regis Anglorum Aethelredi, Procerumque suorum de tota Anglia, etc. Look also into the Title of King Ethelred's Laws in Bromptons' Chronicle, where you will read these words, hoc est Concilium quod Ethelredus Rex & Sapientes sui condixerunt ad Emendationem & augmentum pacis omni populo apud Wodestocam in Mircena Landa, 
Brompt. ut Sup. Col. 893, 894.  id est in terra Mircenorum, etc. Where by Concilium, must be understood Law or Decree. To Instance in one more out of the same Author still, from the Title to another Set of Laws made by the same King; 
Id. Col. 895.  Hae sunt Leges quas Ethelredus Rex & sapientes sui constituerunt apud Venetyngum ad Emendationem pacis & felicitatis Incrementum. See likewise in Monasticon Anglicanum, the first Volume. Anno Dom. 1024. where Canu●us, Rex Angliae cum Consilio & Decreto Archiepiscoporum, Episcoporum, & Primatum Suorum expulit Clericos inhones●e viventes ab Ecclesia Sancti Edmundi, & Monachos in illâ constituit. And the same King C●●te, bestowed divers Lands, and other Privileges on the Monastery then called Briadricesworth (afterwards St. Edmunds Bury) cum consilio, & Decreto Archiepiscoporum, Episcoporum, Abbatum, Comitum aliorumque omnium Fidelium. The like we find in a Charter of King Edward the Confessor, by which He granted divers Lands and Privileges to the Abbey of Westminster; Cum Consilio & Decreto Archiepiscoporum, Episcoporum, Comitum aliorumque Optimatum.  
From all which it manifestly appears, that under the English Saxon Kings, the Legislative or Enacting Power, was in the Council of the Sapientes or Wites, Conjunctly with the King; and that none of these Saxon Kings could pass any Laws, or make any considerable Alteration in the State, without, not only the Advice, but Consent of their Great Council; which then consisted of their Bishops, Great Lords, principal Freeholders, and the Representatives of Cities and Towns, as I shall prove another time, and was not left to the King, ad libitum, to call whom he pleased thereunto. And as the word Decretum, signifies Decree or Order: So likewise may the word Consilium here signify something more than bare advice, viz. Agreement, or Appointment, which if you please to peruse any ordinary Dictionary, you may presently satisfy yourself in.  
But before I Dismiss this Argument: I cannot but Remark upon your instance, of King Edmund's making Laws alone, because he there speaks in the first Person plural; 
Vi. Goldmans' Dictionary.  whereas if you will but Consult the Proem to those Laws once again, you will I doubt not be satisfied of the contrary, for the words are, that having ask advice of the Council or Assembly of Clergy and Laics▪ that is seemed good to them all, as well as to the King, and therefore we thus Ordain, by which it appears, that the last words wherein the Ordaining part Resides, refer as well to the whole Assembly, as to the King.  M 
The Government of our English Saxon Kings, is, I confess, very dark and obscure; for according to our Ancient Historians, they seem to have been very absolute; though when we come to look in o● the L●ws themselves, I confess they seem rather to have been limited Kings than abolish Monarches, though whether that Limitation proceeded from the Original Constitution of the Government, or their own free consent and Concessions is a very great question, though I rather incline to the former; and shall give you my Reasons for it, when we come to Discourse on that Subject; but in the mean time, I must tell you in Reply to what you have said, that if we consider the time; not long after the Conquest, you will find the Supreme Legislative Power, to have been then wh●ly in the King (as it is so still) notwithstanding some Ambiguous expressions to the Contrary; or else our Kings would not be, what I think they really are, Absolute Monarches. But to descend to times less obscure, 
H. S. B. D. p. 720, 721. & d●in.  it is certain that when the Norman Conqueror first came in, as he Won the Kingdom by the Sword, so did he Govern it by his Sole Power: His Sword was then the Sceptre, and his Will the Law. There was no need on his part, of an Act of Parliament, much less of calling all the Estates together, to know of them after what Form, and by what Laws they would be governed. It might as well be said of him, as in the flourishing, and best times of the Roman Emperors: Quod Principi placuit, l●gis habet Vigorem, that whatsoever the King Willed, did pass for Law. This King and some of his Successors being then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and having a Despotical Power on the Lives and Fortunes of their Subjects, which they disposed of for the benefit of their Friends and Followers; Norman, French and Flemings, as to them seemed best. But as the Subjects found the Yoke to be too heavy and insupportable; so they addressed themselves in their Petitions to the Kings their Sovereigns, to have that Yoke made easier, and their burden lighter, especially in such particulars, of which they were most sensible at the present time. By this means they obtained first to have the Laws of Edward the Confessor; and by the same (that is to say, by pouring out their Prayers and Desires unto them) did they obtain most of the Laws and Statutes, which are now remaining of the time of K. Henry the Third and K. Ed. I. From whom a● also from Hen. I. and K. john we may derive all those Privileges we now enjoy, most of which as they were issued at the first, either in form of Charters under the Great Seal, or else as Proclamations of Grace, and Favour: So do they carry still this mark of their first procuring by these Expressions the King willeth, the King commandeth, the King ordaineth, the King provideth, the King grants, etc. And when the Kings were pleased to call their Estates together, it was not out of an opinion, that they could not part with their Power or dispense their Favours as they thought good, or abate any thing of the Soverity of their former Government without the approbation and consent of their People; but out of a just Fear, lest any one of the three Estates (〈◊〉 mean the Clergy Nobility and the Commons) should insist on any thing which might be prejudicial to the other two. The Commons being always on the Craving Part, and Suffering as much perhaps from their immediate Lords, as from their King, might possibly have asked Somethings, which were as much derogatory to the Lord (under whom they held) as of their Sovereign Liege the King, the chief Lord of all. In this respect the Counsel and Consent as well of the Prelates as the Temporal Lords was accounted necessary, in passing of all Acts of Grace and Favour to the People; because that having many Royalties and large Immunities of their own, a more near relation to the Person, and a greater Interest in the honour of their Lord, the King; nothing should pass unto the prejudice and diminution of their own Estates, or the disabling of the King to support his Sovereignty.  F. 
I confess you have given a plausible Account concerning the Government of William I. whom you call the Conqueror; whereas if it be more exactly looked into, it will be found, that he had no more Power of making Laws without the Consent of his Great Council▪ than any of his Predecessors; Neither had he any such Despotical Power as you imagine over the Lives and Fortunes of all his Subjects; for whether we consider them as Normans, French or Flemings, or whether as English, it will be all one; For if as Dr. B. supposes, these latter were quite turned out of their Estates, and that they were by him wholly given to the former; then these French and Normans, being Conquerors, together with him would never have submitted 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 Assembly of the Estates; and we find, that when succeeding Kings would have oppressed and tyrannised over their Heirs and Descendants, they together with the old English took up Arms, and defended their Liberties, and never laid them down, until they had obtained their Just Rights and Liberties contained in the Great Charters of King john, and Henry the 3d. And which (as Math. Paris himself tells us in the Reign of King john) contained for the greatest part the Ancient Laws and Customs of the Kingdom; 
An. 1215.  And therefore by the Statute, called Confirmatio Chartarum, 25th. Ed. 1st. it is adjudged in full Parliament, That the Great Charter, and Charter of the Forest, shall be taken as Common Law. So that they were not any new Grants, but rather Confirmations of their Ancient Rights and Liberties, as my Lord Coke very well observes in his excellent Preface to his 2d. Institutes, where he tells us, that Magna Charta is for the most part declaratory of the Principal Grounds of the Fundamental Laws of England, and for the Residue, is Additional to supply some Defects of the Common Law; so that the Learned Chancellor Fortescue, had very good Reason to affirm in his Treatise, De ●audibus legum Angliae, that it was then Governed in all King's times, by the same Laws and Customs, as it is now, with whom likewise agrees one of his Learned Successors, 
Chap. 24. p. 110.  the late Earl of Clarendon, in his Survey of the Levi●than, when he tells us, that those Laws and Customs which were before the Conquest, are the same which this Nation or Kingdom have been ever since governed by to this Day.  
And as for the Laws of Edward the Confessor, though it is true, that William the Conqueror Regranted and Confirmed them; Yet was it no more than what he was obliged in conscience and honour to perform and observe, since he was admitted to the Crown by the General Consent of the Clergy, Nobility, and People, and at his Coronation (as well as afterward) swore to observe the Laws of King Edward; And by the way, though these Laws are called the Laws of King Edward, yet William of Malmsbury long since observed, That they were called his Laws, Non qu●●ulit, sed quas observaverit, that is, he had only collected them into one body, and ratified them with the Assent of his Great Council. And that these Laws were more than once sworn to, and confirmed by King William himself, appears by the Story of Frederick Abbot of St. Alban, who frighted him into a confirmation of them by Oath, for fear of a general Insurrection of the People: So that if he, or his Son Rufus made any Bre●ches upon their Liberties, they were, as it were, ex post liminio restored to them by the Magna Charta's of Hen. I. K. Stephen, K. Hen. II. K. john, and K. Hen. the III. And those oppressions contrary thereunto, are branded by all Historians as Notorious Perjuries, and Wrongs to the Subjects.  
But that King William the First altered nothing material in the Fundamental Constitutions of the Government, whatever he might do in some less material Customs, or Laws; which he brought with him out of his own Country, appears plainly by this, which you cannot deny that he often assembled his Great Council (as his English Predecessors had done) and that in them were dispatched all the Great Causes and Complaints of the Kingdom. And for this I will give you the Testimony of two very ancient Historians. 
Hist. Ang. Script. X. Col. 483.  The first is R●dolphus de Diceto, who in Anno 1071, tells us, That the Plaint of Wulstan Bishop of Worcester, was heard and ended in Consilio celebrato in loco qui vocatur Pedreds, coranto Rege, & Doroberniae Archiepiscopo, & Primatibus totius Regni. The next is Gervasius Dorobernensis, who thus relates it, Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury, 
Ib. Col. 1653.  Eligentib●s eum Senioribus ejusdem Ecclesiae, & Episcopis, at Priacipibus, Clero, & Populo Angliae, in Curia Regis, in Assumptione Sand● Mariae. Here the Episcopi & Principes, Bishops & Princes, the Cleri & Populus, the Clergy and People, or Laity, were the same Persons, and only expressive of one another, and all had Votes in this Election.  M. 
I pray give me leave to interrupt you a little. I will not deny but that the Conqueror did often assemble Great Councils of his Bishops, and Great Lords commonly called in Historians Principes, or Primates, 
B. A. P.  yet I think I may boldly affirm that there were no Englishmen in those Councils, or that they made any Laws for the Benefit of Englishmen, who were kept under by those Normans who then enjoyed their Estates; much less was there any such thing as Commons either by themselves, or their Representatives in those Assemblies, which then consisted wholly of the King's Feudal Tenants in Capite, and of no other as Dr. B. hath very plainly shown us: And when King William made Laws, it is much to be doubted whether he made them so much as with the Consent of his Great Council, or not; for the Title to the French and Latin Copies of his Laws runs thus, put into English, 
I.E.M.G. pag. 206.  These are the Laws and Customs which William the King granted to all his People of England after the Conquest or Subduing of the Land: They are the same which Edward the King his Kinsman before him observed. In this Preface we have only to note, that the Laws are expressly said to be the King's Grant, and the Supplemental Laws writ in the Red Book of the Exchequer, are by way of Charter, or Grant, thus, Wilhelmus Rex Anglorum, etc. Omnibus hominibus suis Francis, & Anglis, salutem, and all along the Authoritative parts are expressed by Statuimus, volumus, interdicimus, probibemus, praecipimus. So that by these Expressions in his Laws, the absolute sovereignty of the Conqueror in the point of Law-giving is manifest. I shall content myself with a very few Authorities, because the matter is so plain; Ordoricus Vitalis saith thus, Eamque (i. e. England) Gulielmus Rex suis Legibus commodò subegit. 
Fol. 853.  And Eadm●r, Contemporary with the Conqueror in his History, thus, 
Fol. 6.  Vsus atque leges, quas patres sui, & ipse in Normannia soleb●nt, in Anglia scribere volens. Cuncta divina, simul & humana ejus nutum expectabant. From whence you may see that all matters, as well Spiritual as Temporal, depended upon his sole will.  
And though we have no particular account of what Laws his Son William Rufus made, yet we may presume according to the Testimony of Historians, that he was altogether as absolute in those Councils he called as his Father, 
Eadmer. Hist. Novel. L. 1.  as may be seen in Eadmerus his account of his Transactions with Archbishop Anselm. So that it is certain he governed by his own absolute Authority, raising what money he pleased upon his Subjects: 'Tis true, that in the Reign of his Successor Henry the First, the People found some little relaxation, by reason of the Charter he made them, containing several mitigations of the severity of the Feudal Laws, as also those of Forests, yet even these are said to be made, by his own single Grant and Authority, though I confess it was granted in a great Council. So likewise in Florence of Worcester, we find that in 28 th'. of Hen. I. That King confirmed the Acts of a Synod or Council of the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury, 
Pag. 503.  and gave his Royal Assent to them.  
As for King Stephen, though he was a Notorious Usurper, and Set up, 
I.E.M.G. Pag. 215.  and Crowned by a Faction of Bishops, and some few Temporal Lords, and that not long after his Coronation he in a Great Council at Oxford granted to all his Subjects another Charter of divers Privileges, and Freedoms from the former Exactions▪ yet the words of the Charter are in his own name, and by his own authority solely, as appears by these words, Observari praecipio, & constituo. But Richard, Prior of Hexham, alias Hagulstad in his Chronicle, closes his Charter thus, 
vid. X. Scrip. Col. 314. Anno 1136.  Haec omnia concedo, & confirmo salva Regia, & justa Dignitate mea. From which words it is plain, that he never meant to part with any of the just and necessary Prerogatives of his Crown.  

viz. Spelm. Concil. Tom. 2. fol. 54.  So likewise King Henry the Second in a Great or General Council held at London, confirmed the Great Charter granted by King Henry the First, his Grandfather; but this Charter also runs wholly in the King's own name, without any mention of its being assented to, either by the Bishops or Nobles: And as for the Constitutions made at the Great Council of Clarendon, though that King made the Archbishops, Bishops, with all the Clergy, as also the Earls, Barons, and Nobility, all swear to observe them, yet the Enacting part proceeded only from the King; as appears by their very Title thus, Assissae Henrici Regis factae apud Clarendon, etc. And Mat. Paris concludes these Constitutions with, Decrevit enim Rex. From whence it appears, that it was the King alone that decreed and Constituted those Laws.  
I shall not say much of the Great Councils in First's time, since, he did not reign long enough to call many, 
In R. Hoveden. Pag. 419.  but in that held at Nottingham, we find, that the King diseized Gerard de Canville and others, and that the King appointed to be given him two Shillings on every Carucate of Land throughout England, etc. From whence I shall observe, that the words Rex praecepit, consti●uit, etc. as they are in this Historian, show, that the King then had solely the Authoritative Power of passing all Consultations of these Councils into binding Laws, even where money was to be levied on the Subjects, and that seizure was to be made of their Estates. But to come to the more troublesome and perplexed Reign of King john, in which there were many Great Councils holden, yet I shall instance but in some few of them mentioned in Mat. Paris, 
Fol. 201.  as that of St. Alban held by jeffery Fitzpeter, and the Bishop of Winchester in this King's Absence, where ex parte Regis it was firmly enjoined under penalty of Life and Limb, that the Laws of King Henry his Grandfather should be kept by all in his Kingdom. From whence we may observe, that the Laws had their force only from the King's Authority, as appears by this expression, ex parte Regis firmi●er est praeceptum. And when afterwards at Runningmead he was compelled to sign the first Magna Charta, I own it was done in a Great Council of Bishops, Earls and Barons, as well those who stood for him, as against him. Yet that it proceeded wholly from his own good will, is plain from the Charta de Foresta of this King, as appears by these words, Ad emendationem Regui nostri, spontanea, & bona voluntate nostra dedianus, concessimus pro nobis, & haredibus nostris, has libertates subscriptas. From all which Charters of Liberties we may conclude, 
I. E. M. G. P. 211.  that the Petitions of the People were drawn into the form of a Charter, and passed under the King's Seal, as his mere voluntary free Grants, and Concessions, without their Votes, Suffrages, and Authority. And sometimes such Rights or Liberties have been bestowed and declared by our Kings by way of answer to the Petitions of the Lords, and Commons, and that this custom is not yet discontinued appears by the Answer of K. Charles the first to the Petition of Right, when no other answer would please the Commons, but the King's expressed Assent to their Petition in these words: Sole Dro●●t faict comme es● desire. But to return to the Reign of Henry the Third.  F. 
I beseech you, Sir, give me leave now to answer what you have already alleged out of our Hi●●o●i●ns for the Supreme and Absolute Power of our Kings, before we proceed further to less obscure times. And therefore I must tell you, that you have in this long speech of yours, made use of all the Artifice of an Advocate for a Party, viz. in urging all that can any way make for you, and slyly passing over whatsoever may make against you. And to begin with your story of King William the First, I shall not now dispute whether there were any Englishmen in those Great Councils, or whether they consisted only of Tenants in Capite, since I shall defer that Question till anon. But as for the English you have put upon the French Title of the Laws of this King, it is not fairly rendered; for in the French it is, Apres le Conquest d● la ●erre, which doth not always signify a subduing by force, but by any other ways of acquisition different from that of Hereditary Succession; which Mat. Paris was long since aware of, 
Matt. Paris, Pag. 941.  when, writing of this King, he says, Rex Angl●ae ex Conquestu dicitur, tame● quod beatus Edwardus, co quod haerede caruit, Regnum legavi● Willielmo Bastardo Duci Normannorum. 
Sir Hen. Spell. Gloss. Tit. Conquestus.  With whom Sir Henry spelman in his Glossary agrees, Willielmus primus Conquestor dicitur, quia Angliam conquisivit, i. e. acquisivit, purchased, ●on quod subegit. And the learned Sir john Skene in his Book de verborum significatione, 
Pag. 39 Tit. Conquest.  writes thus, Conquestus, signify Lands qui●ilk any Person acquiri● and Possess●s, privato jure, vel singulari titulo, vel donatione, vel singulari oliquo contractu. And therefore I very much doubt, whether or no, the Latin, Version of these words, Apres le Conquest d● lafoy verre, post subactam tetram, be as ancient as the French Original, and be not rather the Version of some Clerk or Monk who lived long after.  
But whether these Laws were not intended as well for the benefit of the English as Norman Subjects, I appeal to this Title itself; though you have omitted part of it, 
V. Leges Guil. I. Edit. ad sinem Lambardi Archaionom. per Rog. Twisden.  Hae sunt Leges & Consuetudines quas Gulielmus Rex concessit Vniverso Populo Angliae post subactam terram. So that unless the English were none of the People of England, these Laws were as well intended for the one as the other. And I appeal to that Charter of King William you have now quoted, whether or no, it doth not begin, Omnibus hominibus suit Francis & Anglis; by which words certainly the English as well as Normans had an interest in those Laws and Privileges therein granted. I mention this only by the by in answer to what you have said.  
But to return to what I am chiefly concerned to speak of, The King's sole Legislative Power in the first place. I shall not deny, but as this Kingdom is a limited Monarchy, so it is suitable to the Honour and Dignity of the Monarch, that all Laws and Constitutions should run in his Name, and are often said to be made by him, though in a Political or Legal Sense, they could not be made without the advice and consent of his Great Council, or Parliament. And that this was the custom in the time of William the First, as of all others his Successors, I need quote only the 55 th'. 
Ibid. p. 170.  Law of this King in these words: Prout Statu●um est eyes, (scil. Liberis hominibus) & illis à nobis datum & concessum jure haereditario in perpetuum, per Commune Concilium totius Reg●i ●●stri praedicti. From whence you may observe that this King could not then make Laws, without the Consent of the Common Council of his whole Kingdom. And though he might do many Arbitrary and Illegal things to the prejudice of the Old English Liberties, yet this was no more his Right, nor any more to be quoted as a precedent, than his Seizing upon the Bishops, and Abbot's Lands, and violently taking away the Pla●e out of Churches and Monasteries (as Historians tell us he did) could give him a Right to them.  
I have not much to observe upon the Reign of William Rufus, since we have none of his Laws left us, if ever he made any. But thus much we plainly find from the Historians, and especially Eadmerus, that he called divors Great Councils of all the Nobility of the Kingdom; especially about his difference with Anselm. whom it is plain he could not condemn without the Consent of this Great Council. But to come to the Reign of King Henry the First, it appears plainly by W. Malmsbury and Mat. Paris, that he was Elected and Crowned King by the Common Suffrages, and favour of the Clergy and People; and certainly that Council whose Vote● could make a King, was also necessary to all such Laws as he was to make: And you yourself have granted, that this Charter of his was made in a Great Council; and it appears in Mat. Paris, as also in the Laws of this King published by Mr. Lambard, 
P. P. R. C. Pag. 62.  Tha● the Archbishops, Bishops, Barons, Earls, Viscount's, or Sheriff●, Optimates, & totius Reg●i Angliae, were Witnesses to this Charter. And I can tell you of a very ancient 
* Charta moderationis feodi Magni Sigilli. An●, 1. johan. in Ar●hivis Cant. Archiepiscopo.  Charter of King john, which recites that those Laws were made de Communi Consilio, & Assensu Baronum Regni Angliae. It being usual in succeeding Ages at the Coronations of our English Kings to confirm, make and ordain Laws, de Assensu Baronum Regni, vel per Commune Concilium Regni, i. e. the Parliament as it was afterwards called.  
As for Henry the Second Reign it is apparent by the Laws of this King in Spellman's Councils, that he granted his Charter in a Great or General Council, and consequently they must likewise give their Assents to it, as well as to that of his Grandfather Henry the First. And though in the Constitutions of Clarendon, the King alone is said to have made, on decreed them, yet nothing is plainer than that the King could not make them, without the advice and consent of his Great Council, or else to what purpose were they to be called; and if their Assent was necessary, certainly they had also a ●●nd in making those Constitutions.  
But that the King could not condemn any Peer, or Great man of the Kingdom in those days, without a Legal Trial in the Great Council of the Kingdom, I need go no further than a Council Summoned by Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury, as the King's Commissioner in his absence, where Log. Hoveden tells us, that having showed the Letters of Earl john, to the Bishops, Earls and Barons, per Commune Concilium Regni definitum est, quod Comes Iohannes dissaisietur, which interprets that passage you have quoted out of the same Author, that the King in a Great Council disseized Gerard Canville, and others, that is by the Authority and Sentence of the said Council. And so likewise in the same sense is to be understood, those words you mentioned, the King appointed to be given him, constituit sibi dari, two Shillings on every Ploughland; that is, he desired it to be given him by them. For if he could have taken it without their Consent, to what purpose did he propose it there? if he could have absolutely demanded it, why should he only request or desire it of them?  
So likewise for the Great Council in King John's time, nothing is more plain, than that they were parties to all the Laws that were made in his time, and that even the Great Charter, was a Statute to which their Assent was likewise necessary, I shall show you by and by, when I come to speak of the Great Chrrter of King Henry the Third, and the several Confirmations of it by his Successors. But if either William Rufus, King john, or any other King, ever levied any Taxes upon the People, without consent of the Great Council, or Parliament, it was contrary to our ancient Laws, and the Liberties of the Subjects, and particularly to the 55 th'. Law of William the First (part of which I have already cited) it begins thus, Volumus etiam ac firmiter praecipimus & concedimus, ut omnes liberi homines totius Monarchiae Regni nostri praedicti habea●t, & teneant terras suas, & p●ssessiones suas, bene & in pace libere ab omni exactione injusta, & ab omni Tallagio; ita quod nihil ab ois exigatur, vel capiatur, nisi Servitium suum liberum, quod de jure nobis facere debent, & facere tenentur, & prout statutum est eyes, etc. So that whatsoever was done at any time contrary to this Statute, was illegal, and consequently ought 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 the time of King john, and of his granting that Charter, appears by its conclusion, in these words, 
In Mat. Paris in vita R. Johannis, Pag. 259, 30.  Salvis Archiepiscopis Abbatibus, Prioribus, Templariis, Hospitalar●is, Comitibus Baronibus, Militibus, & omnibus aliis tam Ecclesiasticis, Personis quam sec●laribus libertatibus, quas prius hab●erunt. And as for the rest of the Liberties granted by this Charter, though they are said to have been granted from the King's mere good will, yet that is recited only to make it more strong against himself, since the Nobility and People of England claimed those Liberties as their ancient, undoubted Right. And the same Author (as I have already hinted) expressly tells us, 
Idem 254.  that this Charter contained, Maxima ex parte leges antiquas.— And a little lower he relates where those Liberties were to be found, Capitula quoque legum, & libertatum quae ibi Magnates confirmari quaerebant partim in Charta Regis Henrici superius scripta sunt, partimque ex Legibus Regis Edwardi a●●iquis excerpta. So that they were not only the effect of the King's mere Grace and Favour, as you suppose. But if you please now to descend to the Reign of Henry the Third, and so downward, from which time our Eldest Printed Statutes bear Date, let us see if I cannot answer all those Arguments which the Gentlemen of your opinion have thence brought for the King's Sole Legislative Power.  M. 
Tho I do not allow of your notion of the Conqueror's not being properly and really so, as I shall show you another time, when I shall more particularly consider that Argument of the Right of Conquest in King William, and all his Successors; therefore I do at present readily assent to your Proposal, and it was the very thing I was coming to. And therefore I shall begin with the Magna Charta of Henry the Third, which begins thus, Know ye, that We of our Mere and Free Will have given these Liberties. The Statute de Scaccario Anno 51 Hen. 3. begins thus, The King commandeth that all manner of Bailiffs, etc. The Statute de Districtione Scaccarii made the same year runs thus: It is Provided and Ordained. The King willeth. The Statute of Marlbridge 52, Hen. 3. And he, i. e. the King hath appointed all these Acts, Ordinances and Statutes to be observed of all his Subjects. If we come to the Reign of his Son Edward I. and begin with the Statute of Westminster I. it is there said in the Preamble, These are the Acts of King Edward I. made at his first Parliament by his Council, and by the Assent of the Archbishops, Bishops, etc. And in the first Chapter 'tis said, The King hath Ordained, and Established these Acts. And though I grant that in divers Statutes of this King, at in this of Westminster, it is recited that the King by the advice of his Counsel or Assent of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, etc. have Made, Provided, Ordained, or Established such and such Laws; yet it is plain, that the Enacting or Decreeing part is wholly ascribed to the King in all those Statutes wherein such words are found, as I shall make it appear more plainly by the Statute of Act on Burnel made in 13 Edw. I. where it is said, The King by himself, and all his Council hath Ordained and Established. And in the Statute of Westminster, 3.18 Edw. I. Chap. I. Our Lord the King, in his Parliament at Westminster, at the Instance of the Great Men of the Realm, hath Granted, Provided and Ordained. In the Statute De iis, qui ponendi sunt in Assizes, 21 Edw. I. Our Lord the King in his Parliament holden, etc. hath Ordained that, etc. The Statute of Quo Warranto 18. Edw. I. runs thus, Our Lord the King, at his Parliament holden at Westminster, of his special Grace, and for the Affection he beareth unto his Prelates, Earls and Barons, hath granted, That, etc. ay Edw. II. begins thus, Our Lord the King hath Granted. The Statute of Gavelet, 10 Edw. II. begins thus, It is provided by our Lord the King, and his justices. The Statute of Carlisle, 15 Edw. II. begins thus, The King unto the justices of his B●nch, sendeth Greeting. Whereas of ●ate We have Ordained, etc.  
But if we come to the Reign of his Son Edw. 3d. The Prefaces to most of the Statutes made in his Reign, run thus. Our Lord the King, by the Assent of the Prelates, Earls, etc. and at the Request of his People, hath granted and established, or else at the Request of the Commonality, hath ordained, etc. The like Style continued during the Reigns of Richard the 2d. Henry 4th. and Henry 5th. with very little Alteration, only it was commonly at the Request of the Prelates, D●kes, Earls and Barons, and at the Instance and Special Request of the Commons, the King hath Ordained, etc. Whereby we see a plain difference in the Phrases of the Statutes of those times: for it is the Lords that give their Assent, whereas the Commons only Petitioned; but it is the King alone, who Ordaineth and Establishes. I confess indeed, that under some Princes of bad Titles, as in particular, under the Minority of Henry 6th. there began some Alteration in the form of penning the Enacting part of most Statutes that were then made, and that unto those usual words, which were inserted ordinarily into the Body of the Acts, from the beginning of the Reign of that King, 
S. B. R. p. 721.  viz. by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temp●ral, and at the Special Instance and Request of the Commons, there was added by the Authority of the said Parliament. But it is still to be observed, that though these words were added to the former Clause, yet the Power of Granting and Ordaining, was still acknowledged to belong to the King alone, as appears by these Acts of Parliament of that King, viz. the 3d. Henry 6th. Ch. 2. 8th. Hen. 6. Chap. 3. Where it is said, our Lord the King, by the Advice and Assent, and at the Request aforesaid, hath ordained and granted, or Ordained and Established by the Authority of this Parliament. And thus, it generally stood (but every General Rule, may have some Exceptions) till the beginning of the Reign of Henry 7th. about which time, that usual Clause at the Special Instance or Request of the Commons, began by little and little, to be lai● aside, and that of their Advice or Assent, to be inserted in the place thereof: For which I do refer you to the Statute-Book at large; which Form, I confess, continues to this day, yet even in Hen. 7ths. time, in the first of that King, and the 7th. Chap. it runs in this Style. The King our Sovereign Lord, of his Noble and Abundant Grace, by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, at the Supplication of the Commons in the said Parliament Assembled, and by Authority of the same, Ordaineth. And though the Statutes of Hen. 8th. do generally agree in their Style, with those of his Father: Yet in his time also, many Acts were drawn up in Form of Petitions, as 3 Hen. 8th. c. 14. Prayen your Highness, the Commons in this present Parliament Assembled, and 5 Hen. 8. c. 4. Prayen the Commons in this present Parliament: And in the Reign of his Son ●d. 6th. tho' I grant, that most of his Acts do run in the usual Form; yet this one is very Remarkable, I Edw. 6. c. 4. Wherefore the King our Sovereign Lord, etc. At the Humble Petition and Suit of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled, doth Declare, Ordain and Enact by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliament Assembled, and by the Authority of the same: Which last words, 
S.B.D. p. 722.  though they may seem to refer to the Parliament, and may make Men think, that the Lords and Commons did then pretend some Title unto the Power of making Laws: Yet neither Adviseing nor Assenting are so Opperative in the present Case, as to Transfer the Power of making Laws, to such as do advise about them, or assent unto them; nor can the Alteration of the Forms and Styles used in Ancient times, import an Alteration of the Form of Government, unless it can be showed (as I think it cannot) that any of our Kings did Renounce that power which properly and solely did belong unto them, or did by any Solemn Act of Communication, confer the same upon the Lords and Commons convened in Parliament: And therefore upon the whole matter, 
F.F.G.I. p. 41.  since in almost all our most Ancient Statutes; it is precisely expressed, that they were made by the King himself, the meaning of those general words used in latter times, that the Statutes are made by Authority of Parliament, are particularly explained in former Statutes, viz. that the King Ordaineth, the Lords Advise, the Commons Consent, as by comparing the Writs with the Statutes that expound the Writs, will evidently appear.  F. 
In answer to those Authorities, you have now brought; I doubt not, but I shall give you others of as great weight, that prove the direct contrary to what you now Assert. To begin with your Instance of Magna Charta, I shall show that those Charters that were granted and confirmed by Henry 3d. were not his Acts or Grants alone; but the Grants also of the whole Kingdom, Represented in Parliament. We have two Express Declarations for the one, 
Mem. 38.  in the 25th of King Edw. 〈◊〉 Where is to be found in the Parliament Roll of that Year, a Confirmation of the Great Charter of Liberties and Forests, in these Words which I shall render to you in English, out of the Old French, for your better understanding. Know ye, that the Honour of God, and Holy Church, and for the profit of our whole Realm: We have granted for us, and to our Heirs, that the Great Charter of Franchises and Forests, which were made by the Common Assent of the whole Realm, in the time of King Henry our Father, should be held in all Points, without any Blemishment. So likewise we find another Confirmation of those Charters in the Parliament Rolls, 
N. 50. Dorso.  of the 15th. of Edw. 3d. which being in Old French, I shall render it into English: Imprimi●, it is Accorded and Assented, that the Franchise of Holy Church, and the Great Charter of Forest, and the other Statutes made by our said Lord the King, and his Progenitors, the Peers, and the Commons of the Land, for the Common profit of the People, shall be firmly kept and maintained in all Points. So that you may hence plainly see, that the King himself, with the whole Parliament, declare, and that in two several King's Reigns, that the Great Charters were not only the Free Grants of King Henry; but also the joint Acts of the Common Council of the whole Kingdom, and why King John's Charter should not be made by the like Authority, being one of his Progenitors: I see no reason, especially if we consider, that that Charter was first drawn up by the Barons in the Form, in which we find it; and was passed by that King, under his Great Seal, in that vast General Council, or Assembly at Running-Mead. And certainly, whoever can draw up a Law, and can offer it to a Prince to Confirm, and without which consent of theirs, it would not be good, must necessarily have a share in the making of it.  
As for your other Instances of those Old Statutes made in the Reign of He●. 3d. though I grant they begin as you say, 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 Bishops▪ Earls and Barons, gave their Consents to them. And for the Proof of this, I shall begin with one of the Ancientest Statutes we have left us, 
20 H. 3.  viz. that of Merton, in the Preamble of which, it is recited, Provisum est in Curia Domini Regis apud Merton, where after the parties that were present at the making of the Laws, it concludes thus in the Latin Copies, ita provisum est & Concessum tam a praedictis Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Comitibus, Baronibus quam ab ipso Rege, & aliis, where you see the Providing and Enacting Part▪ is Ascribed to the Bishops, Earls and Barons, as well as to the King, who is here mentioned almost last of all. And though I confess that there was then no Set Form of Penning of Statutes in that honest and plain Age, when Parliaments did not last so many Days, as they do now Weeks, and that the King's Judges and Council, drew up the Acts after the Parliament was up, in what Form they pleased; sometimes leaving out any mention of the Bishops, sometimes of the Temporal Lords, and most commonly of the Commons: Yet that they did all give their Consents to such Acts, appears by the Statute of Westminster the 1st. which you have already Cited where the Assent of the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, etc. Counts, Earls, Barons, and all the Commonalty of the Land, is expressly mentioned. So likewise the Statute of 51. of King H. 3d. concerning Measures, begins thus. Per ordinationes totius Regni Angliae fuit mensura Domini Regis composita.  
But farther to convince you, that in the Opinion of the Lord Chancellor, and those Learned Judges who framed the Writs that were issued out upon any of these Ancient Statutes, you will find that they who lived in those very times, believed that those Statutes were made, not by the K. alone; but by him and the Common Council of the Kingdom, which Writs as you may see in the Register of Writs, run thus. Rex Vicecom. etc. Salut. Si A. fecerit, etc. tunc summonias, etc. B. quod sit coram justiciarijs, 
Vi. Regist. Brev. p. 174. & dein. per tot. Titulum Brevia de Statuto.  etc. Ostensuris quare, cum de Communi Concilio Regni Nostri Angliae provisum sit, etc. as you may see in the Writs Granted upon the Statutes of Magna Charta, Marlbridg, Merton, Gloucester, etc. which have all of them this, or the like Recitals, cum de Statuto, or juxia formam Statuti, de Communi Concilio Regni nostri Ang. inde provisi. The like Instance I could give you, upon the Statute of Marlbridge, and divers other Old Statutes, in which the King by the Statute itself, seems only to have Enacted it, and yet you may see, that our Sages of the Law, were very well Convinced, that those Statutes were made not by the King alone; but by the whole Common Council of England: So that there is no avoiding the Conclusion, that the Great Council or Parliament had then a Great Share in the Legislative Power, unless you can suppose the King alone, to have been the whole Common-Council of the Kingdom, mentioned in these Writs.  
But as for the rest of your Instances of Edw. 2d. and Edw. 3ds times: I think I can show you, that there is no General Rule to be drawn from some few Examples; For though it is very true, that the first of Edw. 2d. begins thus, Our Lord the King hath granted, etc. Yet it is plain by the Statute itself, that it was made in, and by, Parliament. The like I may say of the rest of the Statutes of this King's Reign, though they do not all agree in Form, as you may see by the Statute of Sheriffs 9th. Edw. 2d. Our Lord the King by the Assent of the Prelates, Earls, Barons and other Great Estates, hath Ordained and Established. And though you would fain draw some mighty Consequence from those Phrases in the Statutes of Edw. 3d. and many of his Successors, by the Assent of the Lords, and at the Request of the Commons, as if the Consent of the latter, were not as necessary as the former: Yet indeed it is a mere difference in Form, and proceeds only from hence, that that Estate which found itself grieved, always Petitioned the King for Redress; and which amounted to as much as a Consent: For you shall always find, that the Petitioning Part still refers to that Body which was then oppressed, without giving any other Assent: For certainly their Requesting to have an Act made, doth necessarily express their Consent. And to prove what I have now said by Examples, pray see the 8th of Hen. 6. c. 1. Where it is Recited in the Preamble, that our Sovereign Lord the King, Willing Graciously to provide for the Security and Quiet of the said Prelates and Clergy, at the Supplication of the said Prelates, etc. and of the Assent of the Great Men and Commons aforesaid, hath Ordained and Establishsed, where you may see that the Assent of the Prelates, is not here at all mentioned; because it was needless, as being made at their Request. And if Praying and Requesting, should destroy the Legislative Power, I doubt whether Edw. 3d. did not give away his, when in his 14th. Year, in a Statute concerning the Subsidy of Wools: The Preamble runs thus, nevertheless the King prayeth the Earls, Barons and all the Commonalty, for the Great Business which he hath in Hand, etc. that they would grant him some Aid upon Wools, Leather, etc. Where upon Deliberation being bad, the said Prelates, Barons and Commons of the Kingdom, have Granted him 40 Shillings to be taken on every Sack of Wool.  
But to return to the Matter, to let you see that not only the Commons but also the Lords have been oftentimes Petitioners, as well as the Commons, Pray see these Authorities. The 1 is the Statute of Provisors 27 Edw. 3d. runs thus. Our Sovereign Lord the King, with the Assent and Prayers of the Great Men, and the Commons of the Realm of England, hath ordained, etc. And in the 4th. of Ed. 4th. i e. It is Recited thus. The King by the Assent, Advice, Request and Authority of his Lords Spiritual, Temporal and Commons, etc. hath Ordained and Established in the Preamble of the Statute of 1. Edw. 6. c. 4. it is thus. Wherefore the King our Sovereign Lord, minding and entirely desiring— at the Humble Petition, and Suit of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled, doth Declare, Ordain and Enact, by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliament Assembled, and by the Authority of the same. And that the Assent of the Commons, was always necessary to the making of Laws, not as bare Petitioners, but as Assenters too, as well as the Lords, appears by this Protestation, or Declaration of the Commons, 
N. 46.  to Edw. 3d. which is still to be found in the Parliament Rolls of 51. of that King; which I shall read to you in English, out of the Law-French; which perhaps you are not used to; Also the said Commons do Petition our Lord the King, that no Statute or Ordinance may be made, or Granted at the Petition of the Clergy, unless it be by the Assent of the Commons; Neither that the said Commons should be obliged by any Constitution, which they may make for their Advantage, without the Assent os the said Commons: For they will not be obliged to any of your (viz. the Kings) Statutes or Ordinances made without their Assent.  M. 
I do not deny, but that the Assent of the Commons, as well as Lords, hath been allowed as necessary for a long time: But whether the Consent of either, at first was so, is a great doubt, since we find the first Ancient Statutes (as I have already observed) to have been made wholly by the King alone: And I think the most Ancient Laws, are the best Interpreters of the Original Legislative Power: 
F. F.G.I p. 50.  And thence it appears, that many Provisions, Ordinances and Proclamations made heretofore out of Parliament, have been always acknowledged for Laws and Statutes. We have among the Printed Statutes to this purpose, one called the Statute of Ireland, Dated at Westminster, the 9th. of February, 14 Hen. 3d. Which is nothing but a Letter of the King to Gerard, Fitz Maurice, Justiciar of Ireland. The Explanations of the Statute of Gloucester, made by the King, and his justices only, were received always for Statutes, and are still printed with them: Also the Statute made for the Correction of the 12th. Ch. of the Statute of Gloucester, was Signed under the Great Seal, and sent to the justices of the Bench, after the manner of a Writ Patent; with a Certain Writ closed, Dated by the King's Hand at Westminster, 2 Mai● 9 Edw. I Requiring, that they should do, and Execute all and every thing contained in it, 
Ibid. p. 51.  though the same doth not accord with the Statute of Gloucester in all things. 19 Hen. 3d. a Provision was made, de assisa praesentationis, which was continued and allowed for a Law, until the Statute of Westminster 2 which provides the contrary in express words. So that in the Old Statutes, it is hard to Distinguish what Laws were made by Kings in Parliament, and what out of Parliament, especially, when Kings called the Peers only to Parliament, and of those how many, or whom they pleased (as it appears Anciently they did) it was no easy 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 Distinction between the King's Special, or Privy Council, and the Common-Council of the Kingdom; and yet his Special Council did Sat with the Peers in Parliament, and were as part thereof, and were of Great and Extraordinary Authority there, as may appear by divers Acts of Parliament, some of which I have already Recited, as the Statute of Westminster I. Where it is said: These are the Acts of Edward, made at his I. Parliament, by his Council. The Statute of Acton Burnel, 13 Ed. 1st. hath these words: The King for himself, and by his Council, hath Ordained and Established: And in Articulis Super Chartas, there are these Provisions. Nevertheless, the King and his Council do not intend: And both the King and his Council, and all they t●at were present, Will and Intent, that the Right and Prerogative of his Crown, shall be saved to him in all things. 
1 E. 3. Stat. 2. preamb.  And before these, the Commons often Petitioned the King: As 1 Edw. 3d. where Magna Charta was confirmed, the Preamble is thus: At the Request of the Commonalty by their Petition made before the King, and his Council in Parliament by the Assent of the Prelates, Earls and Barons, etc. I could give you many more Examples of this Kind, but that it is needless, only these may suffice to let you see, That the King's Council had a Great Authority in those times, and perhaps was more Ancient than the Great Council itself.  
Yet I cannot forbear to give you one or two Authorities more to prove▪ 
I.E.M.G. p. 234.  that the King with the Advice and Consent of a Council of his Earls, Barons, and other Wise Men, hath sometimes taken upon him to Rep●●● a● the Statutes made in a Precedent Parliament, as contrary to the Laws and Customs of this Realm; and to his Prerogatives, and Rights Royal, though Granted by him in manner of a Statute. And for this, 
Pult. p. 111.  you may see the Statute of 15th. Edward the 3d. at large in Pulton's Collection. So likewise in the Preface of the Statute of Westminster, 20 E. 3. that We, viz. The King by the Assent of our Great Men, and other Wise Men of our Council▪ have Ordained, etc. Where you may observe, that here is no mention either of Lords Temporal or Commons. I could give you more Examples of this kind, were it not too tedious. From which statutes, it seems plain to me, that this King did sometimes Exercise a Prerogative of Making and Repealing Laws, without Consent of Parliament.  
In the next place, I desire you to take notice that these words you so much rely upon (viz.) by the Authority of this present Parliament, 
H.S.B.D. p. 721.  and be it Enacted by the King, Lords and Commons, as if they were three coordinate Estates, was never in use, till the Reign of Hen. 6th, and Hen. 7th. two Notorious Usurpers. And that the King's Single Answer to the Lords and Commons Request, is a Sufficient Act of Parliament, without any mention of the Concurrent Authority of the Lords and Commons Enacting the same the Precedent I gave you of King Charles' Answer to the Petition of Right, may suffice, though you have not vouchsafed to give me any Return to it. So that I think these Instances may serve instead of many Arguments; for the proof of this Truth, that the Legislative Power (as We Phrase it now) is wholly and solely in the King, although Restrained in the Exercise and use thereof, by constant Custom unto the Counsel and Consent of the Lords and Commons: For Le Roy le veult, or the King will have it so, is the Imperative Phrase, by which the Propositions of the Lords and Commons, are made Acts of Parliament. And let the Lords and Commons Agitate, and propound what Laws they please for their Ease and Benefit (as generally all Laws and Statutes are more for the Ease and Benefit of the Subject, than the Advantages of the King) yet as well now, as formerly, in the time of the Roman Emperors, only, quod Principi placet, Legis habet Vigorem, nothing but that which the King pleases to allow of, is to pass for Law: The Laws not taking their Coercive force (as Judicious Hooke●, well observes) from the Quality of such as Devise them; 
H.D.L. p. 49.  but from the Power that giveth them the Strength of Laws. So that to Determine the matter Logically: The Legislative Power, is either largely and improperly, or Strictly, and Properly taken: Largely taken, it signifies any Power, which hath the Authority to provide the Materials of a Law, and to Judge what is Just, Convenient or Necessary to be Enacted; and to declare when any Matters duly prepared, are made and granted into a Law; and this Ministerial sort of Legislative Power improperly so called, the two Houses have, and Exercise yet by Authority front the Grown: But then the Legislative Power, is Strictly and Properly taken for the Power of Sanction, or for that Commanding, Ordaining, Power, which gives Life, and Being to the Law, and force to oblige the Conscience of the Subject; and this is radically and Incommunicably in the King, as Sovereign. And therefore (as I have already said) all the Ancient Acts, run in the King's Name alone; And from the Legislative Power thus properly taken, the Laws are properly called the King's Laws, and the Violation of them is punishable as such.  F. 
You have made a very long Speech, and taken a great deal of pains to perplex a Question in itself very easy to be Resolved; and to which I need return you no other Answer, than what Bracton tells us, in his 3 d. Book, cap. 9 de actionibus Nihil aliud potest Rex in terris su●●, cum sit Dei minister, & vicarius, nisi id solum quod de jure potest, n●● o●sta● quod dicitur, quod Principi places, legis habet vigorem, quia sequ●●u● in fine legis; cum Bege reg●a quae de Imperio ejus la●a est i. e. non qui●quid de voluntate Regis te●●ere praesumptum est, sed quod consilio Magistratuum suo●an Rege Authoritatem praes●a●●e, & bab●●a super ho● deliberat●one. So that you see in the time when this Author Writ, the King could do no more by his Prerogative. than the Law allowed him to do; and though it is true, it is his Will, and Authority that gives Vigour to the Law, yet this only, as it is declared in Parliament, and in those Acts which had before received the Consent of his Great Council, here called the King's Magistrates: And therefore you have done what you can, to confound the difference between the King's Declaration, or Writs Explaining and Enforcing the Common Laws of England, or else Interpreting former Acts of Parliament already made; which was a Prerogative often exercised by the King and his Council in Parliament, which then consisted of all, or most of the judges, and Great Officers of the Kingdom, of which, I shall speak more at large, by and by: And I confess we are much in the Dark, because our Ancient Parliament-Rolls are almost all lost, and consequently the Statutes therein contained: So that we have almost nothing left of them, but such Copies or Remains, as were preserved by judges and Lawyers in those and Succeeding times, whilst they were still in Being. And therefore I think I may at present boldly affirm, that if that, which you call the Statute of Ireland, was not founded upon some former Statute not now in being, it was no Act of Parliament at all; but only the King's Writ, to the Chief Justiciar of Ireland, Commanding and Enforcing the Common Law of England, in the Case of Coparceners, to be observed in Ireland. The like I may say to the Explanation of the Statute of Gloucester, which might be no more than the Interpretation of the King and his justices, of the Sense of some Articles in that Statute; and this for its Greater Authority. Exemplified under the Great Seal, and so sent to all the Courts at Westminster, and often to the Sheriffs of all the Counties in England, yet without altering that Statute in some Points, as you would have it. The like I may say of the Statute of Acon Burnel; and therefore it is very rashly done, to conclude, that though we have not the Original Acts and Records of Parliament, of that time, that therefore such Statutes were made by the King alone, in his Privy Council; So that I must still continue of the same Opinion with the Great Selden in this Point, who in his Mar● Clausum, tells us. It is most certain, that according to Ancient Custom, no Answer is given either by the King, or in the King's Name to any Parliamentary Bill, before that Bill, whether it be brought in first by the Lords, or by the Commons, hath past both Houses, as is known to all that are versed in Parliamentary Affairs. Which if it hath been the Fundamental Law of this Kingdom, it signifies very little, in what Form the Law is expressed, whether in the King's Name only, as giving the last Assent thereto, or else as his Concession to the Lords and Common's Petition, as long as you grant that their Assent was necessary; For sure, whosoever Petitions another to do a thing, which he cannot impose upon him without his Request, must give his consent to the Doing it, unless you can prove, that it could be done whether the Petitioner would or not: And this by the way, will serve to answer an Objection; which though you insist much upon it, is scarce worth it, viz. The King's Answer to the Lords and Commons Petition of Right, which was indeed no Grant or Concession of any New Rights or Privileges from the King to the People; But only a Declaration of several Ancient Rights and Liberties of the Subjects, which had been very much broken and infringed of late; and therefore the King's Answer was very proper, soit Droict faict comme est desire.  
The next mistake you fall into proceeds from your confounding the King's extraordinary Council in Parliament, with the King's Special, or Privy Council, and in a manner making this a fourth Estate; by whom, as well as by the Lords and Commons Laws are often made; whereas indeed neither the one nor the other is true. For though I grant that there is often made mention in our Ancient Statutes, or Records of the King's Council; yet this is not to be understood of his Privy Council, but of a Special Council, with whom our King's formerly sat 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 yourself do truly affirm. But that this was not the King's Privy Council, but another quite different from it: And to which it seems to me, that Fle●a refers in his 2d Book, Cap. 2. Habet enim Rex curiam suam in Concilio suo in Parliamentis suis: praesentibus Praelatis, Comit. etc. And this Council consisted of all the Great Officers of the Kingdom, viz. The Lord Treasurer, Chancellor, and Keeper of the Privy Seal, Master of the Wardrobe, the Judges of the King's Bench, Common Pleas, Barons of the Exchequer, Justices, Itinerant, and Justices of Assizes, with such of the Dignified Clergy, as it pleased the King to call: Which that they were altogether distinct from the King's Privy Council, appears plainly by this, that the later never included all the judges, nor did the Privy Council ever exercise any judicial Authority in Parliament, as this Council did in those days; but that this Council consisted of the Parties above mentioned, see the Statute of Escheators made 29 Edw. I. 
In Rastals & Pultons Stat. fol. 52.83. Pla. Parl. 29 Edw. I. fol. 273. Rot. Claus. 29 Ed. I. M. 15 Dorso.  and in the Placita Parliamentaria of that year the Statute runs thus, Per Consilium Regis concordatum est coram Domino Rege ipso consentiente, etc. But in the Close Roll of this year it is clearly explained who were of this Council, their Names being there particularly recited, viz. all the Great Officers abovementioned, together with the judges of the King's Courts, and Justices Itinerant, etc. Which is likewise explained by the Parliament Roll 9 Edw. 2. Rex voluit quod Dominus Cancellarius, Thesaurarius, Barones, Soaccarii, Iusti●iarii, & alii de Consilio Domini Regis Londin▪ 
Numb. 9  existente convenirent. I could give you many more Examples of this kind, but I shall give you but two more, to prove that this Council in Parliament could not be the King's Ordinary Privy Council. 
Ro●. 97.  The first is in Placit. Parliament. 2 Edw. 3. in a Cause betwixt Thomas Fitz-Peter, and Alienora Wife of john de Mowbray, Coram Rege. The Record is long, but concludes thus, to the Justices, Et si difficultas aliqua subfuerit, quare praemissa facere non poss●tis, tun● placitum ill●●d usque in Prox. Parliamentum nostrum udjornetis, ut ibidem ●unc inde fieri valeat, quod de Consilio nostro fuerit faciendum.  
By which we may very well gather that this was none of the King's Ordinary or Privy Council, or else to what purpose was this Cause adjourned to the meeting of the next Parliament; Since, if it had been to be determined by the Privy Council, it might have been done forthwith.  
I shall give you but one Instance more out of the Close Roll of the 41 of this King, 
M. 12.13.  wherein a Cause between Elizabeth Wife of Nicholas D'Audley, and james D'Audley in a Controversy between them (touching certain Lands contained in in the Covenants of her Marriage) is said to have been adjudged, Devant Son Conseil, c'est a scavoir chancellor, Thresorier, justices, & A●ires Sages assemblez en la Chambre des Etoiles: i e. Before his Council, viz. the Chancellor, Treasurer, Justices, and other wise men assembled in the Star-Chamber. So that when any thing in our old Statutes is said to be Ordained by the King, and his Council, it is always to be understood, not as if this Council were a fourth Estate, whose Assent or Advice was as necessary to the making of Laws, as that of the Lordi Spiritual; Temporal and Commons, for than they would have had the same Power still, but only according to the Custom of those times, when most Acts of Parliament were drawn by them, and that the King past none without their advice; it was then said to be done by the King, and his Council (viz. in Parliament) and I conceive the Power of this Council continued till the beginning of the Reign of Henry the Seventh, when this Court, being by Act of Parliament annexed to that of the Star-Chamber, where also this Council of the King used to meet before (as appears by the Case I have last cited) and having afterwards only to do with Criminal Causes, and that as well out of, as in Parliament: and that King Hen. 7 th'. not caring to exercise his judicial Power in private Causes as his Predecessors had done, or to make use of their advice either in the drawing, or passing of Bills, which now began to be drawn by Committees in either house wherein those Bills were preferred, this Council came by degrees to grow quite out of use, as it is at this day. I hope you will pardon this long digression, which I have been drawn into, to rectify a Common mistake of the Gentlemen of your opinion, who when they find any thing in our ancient Statutes, or Records wherein the King's Council is mentioned, presently entertain strange fancies of the Antiquity and Authority of the Privy Council.  M. 
I am so far from thinking this Discourse you have now made to be at all tedious, that I give you many thanks for it, since it gives me a light into many things which I confess I did not know before, and I shall better consider the Authorities you have now given me, and if I find they will hold, shall come over to your opinion in that point, though I am not as yet satisfied as to the Legistative Power of the two Houses, and therefore pray proceed to answer the rest of the Precedents I have brought on that Subject.  F. 
I shall readily comply with your Commands; and therefore to come to those Statutes of the 15 th'. and 20 th'. of Edw. 3. which you suppose to have been repealed by that King without the Consent of the Lords and Common●; I grant indeed that the Statutes you mention were intended to be repealed by the King, without Assent of Parliament; Yet was this not done, by himself, and his Council alone as you suppose, but by a Council of Earls, Barons and Commons, which the Kings of England in those days were wont to call upon emergent occasions, and for the doing of that which they thought Parliaments could not so speedily perform; as in this pretended repeal of the Statute you mention: And though I grant this was a great br●●ch upon the fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom, yet that it was done in such a Great Council, as I have now mentioned, I refer you to this pretended Statute its self, and to your recital of it. And that the King often called such Great Councils appears by an agreement of Exchange, made for the Castle of Berwick between King Hen. IU. in the fifth year of his Reign, and the Earl of Northumberland, where the King promiseth to deliver to the Earl, Lands and Tenements to the value of the Castle, by these words (which I shall render out of French from the Original which remains in the Tower), By the advice and assent of the Estates of the Realm, and of his Parliament (so that the Parliament happen before the Feast of St. Lucy) otherwise by the Assent of his Great Council, and other Estates of his said Realm, which the King will cause to be assembled before the said Feast, in case the Parliament do not happen, etc.  
And yet notwithstanding this high strain of Prerogative King Edw. III. himself was not satisfied with this repeal of those Statutes you have mentioned, but in the next Parliament held in his 17 th'. year he procured a formal and Legal repeal of them, as by the Parliament Rolls of that year, 
Numb. 23.  remaining in the Tower, doth plainly appear. And which I could give you at large, did I not fear to be too tedious. But I think it fit to let you know this, because most ordinary Readers seeing no more appear in Print in our Statute Books, are apt to imagine, that the Kings of England in those days did often take upon them without Authority of Parliament to make and repeal Laws. But as for your next Instance of the Statute of Edw. III. it is much weaker: since, though I confess that in the Preface to these Acts, there is only mention of the Great Men, or Grantz (as it is in our old French) and other wise Men of our Council, yet I shall prove at another time that under this word Grantz were meant the Lords in Parliament, as by the wise men of our Council are understood the Commons. And therefore it seems most reasonable to interpret the sense of many ancient Statutes wherein the King alone is said to make and ordain Laws, by those later or more modern ones, wherein the King by the Consent of the Lords and Commons, or by Authority of Parliament, is said to have Ordained them: Since the true Style and Meaning of ancient Laws, which were penned with the greatest brevity, aught to be still Interpreted by the Modern ones, and not the Modern ones by the Ancient. So that I am of the Learned Mr. Lambard● opinion, who in his Arcb●ion, or Discourse upon the High Courts of Justice in England, expressly tells us, That whether the Laws are said to be made by the King, 
Pag. 269. Edit. 1635.  and his Wise Men, or by the King and his Council, or his Common Council; or by the King, his Earls, Barons, and other Wise Men, or after such other like Phrases, whereof you meet with many in the Volumes of Parliaments: It comes all to this one Point, namely, That the King, his Nobility, and Commons did Ordain and Enact the same. And which is more if you shall find any Acts of Parliament▪ seeming to pass under the Name and Authority of the King only, as there be some that have that show indeed; yet you must not by and by judge that it was established without the Assent of the other Estates.  
As for the rest of your Insinuations, rather than Arguments against the Antiquity of those Expressions, Be it Enacted by Authority of Parliament, or Be it Enacted by the King, Lords and Commons; which bear so hard upon you, to prove that these last have a share in the Legislative, that they were introduced in the Reigns of Henry VI and VII. two Usurpers, and but in the Nonage of the former, I think I shall be able to show you that you are very much out in your account, for I will show you much ancienter Authorities, wherein the same words or others equivalent have been used in our ancient Statutes. And first pray call to mind the Statute of Measures already recited, where it is said, That by the Consent of the whole Realm of England, the Measure of our Sovereign Lord the King was thus made, etc. which certainly must mean the Assent of all the Estates assembled in Parliament. And my Lord Co●e tells us in his Third Institutes of an ancienter Record that he had seen of the 7 th'. of this King, 
Pag. 27.  wherein it was Enacted by the King, the Lords Spiritual, Temporal and Commons. But since I have given you Precedents enough of Statutes which are said to be made or ordained, by the King with the Assent of Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons; I will show you one, where the King is not at all mentioned; and that is in Rastal's Statutes, 4 Hen. 4▪ cap. 24. concerning Aulnage of Clothes, wherein it is said, to be ordained, and accorded by the said Parliament, without any mention at all of the King. And to let you see that these fatal words you except against were in use before the Reign of Hen. 6. pray see 9 Hen. 5. cap. 4. concerning the Misprision of Clerk's in writing, which runs thus, The King hath now declared, and ordained by Authority of this Present Parliament that the justices, etc. which must certainly refer to the Lords and Commons unless you can make the King alone to carry the whole Parliament in his own person. But whereas that Phrase had begun from Usurpation it would have been first found in the Statutes of Henry the 4 th'. But to let you see that Edward the 4 th'. though no Usurper, yet did not think that these words did abate any thing of his Royal Prerogative, pray see in the 4 th'. of that King, Cap. 1. wherein it is recited, That the King by the advice, assen●, request and authority of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled hath ordained and established: But that by Assent of Parliament, and by Authority of Parliament, is all one and the same, since the Assent of Parliament makes its Authority; Pray see the express Judgement in this point of the Lord Chief Justice Crew, 
Pag. 104.  and Justice Doderidge given in the Great case of the Earldom of Oxford, reported in Judge Iokes' Reports.  
To conclude, though I do not deny His Majesty's Negative Vote to all Acts of Parliament, yet this Prerogative can be concluded only from his giving his last Assent to a Law, for when a Bill begins from himself, the two Houses have likewise a Negative upon him, which is evident, in an Act of Pardon, which proceeds from the King first, and sent down to the Parliament, this neither the Lords nor Commons can add, or alter one tittle to; yet may they notwithstanding his prior Asent, refuse the whole Bill if they please; though already past under the Great Seal. And though I likewise grant, that it is the Le Roy le Veult, that by yielding the highest, and last Assent gives the Enacting force to the Law, and thus the King may in a Logical sense be said thereby to make the Laws according to that known Maxim, Quod dat formam, dat esse ●ei; Yet this does not hinder but in a Legal sense according to the express declaration of our old Lawyers, and Acts of Parliament, the Laws owe their obligation to the joint consent of King and Parliament, and his giving his last assent, or form to the Law, no more proves his sole Legislative Power than it would do, that of the Lords or Commons, if either of them by the Constitution of the Government were to give their Asents last thereunto. So that I think upon the whole matter, no man can reasonably deny but that Legally the Two Houses of Parliament have also their share not only in framing, but Enacting of all Bills that shall pass; for otherwise they would signify no more than the Committee of Estates in Scotland, or the King and Council of England in relation to Ireland; the former of which draws up all Bills that are to pass in the Parliament of that Kingdom; and the latter must approve or reject all Bills that shall pass in the Parliament of Ireland: Whereas the Authority of our Parliament consists in their consenting to, and Enacting together with the King all Statutes whatsoever. And this Distinction I think may very well reconcile Bracton, with Fortescue, the former of which says, Quod leges ligant suum L●torem (meaning the King) and the latter (in the place I have already cited) affirms, that the People are governed by those Laws, quas ipse fe●t, which they themselves make; and this I think is to ascribe to the King as much Power as is requisite to a Civil Sovereign, and yet to leave a sufficient share to the People to secure themselves from Tyranny.  M. 
I must beg your pardon if I cannot be satisfied with your division of the Legislative Power beiween the King and the Two Houses of Parliament, since it is against the sense of our old Lawyers Glanville and Bracton, who as you yourself confess make the King the Sole Legislator. And though I confess Fortescue gives the People a share in it, yet he is but a Modern Author in comparison of the other two, and writ to support the Usurped Title of Henry the Sixth. So that I cannot comprehend how the Two Houses can have any share (properly speaking) in the Legislative Power, without falling into that old error of making the King one of the three Estates, and so coordinate with the other two whereas; if the King be a Monarch, that signifies in Greek the Government of one person, whereas by giving the Two Houses a part in the Legislative, you divide it into three several shares. Whereas there is so close a conjunction between all the Parts of Sovereign Power▪ that the one cannot be separated from the other, but it will destroy the form of the Government, and only set up an Irregular Commonwealth in its place, which will scarce be able to hold long together, without falling into perpetual quarrels, and disputes about the Encroachments upon each other's Power and Privileges.  
But it appears as well by the whole Tenor of our Laws, as also by divers Express Statutes, that the King is the Sole Supreme, or consequently the Sole Legislative Power: The first of these I shall prove from the common Indictments of Treason, Murder, Felony, etc. Which run always, Encounter la Corone, & la dignitie de Roy, and the Process against such Offences, are called the Pleas of the Crown; because they are against 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 Dignity and Authority of the King.  
In the next place, this Opinion is contrary to the express Declaration of divers of those very Parliaments, which you pretend have Exercised a Share in the Legislative: 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 strange, that one Fellow in the Supreme Power, 
Ibid p. 32.  should so humbly Petition the other. But 2. Though time hath altered the Form of Petitioning into Bills, yet both Lords and Commons have been often used to call the King, Our Dread Sovereign, Our Sovereign Lord, Our Liege Lord, and the like, and to Style themselves, We your Majesty's most Humble and Faithful Subjects, or most Dutiful and Obedient Subjects; and in that Humble Style, to beseech him to Enact such and such things, which sure they could have done alone, had they been coordinate with him in Law-making: Lastly, if they were Copartners with him in the Supreme Power, how came they to declare (as they did in the Preamble to the Statute of the 25th. Hen. 8. which you yourself have quoted) that the Realm of England is an Empire, Governed by one Supreme Head and King, unto whom the Body Politic of the Nation, Compacted of several 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 furnished with Plenary, Whole and En●ire Power by the Goodness and Sufferance of Almighty God. Certainly they can have no share in it, if it be Plenary, Wholly, and Entirely in him, or how came they in the 1st. Statute of Queen Eliz. c. 7. (being a Recognition of the Queen's Supremacy) to acknowledge that all Power Temporal and Spiritual, was Deducted from her, as the Supreme Head, and that they were her most Faithful and Obedient Subjects, and that they did in Parliament Represent the Three Estates of this Realm, and that She was the only Supreme Governor thereof: Which was pursuant to a Statute to the same purpose, in the 2d Ed. 6. c. 2. wherein it is declared, That all Authority of jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal, is divided and Deducted from the King's Majesty, as Supreme Head of these Churches and Realms. Not to mention the Oath of Supremacy itself, That the King or Queen's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm: Which these Statutes would never have acknowledged, had it not been Consonant to our Ancient Common Law, by which it is expressly declared in that Old Law-Book & written as it is supposed by Bishop Bre●ton) in the very first Leaf whereof it is thus expressed in the Name of King Edw. 1st. himself: We Will, that our jurisdiction be above all other jurisdictions, which had been spoken in vain, if all other Powers had not been Derived from, and so Subordinate to, the Kings. Besides I could prove this farther from History, and matter of Fact.  F. 
I thank you Sir, and I desire I may answer what you have now said, before you pass to another Head, for I doubt the time will not give us leave to Discourse much further on this Subject to Night. In the first place therefore, I must tell you, that the main Foundation of your last Arguments, is founded upon a Supposition, which I altogether disown, viz. Co-ordination or Division of the Sovereign Power, between the King, and the Two Houses. For I have always supposed, that the King continues still Supreme, and that (as the Modus tenendi Parliamentum declares) He is Principium, Caput & Finis Parliamenti; that is, he can call and Dissolve Parliaments when he pleases; and likewise, that the Executiv● part of the Government, rests solely in Him, as also the Power of making War and Peace: And even in the Legislative itself, that the King hath more eminently (though together with the Parliament) a Supreme Enacting Power, without which, it cannot be a Law. This being considered, you will find, that here is no Division of the Legislative Power: Since neither the King, nor the Two Houses, have it Solely and Completely in themselves; but it is jointly Executed by them all three, as one Entire Politic Body or Person. So that neither can they make any Law without him, nor He Enact any without their Consent; and he by giving his Consent last, gives it the Force and Sanction of a Law, and he is therein the Supreme, i. e. the Last, or ultimate Power (in the true Sense of that word) nay, the only Supreme Power, unless you could suppose two Supreams, that is, two Highest Powers at once in the same Kingdom: But that for all this, the Two Houses are not Subject to the King in matters relating to Legislature, may hence farther appear, that the King cannot Command them to give him what Money, or to pass what Laws he pleases: Since if he should go about to do so, they might (as I suppose, you yourself will grant) Lawfully Disobey him; which they could not do without Apparent Disloyalty, and High Disobedience, were they in this, as they are in other indifferent things, Subject to his Commands, when Legally issued.  
But to return you a more particular Answer, to what you have said to prove the King to have the Sole Legislative Power As to what you pretended I have quoted out of Glanville, if you please better to consider of it, you will not find, that he gives the King any more than an Enacting Power, together with his Great Council. For though he tells us, quod Principi placet, Legis habet vigorem; yet mark what follows; eas Scilicet quas super dubijs in consilio definiendis Procerum quidem consilio, & Principis antecedente A●thoritate consta● esse promulgatas. Where by the last consilio is meant, some what more than mere Advice, as I have already proved. But as for Bracton, it is true he agrees with Glanville, in making the King's Authority, necessary to the Essence of a Law: Yet he is more express than the other in making the Advice and Consent of the Great Council or Commonwealth, also necessary to its being, as you may remember by these words, Cum Legis vigorem habeat quicquid de C●nsilio & de consensu Magnatum, & Reipublicae communi Sponsione, Authoritate Principis praecedente, just fury definitum.  
But further to let you see, how much you are out in your Argument, whereby you would prove from the Form of our Indictments of Treason, etc. That the King hath the Sole Legislative Power of the Kingdom. I shall show you, that all our Ancient Laws, as well Common as Statute, do declare the contrary: Since divers A●ts of Parliament have expressly affirmed, that such and such Offences were Treason, not only against the King, but against the King and the whole Realm too; Pray take these instances, see the Statute 1 Edw. 3. c. 1. Wherein Hugh de Spencer, both the Father and Son, are by the King and Parliament declared Traitors and Enemies of the King, and of his Realm: See likewise 28 Hen. 8. c. 7. Wherein the Crown is settled by Act of Parliament, on the Heirs of his Body, begotten on Queen Jane, or by any other after Marriage, and that the Offenders that shall interrupt such Heirs in their Peaceable Succession, they with their Abettors, Maintainers, etc. shall be declared and adjudged, High Traitors to the Realm. And therefore divers Ancient Indictments in Stanfords' Pleas of the Crown are laid contra pacem Regis & Regni. And that the Parliament hath reserved to itself a Power, by the Statute of the 25th. of Edw. 3d. to Determine what Crime shall be Adjudged Treason, besides Conspiring to kill the King, and those other Offences specified in the same Statute; you may Consult the Statute at large. But that these Offences can be no other than an endeavour to alter the Government, or Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, I think is evident, since all Offences relating to the Lives, or Honour of the King, Queen, and their Eldest Son are there particularly specified, and it was by Virtue of this Statute, that the Late unfortunate Earl of Strafford, was first impeached by the Commons, and afterwards Attainted by Act of Parliament, in the Year 1641. but whether justly or not, it is not my Business now to determine, it is sufficient that it was then granted by the King himself, that if the Earl was really Guilty of Destroying the Government, and Introducing an Arbitrary Power, he might have been deservedly Condemned.  
But that the Power of Making and Dispensing with Laws, is particularly applied, not only to the King, but to the Lords Spiritual, Temporal and Commons, pray remember the Preamble of the Statute I have already cited of the 25th. Hen. 8. c. 21. wherein it is so expressly declared, as also by the 24th. of this King. Chap. 12. the Preface of which Statute, runs thus: And whereas the Kings most Noble Progenitors, and the Nobility and Commons of the said Realm, at divers an● sundry Parliaments, as well in the time of King Edward 1st. Edward 3d. Richard 2d. Henry 4th. etc. made sundry Ordinances, Laws, Statutes and Provisions, for the entire and sure Conservation of the Prerogatives, Liberties and Preeminences of the said Imperial Crown of this Realm, etc. where pray note, that the making of all these Statutes, is ascribed to the Lords and Commons, as well as to the King: Which is also farther acknowledged by the said King Henry, when in a Set Speech to the Parliament, Reported by Crompton (in the Case of Errors) he said these words, We being informed by our judges, that We at no time stand so highly in our Estate Royal, as in the time of Parliament, wherein, we as Head, and you as Members, are Conjoined and knit together into one Body Politic. And sure then, if the King's Simile be true, whatsoever Functions are performed by the whole Body, must be done by the Members, as well as by the Head. I shall Sum up all I have said into this Syllogism, That Power which cannot make or Enact any new Law, without the Advice and Consent of two other Bodies, is not the Sole Legislative Power. But the King is that Power which cannot, etc. Ergo, the King is not the Sole Legislative Power.  M. 
I shall not longer Dispute this Question with you: Since I own the two Houses have Claimed for some Ages past, a Share in the Legislative, tho' in a large and improper Sense, as you yourself do partly grant: And though for the more just and equal Course, our Kings have for a long time admitted the 3 Estates, viz. the Lords Spiritual, Temporal and Commons, into a seeming Share of the Legislative Power: Yet this was not by Constraint, nor by any Fundamental Constitution of the Government, as you suppose; but only from their own mere Grace and Favour, to make Laws by the Consent of the whole Realm, because that no one part thereof, should have any Cause to complain of partiality: And though I grant the King is bound to observe these Laws when made, by virtue of his Coronation-Oath, so as that he cannot alter them without their Consent, yet is he still above the Law, by Virtue of his Absolute Monarchical Power, and is not Subordinate to it, or so bound by it, as to be Responsible to the People, for any Breach committed by him upon it; for that were Derogatory to the Sovereign Power, and inconsistent with the Nature of Monarchy; and were to set up the Law (which is but a Creature of the Prince's making) above his Sovereign Authority: And this would make our Monarchy, a Kind of Government which would neither be Monarchical, nor yet a Republic, but some Mongrel thing made up of both. So that I take the Notion of a mixed Monarchy, to be a Contradiction in adjecto: A limited Monarchy I confess there may be either by the Monarch's own Voluntary Grant or Consent, as in this Kingdom, or else on Conditions imposed upon a Prince by others, either by a Foreign Power, as in Tributary and Feudatary Kingdoms, or else by the Natives of the same Country, as in some Elective Kingdoms and Principalities; but then such Limitations of Monarchical Power, represent a Prince as it were fettered, and who cannot Act as he would, and aught for the Advantage and Welfare of his People, if he had his Liberty, and the full Exercise of his Sovereign Power: And therefore in most Governments limited after this manner, the Sovereignty still remains in the Senate or People that Elected him; which makes me think it Solecism in Politics to affirm, that a Monarch (properly so called, and still continuing so) could be thus limited by Laws, or Fundamental Constitutions, as you call them at the first Institution of the Government: For if he were thus limited, that Power that could thus limit him, must be either Superior or Inferior to him. Superior it could not be, because both the Prince and the People that could put those 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, because an Inferior Power, can never limit a Superior: And since 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 Governor of this Realm; I cannot understand how this Limitation can consist with the King's Supremacy; for if he be thus limited and restrained. how is he Supreme, and if Restrained by some Law, is not the Power of that Law, and of them that made that Law, above his own Supreme Power? And if by the Direction of such Law only he must Govern, where is his Supreme Power? So that when the Law must Rule and Govern the Monarch as a Superior, and not the Monarch the Law, he hath at best, but a Gubernative and Executive Power.  
Lastly, if this Power of the Prince, were Limited at the Original Constitution, there must be a Power appointed in some Council or Senate (call it a Parliament or Assembly of the States, or by what Name you please) whose business it must be, to see them exactly kept and performed▪ Now these Men must either have a Power barely of Advising the Monarch, and persuading him to observe these Fundamental Limitations, or else they must also have a Power of Forcing or Compelling him, if he will not hearken to their Advice and Remonstrances: if they have no more than the former Power, that you say, signifies nothing, since the King may refute to hearken to them if he pleases, and may do what he will notwithstanding; but if they have also a Coercive Power over him, and may Resist or punish him for his Transgressions, he will then cease to be a Monarch: Since he cannot be so, who is accountable to any Power, either Equal or Superior to himself; And this our late Parliaments have been well aware of, when they Renounced all Coercive Power over the Person of the King, and any Right of making War, either Offensive or Defensive against him: So that besides the History of matter of Fact, which I can further give you, to prove, our Kings to have been at first Absolute Monarches: I think the very Hypothesis of a mixed or limited Monarchy▪ labours under such insuperable Difficulties and Absurdities, that I cannot conceive how those Limitations by which we find the King's Prerogative now Restrained, could ever proceed from any Higher Cause, than the free Grants and Concessions of the King's Predecessors, confirmed by his own Coronation-Oath: Which though I acknowledge, he is bound to observe, and that if he breaks it, he commits a great Sin against God: Yet it is only He, that must punish him for so doing, since the Oath is not made to the People, but to God alone.  F. 
Notwithstanding what you have now said, I hope I am able to show you, that all your Arguments against a Mixed or Limited Monarchy, are more subtle than true: For as to your first Argument from the word Monarch, I grant indeed, that strictly speaking, the Word Monarch and Monarchy, signify a single Ruler, and the Government of one alone: Yet in Common Acceptation, or according to the Laws, and Constitutions of several other Kingdoms, besides England, as in the Empire, in Denmark, and Sweden, the Emperor, and those Kings have been called Monarches, and those Kingdoms Monarchies; though by the Original Constitution of those Governments, those Princes have not been invested with a pure Imperial Authority, such as that of the Roman Emperors of Old: Yet since they had the Executive and Gubernative part of the Government committed to them, and that they were looked upon as the Heads of those Kingdoms, and that the Government did therein partake more of Monarchy, than of any other Form, those Princes have been always reputed (and that justly) Monarches, notwithstanding there was a very great mixture of Aristocracy in the Empire, and in Denmark, and both of Aristocracy and Democracy in Sweden. The like may be said of England, France, and those Kingdoms in Spain, that were instituted by the Goths and Vandals, the Francs and Saxons, after the Ancient Gothic Model of Government. And though I grant this sort of mixed Monarchy, is not to be Reduced to any of the three distinct Kind's of Government laid down by Aristotle, yet are they not for all that, to be Condemned, but rather the more approved of, since by this mixture, they were capable of divers Benefits, and free from several Mischiefs, which are incident to any of those Forms of Monarchy, Aristocracy or Democracy, when exercised purely, and without any such mixture: And that this, as to England itself, is no Invention of the Common-Wealth-Men (as you call them) you may read King Charles the 1st's Answer to the 19 Propositions, 
p. 96.  sent him by the Parliament, for the words are Remarkable. This Kingdom, says he, is mixed of Monarchical Aristocratical, and Democratical Government, and that so wisely, that we have all the Conveniences, and none of the Inconveniences of any of those Forms taken single.  
Nor doth this at all Derogate from the Nature of the Monarchy, nor make any Division between the necessary Functions of Sovereign Power: For I have already granted, that the executive or gubernative part, is wholly in him, as also the Power of making War and Peace; and as for the Legislative, as long as the King hath a Negative Vote in all Laws that pass, and that they cannot be made without his Royal Sanction, the Legislative Power is not divided, as I have already proved.  
But as for your other Argument against a Prince's being limited by the Original Constitution of Government, though as I yield it is more Subtle, so it is also more Sophistical and fallacious than the former. For your Dilemma, by which you would prove the Absurdity of that Nation, will not do, because a Prince at the Institution of the Government, may be limited by those who are neither Superior, nor Inferior to himself: but only equal in the State of Nature, as I suppose the People to be with a King, before he was made so by them; And that Equals may thus limit each other, you yourself will not (I suppose) deny in the Case of Princes, who are Equals in the State of Nature: As Queen Mary (for Example) made such conditions with King Philip of Spain, before she Married him, that if he offered to meddle with the Government of this Kingdom, without her Consent, it would be Lawful for her to part herself from him, and to send him home into his own Kingdom; and might she not with a Safe Conscience, have done so upon the Breach of the Conditions on his side? Apply this to the People in the State of Nature, and the person they are about to make King before the Politic Marriage of a Coronation or Admission to the Crown, and see if they do not exactly agree, or whether the People can be blamed, if they repudiate their Politic Husband, for Invading that part of the Government, which they had reserved to themselves? Nor doth this argue any more Superiority in the People, over 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 case there were no Civil jurisdiction for him to Appeal to. And let us farther suppose, a Council or Parliament appointed, who may Remonstrate to the King his Transgressions, or Violations of the Law: Yet this may be without any Coercive Power over his Person, or of making War upon him; since the King may, if he please, remedy all these Disorders, by Redressing their Grievances, and punishing the Authors of them. So if he will wilfully persist in such Violations, as strike at the Fundamental Constitution of the Government, and do also go about to execute them upon the People by force, this being in effect, a making War upon them; I suppose they have then a just Right to defend themselves against his Tyranny. So that if these Rights or Privileges we now enjoy, were not the mere Concessions of the King's Grace and favour, as you affirm, but reserved as part of their Birthright, at the Original Constitution of the Government (as I shall 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 express or employed) as any other Nation hath to defend their Lives, Liberties and Properties, against the Violence of the Supreme Powers, or any Commissioned by them, as I hope I have already proved to you: So that notwithstanding all that you have said to the Contrary, I think the Notion of a mixed or limited Monarchy in the very institution, may be agreeable to Reason and practicable too, either in this or any other Kingdom: And when you can prove the contrary by History, or Matter of Fact, as you promise, I will give up the Cause.  M. 
You have Broached a parcel of Special Commonwealth Notions, in which you are every way out: As first, in making the King's Authority derived, either from, or by, the People's Consent: Whereas all our Ancient Lawyers call him God's Vicar or Lieutenant on Earth, and not the People's; and in the next place, in supposing he may be Resisted by Force of Arms, whenever the People shall think themselves Oppressed, or their Fundamental Rights and Liberties, as you call them invaded, it is contrary to the Express Declaration of the Parliament, by two serveral Statutes, in the 2d. Year of the late King Charles: And though you disclaim all Coercive Power of the two Houses over the King, yet it is only to place this Right of Resistance in a more fallible and ungovernable Body, viz. the whole People in their Natural Capacities, which as it is more consistent with your Principles, so it is more dangerous to all Supreme Powers, as well Commonwealths, as Monarchies, as I have partly showed you already; and I hope may farther convince you, before I have done. But since I have not now time to show you the falsity and absurdity of these Notions, and to urge the Statute at large, against Resistance in any Case Whatsoever: I pray go on in the Method you have proposed, and let me see how you can make out, that even our Parliaments do not derive that Privilege they now enjoy of giving their consent to Laws, as also their very being, to the Gracious Concessions of our former Monarches.  F. 
That I shall do with all my Heart: But first let me tell you, that though I own the King to be God's Lieutenant in these his Dominions: Yet I must likewise aver, that it was only by the Consent and Voluntary Submission of the People of this Nation, that the first Monarch (begin where you will) could obtain that Title. And as for those Statutes you mention against all Resistance in any Case Whatsoever, I doubt not but to show you, that it was never the intent of that Parliament, to debar us from all necessary Resistance, and Self-defence in cases of illegal Violence, and intolerable Oppression; unless you can suppose, they were resolved to alter the Government, and to put it into the King's Power, to destroy all our Laws and Liberties; and instead of a Lawful King, to Set up for a Lawless Tyrant, when ever he pleased.  
But to come to the matter in Hand, I shall show you that it is not at all impossible or improbable, that without any hindrance of that Power, which is necessary to the King as Supreme, that he might for all that, 
H. T. M. h. 3.  have been limited as to the Legislative, at the first Institution of the Government, which I shall thus make out.  
I do therefore in the first place suppose, that the English Saxons being a free People, after their Conquest of this Island, as well Nobles, as Commons did agree by their free consents, and public Compacts, to set over themselves a Prince or Sovereign, and to Resign up themselves to him, to be governed by such and such Fundamental Laws: Here is a Supremacy of Power set up, though limited as to the manner of its Exercise.  
2. Then because in all Governments after Cases will arise, requiring an Addition of Laws, suppose them Covenanting with their Sovereign, that if there be any Cause to Constitute any New Laws, he shall not by his Sole Power, perform that Work; but that they will reserve in themselves, a Concurrent or Co-operative Power: So that they will be bound by no Laws, but what they join with him in the making of.  
3. I suppose, that though the Nobles may personally conven●: Yet since the Commons being so Numerous, cannot meet together in Person, therefore for the doing of this Work, it be agreed, that every City of Considerable Town, should have Power to Depute one, or more to Act for the whole Body in the Legislature. That the Nobles by themselves in Person, and the Commons by their Deputies Assembling there, may be Representatively the whole Body of the Kingdom, with Power to execute that Authority reserved for establishing new Laws.  
4. Since the Occasion, and need of making such Laws, and Expounding the Old Ones could not be constant and perpetual, therefore we may farther suppose, for the avoiding of the inconvenience of three standing coordinate Powers, they did not Establish these Estates to be constantly existent, but occasionally, as the Causes for which they were ordained, should require.  
5. Because a Monarchy was intended, and therefore a Supremacy of Power (as far as was necessary) must be reserved in One, it was concluded, that these Estates should be still Assemblies of his Subjects, and Swearing Allegiance to him; and that all New Laws, which by agreement of these Powers, should be Enacted, should run in his Name, and be called his Laws, and they all bound to obey him in them, when thus Established.  
And Lastly, it being supposed, that He who thus was to govern by Law, and for the furtherance of whose Government such New Laws were to be made, should best understand when there was need of them; and that the Convening and Dissolving of the Assembly of the Estates, was a Power of Great Trust, it was put into the Prince's Hands, by Writ to Convocate, as also to Prorogue or Dissolve such meetings. But in Process of time, some Princes not caring much to have their Government looked into, or to have any Power in Being but their own, taking Advantage of this Power, of Assembling these Estates, did more seldom then need Required, make use of it: Whereupon provision was made, and a time set by New Statutes, within which, an Assembly of Parliament was to be held: Now when you have made these true Suppositions in your Mind, you have the very Model and History of this Monarchy, and we shall easily find, what to answer to the Arguments before produced on either side. For first, it is his Parliament; because an Assembly of his Subjects Convocated by his Writ to be his Council, and to assist him in making Laws for him to govern by: Yet not his, as other Courts are, as deriving their whole Authority from the King. So likewise his Power of Assembling and Dissolving them, proves him thus far above them; because, though as to the time of their meeting, it depends on him; Yet their Power and Authority quoad Specificationem, i. e. the Being, Kind and Exercise of it, is from the Original Constitution. For as to that, they expect no Commission and Authority from him; but only for their meeting, to proceed to Act, but when met, they Acts according to the Original Rights of their Constitution: and those Acts proceed from their Conjunct Authority with, not from their Subordination to, the King in the Legislative, as also in laying of Taxes, etc. on the People.  
The Oath of Allegiance indeed binds them, as his Subjects to obey him, governing according to Established Laws: But yet it supposes them to be built upon the Foundations of his Legal Government, and must not be interpreted to Vndermine and Destroy it. He is hereby acknowledged to be Supreme, so 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 Legislative Power of Parliament: And I believe of these things, no unprejudiced Man can make any Question. And herein consists the accurate Judgement of the Contrivers of this Form, that they have given so much into the Hands of the Sovereign, as to make him truly a Monarch; Yet have reserved so much in the hands of the People, as to enable them to preserve their Laws and Liberties.  M. 
I confess you have given a long and plausible account of the Original and Form of our Government, though if it come to be examined, I doubt it will prove a mere Romance, and not at all agreeable to true History, or Matter of Fact: Since if we look to the Eldest times, either after the Saxon or Norman Conquests, We shall find the Power of our Kings, to have been still more Absolute, than they are now; And I think I could easily 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 exercise it with a due respect and Subordination to that Power, from which they were all at first derived, lest if they should ascribe them to themselves, the King should be tempted to destroy those Great Privileges, and taking away the very Being of Parliaments, to make Laws without them.  
But to show you farther, that this Notion of an independent Power in the two Houses, by the Original Constitution of the Government, is altogether inconsistent with the King's Prerogative, appears from clear Matter of Fact, even as you yourself have put it; For when Kings thought fit not to have their Power Controlled, you acknowledge they called Parliaments, less frequently than usual; 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 Discretion. Nay farther, that the King's Prerogative of Assembling them, or omitting it when he pleases, cannot be limited by any Act himself can make, appears from hence, that notwithstanding all those Laws that have been made for Annual and Triennual Parliaments, our Kings have never thought themselves obliged to call Parliaments, of●ner than they saw their own occasions, or the necessities of the People (which they themselves were Sole judges of) required: Nor did any Parliaments ever find fault with this, till that Rebellious one in 1641. which had the confidence to present to the King a Bill to be past, whereby it was not only Enacted, that there should be a Parliament every third Year; but that upon the King's omitting to issue forth Writs of Summons, the Sheriffs, nay Constables, might Summon the Freeholders', and proceed to Election, and that the Lords might also meet without any Writs from the King; which was quite contrary to the Original Constitution, by which (as you yourself grant) there could be no Parliaments, without his Summons, he being Principium, Capus & finis Parliament: And if so, it seems wholly improbable, nay impossible to me, that your Two Houses should have by the Original Constitution, any Power of meeting or doing any thing, without his Majesty's Consent and Allowance; and we know, that at this day, the Sp●aker in the Name of the House of Commons, desires of the King. Liberty of Speech: And King Henry 8th. and Queen Elizabeth, did sometimes Rebuke the House of Commons, and sent to them to Desist, when they were about to pass any Bill they did not approve of, or to meddle with those things, which did not belong to them: Which plainly declares, that (contrary to your Affection) neither of the Two Houses have any Power to proceed upon any Business, or to pass any Bill which the King disapproves of: And though I grant, that they do not ask the King's leave for the bringing in, or Passing of all Bills whatsoever in either House, or that the King can command them to give him what Money, or pass what Bills he pleases; Yet this Privilege must needs proceed from his Grant or Concession to the contrary: Whereby, though he hath discharged them from an Active Obedience to such Commands; Yet hath he not thereby divested himself of any of the Essential Rights of Sovereignty, or at all discharged them from a Passive Obedience, or Submission to his Power, supposing the worst that can happen, that he should take away what share he pleased of the Subject's Estates, without their Consent; or make his own Edicts, and Proclamations to be observed for Laws: Since the King's Authority is prior to all others, and that (as the Statutes of Edward the 6th. and Queen Elizabeth; which I have already quoted, expressly declare,) All Power, Authority and jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal, is derived wholly from the King, so that unless your Legislative Power of Parliament be somewhat, that is neither an Authority, nor a jurisdiction, it is by this very Body, acknowledged to be wholly derived from him: Nor have you yet answered this Argument, nor I believe, can you do it.  F. 
As for your History which you promise to give me, of the absolute Power of our first Saxon, and Norman Kings: I desire you to defer the speaking of it, till another time, it being now late: Yet I do not doubt but to prove, that what I assert concerning the limited Power of our Kings, even by the Original Constitution of the Government, is no Romance, but true History: Nor are the Reasons that you have now urged to the contrary, prevalent enough with me, to alter my Opinion, for I think I am able to prove somewhat more than I but now Asserted, viz. that the Wittena Gemote, or Great Council met constantly once a year, or oftener, when need was, under the Saxon Kings, without any Summons from them, as when we come to the particular History of this matter, I shall show you more at large; And also, that for the first Hundred Years after the Coming in of the Normans, the Great Council or Parliament used to meet of Course at the King's Court, at two or three of the Great Feasts of the Year. without any other notice by Writ or Summons. The first mention we find of such Writs, being in King John's Magna Charta: But that when these Assemblies became less frequent, by reason of the King ' Discontinuing of them; and because of the case the Nobility and People found, in being Discharged from so constant and chargeable an Attendance, they came to be so discontinued at last, that as you yourself confess, there were fain to be Express Laws made for their more frequent Meetings, and though the Power of Summoning them, was (I confess) left wholly in the King; and that he did very often Dispense with the Calling them according to the intent of those Statutes: Yet doth not this prove any Legal Prerogative in him, so to do, but that it was a High Breach of Trust, and also of his Coronation Oath, when he thus omitted to call them; Since our Kings were formerly Sworn to keep, and observe those Laws, quas vulgus elegerit, which the People either have, or should choose, construe it which way you will, 
Rot. Claus. 1. E. 2. m. 10. pars unica.  though I own in French, it is in the Preterite, avera èleu, should have chosen; And as it is an Old Maxim à Facto ad Ius non valet consequentia; So it is no true way of proof, to argue from an illegal Exercise, or abuse of Power, to a Legal Right or Prerogative. And though the Parliament might not always actually question, or find fault with their Kings for thus neglecting to call them; because, perhaps the Public Sustained no present Damage from it, and that they thereby escaped the giving the King those Taxes and Aids which he usually demanded of them at such times: Yet when the long Forbearance of Omissions of Parliaments, became a general Grievance, by reason of those Encroachments, that the King and Great Men often made, upon the People's Liberties in those Intervals, and that the King looked upon it as a Piece of his Prerogative, to abuse this Trust as far as He pleased: I grant then (and not till then) there was need of a Law, that there should be a Parliament every Year, and that in Case of any failure of Summons on the King's part, the People might proceed to Election without it, which was not so properly a New Law, as the Restoration of the Old Constitution, since Anciently the People met the King at these Great Councils, at such Set times of the Year, as I shall prove, when we come to the History of matter of Fact; which I am not at all afraid to be judged by, and then also I shall show you, that though the King is now Principium, Caput & Finis Parliamenti (that is, the Parliament properly so called) yet that the Great Council or Assembly of the Estates, had from the first Institution of the Government, a Power of Assembling themselves in cases of necessity, such as are Doubtful or Disputed Titles to the Crown, or the absence of the Successor; and then they have often met by their own inherent Authority, 
Vi. Walsingham & Mat. Westminst. in the beginning of this Ks. Reign. Vi. Hen. of Hunt and Ro. Hoveden.  and have either Settled the Succession of the Crown, as they thought good, or else have Recognized an Hereditary Right, in the Absence of the Heir, as when King Edw. 1st. was absent, being in his return from the Holy Land: Or else to Depose the King's justiciar, as in the Case of William Longchamp, Bishop of Ely, who was left Chief justiciar by King Richard 1st, when he went into the Holy Land.  
And though I own that some High-Spirited, and yet Wellbeloved Princes, might take upon them a Power of Rebuking the House of Commons when they meddled with Business they did 〈◊〉 like: Yet this Submission proceeded from the Great Reverence they had for their Persons; and confidence they placed in their Government: Since we find that only these Princes that were Wise and Successful in their Government, and so became the Darlings of their People, Such as Queen Elizabeth and King Edward 3d. (for as for Henry 8th. I remember no Instance of it) who durst venture to Act thus. As for the desire of Freedom of Speech, it is but a Compliment: for how can the Grievances of the Kingdom be Redressed, without speaking freely of them? And if one Great End of Parliament was to Redress these Grievances, it were altogether in vain, for them to Attempt any thing in this Kind, if the King could Browbeat them from it, when ever he pleased. But Bract on doth not only tell us, Rex habet Superiorem, Legem, & Curiam suam Baronum, etc. in the Place I have already Cited; but the Old Book called the Mirror of justices, also teaches us the same Lesson in his 2d. ●ection, where speaking of the King's Power, he tells us, that though the King can have no Peer in the Land, yet nevertheless if by his own Wrong, he offends against any of his People, none of those that judge for him, can be both judge and Party. It is therefore agreeable to Right, that the King should have Companions to Hear and Determine in Parliaments, all Writs and Complaints concerning the Wrongs of the King, Queen, and their Children, and of them especially, of whose Wrongs they could not otherwise have Common Right. These Companions are therefore called Counts, after the Latin Comites, etc. Not can I think, that any King would have Erected a Court, to have Redressed the Wrongs done by himself, or his Family, whether he would or not. But as for your main Argument, from the words of the Statutes of King Edw. 6. and Queen Eliz. That all Authority and jurisdiction, as well Spiritual as Temporal, is derived from the King: I do own it true, that is, if meant of all Derivative Authority, such as that of all inferior Counts, as well Civil as Ecclesiastical. For I suppose, you yourself will not affirm, that the Ecclesiastical Authority of Bishops, as to their Right of meeting in public Synods or Councils, is derived from the Crown. But the Truth is, the Sense of this Statute is no more, then that all such jurisdiction is immediately derived from the King, though Originally from the People (which Fortesove calls Potestatem à Populo effuxiam) and by them entrusted with him, as the Supreme Magistrate to Distribute it to all Inferior Courts; which yet he cannot at this Day Create anew, without an Act of Parliament: so that this will not extend to the whole Assembly of the Estates themselves: Since I doubt not, but to prove by undeniable Testimony, that that Constitution is as Ancient as the English Nation itself.  M. 
I see you have a mind to wrest the true sense of this Statute, by a forced Interpretation; but I hope at our next meeting to prove to you, that our first Saxon and Norman Kings were Absolute Monarches, and that not only all the Liberties and Privileges we enjoy, but also our Civil Properties were wholly derived from him; and if so, it will also necessarily follow, that all Difference and Distinction in Honour or Power, by which the Bishops and Temporal Lords can claim to Sat in Parliament, is wholly derived from those Kings: For as to the Commons, I need not go so high for their Original; since it is the Opinion of our best Antiquaries, and I think the Learned Dr. Brady hath sufficiently proved it against Mr. Petyt, that they are no Ancienter than the latter end of Henry the 3ds. or perhaps the 18th. of Edw. the 1sts. Reign. Nor do the Authors you have quoted for the Independent Authority of Parliaments (viz. ●●acton and the Mirror) mention any other than the Curia Baronum, or that of Counts or Earls, as the Author of the Mirror hath worded it, by which can be meant no other than the House of Lords; for as to that of the Commons, had they been then in Being, or had they had any thing to do in the Government, it is not likely, these Ancient Authors, as well as our Acts of Parliament of those times, would have omitted particularly to mention them. So that the higher I go, and the more I look on the History of our Ancient English Kings, the more Absolute I find their Power, and the less dependant upon the People: Therefore I have very great reason to believe, that our first Kings were Absolute Monarches, not only by the Original Constitution of Parliaments, but also that our very Liberties and Properties proceeded at first from their mere Grace and Pavour.  F. 
I know you have Asserted the same things more than once; All the Difficulty lies in the Proof. And therefore I would not have you be too positive, or rely too much upon the conciseness or Silence of the Ancient Monkish Writers of those first times. For since as I own, they have never given us any exact account of our Ancient Civil Government, nor yet of the History of their own times: We are forced for the most part, to pick out the Truth from other Circumstances, or such Passages as we can meet withal in their Ancient Laws and Customs, nay sometimes from those of their Neighbours, who lived under the same kind of Government and Laws, with our Saxon Ancestors, as proceeding from one Common Stock or Original, as I shall show you before we have done. But since we are already in Possession of our Ancient Laws and Liberties, and of a Right to Parliaments once every Year, or oftener if need be, by two Ancient Statutes yet in force, at farthest once every three Years, by a late Act of Parliament it ought to be your Task, to prove to me the Absolute Power of our first English Monarches; and by what Steps and Degrees, they came to part with their Power, and to be thus limited as we now find them; and when you can show me this, I do assure you, I will come over to your Opinion.  M. 
I shall observe the Method you prescribe; And therefore to begin with the first Entrance of the English Saxons into this Island, I suppose you are not Ignorant of so Common a piece of History, that all the Title they had to this Island, was by the Sword or Conquest of their first Princes or Generals, who being sent by Lot, together with the Armies that followed them out, of their own Country; because it was too narrow or barren, to sustain such great Multitudes, they came over hither to seek new Dwellings. Now whether these Princes were made Kings before they came over, or that they made themselves so immediately after their Conquest, will be all one; since if we consider them as Military Captains or Leaders of Armies, their Power was Absolute, as that of all Generals ever was, and must be by the necessary Laws of Military Discipline: If we look upon them as Kings or Princes (as it is very likely they were also before they came over) since they were certainly of the Blood Royal, all of them deriving their Pedigree from Woden their God, as well as first King, being thus made Kings by their Fathers, or other near Relations, there is no Ground to believe they owed their Titles to the Votes, or Suffrages of their followers: But after they had Settled a Heptarchy, or Seven Kingdoms in this Part of Britain called England: We find them Governing, and Leading their People like Absolute Kings and Monarches over their little Principalities: And since each Kingdom was Conquered from the Britain's under the Conduct, according to the Laws of Nations, and Right of Conquest, all the Lands of each Kingdom, belonged to the Conquerors, who though they cantoned them out into shares to their Captains and Soldiers, according to each Man's Valour or Desert: Yet did this wholly proceed from their Bounty and Favour, who might have kept the whole to themselves, if they had pleased; and hence it is, that not only since the Norman Conquest, but also long before, all the Lands of England were holden of the King, as the Supreme Lord: And if, so, I suppose you will not deny, but that according to your own Principle, all our other Privileges and Liberties, must have been derived from him, since you have already Asserted, that whoever is Lord of the Soil of a Country, he is so also over the Persons of the People.  F. 
Before you proceed any farther, I pray give me leave to answer what you have now said, I doubt with greater show and appearance of Truth, than the matter will justly bear, when well canvassed. But since I grant our earliest Writers are very short▪ in giving us the true Form or Original Constitutions of our Ancient Saxon Government, it is necessary we look into the Roman Authors who treat of the Laws and Customs of the Ancient Germane Nations a Stirp of whom our Ancient English Saxons certainly were, and in those Authors, you will find, that they as well as other Nations of the Gothic Original, were never Governed by Absolute Monarches; but by Kings or Princes limited by the Laws and Common-Councils of their own Nations as were all those that descended from this Gothick Original.  
In the first place therefore, see what Tacitus says in his Book de Moribus Germanorum, 
Vide Grotis Prolegomenain Historiam Gothicam.  who sufficiently proves, that it was a Fundamental Constitution of all the Germane Nations, to order all public Affairs in General Councils or Assemblies of the whole People. Wherefore the same Author there tells us, De Minoribus rebus Principes consultant, de Majoribus omnes; it a tamen, ut eaqubque quorum penes Plebem Arbitrium est apud Principes praetractentur. As also that in this Council, 
Cap. 4.  they Tried Great Offenders for Capl●a● Crimes. Licet apud Consilium accusare quoque & discrimen capitis intendere. Nor was the Power and Right of their Kings, Absolute or Arbitrary; 
Id. cap. 12. Cap. 7.  but limited and Elective as appears by these Passages in the same Author: Reges ex Nobilitate, Deuces ex virtute sumunt. Nec Regibus infinita, aut libera Potestas, etc. And speaking of the manner of their holding these public Councils, after silence commanded by the Priests, Mox Rex (saith he) vel Princeps, 
Cap. 11.  prout aetat cuique, prout Nobilitas, prout decus Bellorum, prout facundia est, audiuntur, authoritate suaedendi magis quam jubendi potestate: Si displicuit Sententia, fremitu aspernantur; Sin placuit, frameas concutiunt. Honoratissimum assensus genus est armis laudari. 
pag. 634.  So that you may here see their Kings had no Negative Votes in their Councils, whatever they might have afterwards among the English Saxons; and that they did not so much as preside in them, but the Priests you may see in the same place; Silentium per Sacerdotes, quibus tum coercendi jus est, Imperatum. And therefore it is altogether unlikely, that they should have had that Absolute Power you fancy over the Lives and Fortunes of the People: Since you plainly see, that they could neither make Peace nor War, Accuse or Condemn any Man, nor raise Taxes, without the Approbation or Consent of those Councils.  
Now since all the English Saxon Nations were from Germany, I leave it to the Judgement of yourself, or any indifferent Person to consider, whether a People so free as this, who come over hither not as Subjects, but only as Volunteers under so many Captains or Generals, who went out merely to seek new Habitations, should be so fond of a Government, they never knew at home, as to give these Captains (whom they made their Kings) an Absolute Despotic Power over their Lives and Estates; which they never could endure in their own Country; but that they were not then Kings, I thus prove. First of all, no Ancient Writer that I know of, ever mentioned any such thing, but rather the Contrary; for who will believe, that before it could be known what the Success would be, they should make mere Soldiers of Fortune, or Leaders of some Bands of Adventurers, Kings, before the Country they were to Govern was Conquered, or that they knew whether ever they should Arrive there or not? And as for the two first of these Princes that came over (viz.) Heugist and Horsa, our Histories make them Brothers in joint Command over those Saxons, who were sent hither as Auxiliaries to the Britain's, against the Picts; nor is Hengist ever called King, or the time of his Reign reckoned, till near Eight years after his coming over hither, viz. after the Death of Vortimer, 
Vid. Polychron. Rad. Higden An. 456.  and the driving of Vortiger into Wales: And therefore I can give no account, how these Princes should become Kings, but by the Consent or Election of their Soldiers or Followers; for, as for themselves to Create themselves Kings, without the Consent of their Army or People, is altogether improbable and absurd, 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 Assertion, that the first Saxon Kings were Absolute Monarches, because all the Land was Conquered for them, and to their use, and that all Land was held of them, is altogether as precarious, our Histories being herein wholly Silent: But though we do not certainly know which way they divided their Conquest to their Followers; since Authors mention nothing of it: Yet this I think, I may positively Assert, that whatever was done in this Kind, by the first Saxon Kings, was not as Absolute Proprietors of the whole Country, but as public trusties, for those over whom they were sent, for since (as I have already observed) these People were utterly Strangers to a Despotic Government at home, it is altogether unlikely, that their Followers would confer upon them an Absolute and Unlimited Power abroad, which they were never used to before: And therefore they could not be Kings by Right of Conquest, over the Estates or Persons of those who were fellow Conquerors with them, and set them up for what they were, nor yet over the Britain's: Since they were either totally driven out into Wales or Cornwall, or else those few that were left, being reduced to a State of Servitude, were by Degrees Incorporated with the Saxons.  
And though for want of Ancient Histories, as well as Letters, among so Rude and Barbarous a People, as these were at first, we have no Records upon what express Conditions these Captains were by them Elected to be their Kings: Yet thus much we may find out by those few Remains we have left us in Bede, and other Ancient Historians, that they had all of them the same Kind of Government, and Laws with very little difference from each other,: Since we find in all the Several Kingdoms of the Heptarchy, there were the same kind of Wittena Gemots, or Great Councils, by whom they were Elected, and without whose Advice and Consent, their Kings could do nothing of Moment, either in Peace or War, as any one that will but read those Laws that are left us, Collected by Mr. Lambard and Sir H. spelman in his Saxon Councils, may easily observe.  M. 
I own indeed, that our Saxon Ancestors, when they had Conquored this Kingdom, brought in their Saxon Laws along with them; 
B. A. P. p. 3.  but it doth not from thence follow, that they brought their Popular Government in with them too: And those Assemblies Tacitus mentions, might be Councils of the Germane People in General, no not of the Saxons, which Name is not to be found in all that Author. But what if it be granted, that those People which were afterwards called Saxons, were governed by such Councils, was not this Government a Democracy? And the People so far from not having their Votes and Shares in these Councils, as they only had Voices in them. And if any had any more Power here than others, they were the Priests, who were a sort of Chair-men in them, commanding Silence, and who had a Coercive Power, as Tacitus says. In these Governments, no Man can doubt of the Suffrages of the People, but under such as you mention, you would I think▪ scarce be contented to live, where the Priests bore so much sway, where there were no Cities or Great Towns, but only scattered Houses, and Habitations by Rivers, Fields and Woods, made of Dirt or Clay, Arms of Trees and Stubble, where there was no literature, especially among the common People, nor scarce Civility, where there was no Clothing, but with Garments made of Beasts Skins; No Food but Milk, Pulse and Flesh, without Art or Cookery, where there was no Propriety in Lands, no Money no Work for Lawyers, as you will find if you read on in Tacitus, and the 6th. Book of Cesar's Commentaries.  
And as for what you say concerning the beginning of the Saxon Kingdoms in this Island. 
B. P. P. §. 19, 20.  To this I Reply, that Hengest and Horsa and those other Leaders, who brought the Saxons into England, were all of them of the Royal Line of the Saxons, as appears by all our Historians, and so if not Kings, yet well able to Subsist: 
Math. Westm. ad annum 449.  And it was not the manner of those Countries, to thrust out their Supernumeraries by force, but to draw them out Regularly by Lot, at such a Rate and Proportion, 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 these Princes should have had such Absolute Authority, as they had over the Lives and Fortunes of their Subjects, in the more early times, almost all the Privileges of the English Nation, being granted long since that time, nay, most of them since the Conquest; Yea, since the Baron's Wars. But as for what you say concerning the Gothick or Vandal Kingdoms, since they relate nothing to our Government, I need not say any thing to them, nor doth it follow, that if their Kings were limited, or but upon Condition, that ours must be so too.  F. 
I see you would fain evade the Authority of Tacitus, concerning the People's having any share of the Government amongst the Saxons, 
Vi. Verstegan Restitution of decayed intelligence. p. 23.  because forsooth, that Nation is not particularly named in his History; But though the Saxons are not particularly named by Tacitus: Yet the Angli are there mentioned among those Germane Nations, who Worshipped their Common Goddess Hertha, which that Author interprets to be Terra, the Earth: And you very well know, that from these Angli, or Angles, the English Nation as well as name is derived. But though Tacitus who lived about the beginning of the Emperor Trajan's Reign, 
Tacit. de Mor. Germ. Vi. Ptol. in Tab. 4. Europe.  names not the Saxons, yet P●olomy who writ within 40 years after expressly mentions them placing their Country not far North of the River Albis, and near the Place where all agree the Angli were Seated, so that they were either all one and the same Nation, or very little different. But Etheliverd Quaestor, one of our Ancientest English Saxon Historians, in his first Book, makes this Nation of the Saxons, of a far wider extent, and that it reached from the River Rhine all along the Sea-Coast up to Donia, now called Denmark.  
But since I see you cannot well tell how to evade this Testimony of Tacitus, but by affirming that the Government in Germany, was a Democracy, and that the People had the only Sway in it, is a great mistake, since he expressly mentions their Kings and Princes; and there only speaks of the manner of Transacting all public Affairs, in which it is true, the People (as it is very well known by our Ancient Histories) had formerly a greater Share than now: Yet doth he not thereby exclude the Prince and Nobility, from having also their Shares in it. And as for what follows in Tacitus of the Royal Power, auctoritate sua●endi, magis quam jubendi Potestate; I suppose you cannot deny, but that Privilege yet remains to us, since the King cannot command the Parliament to make what Laws, or give him what Money he pleaseth; and therefore that doth not make it a Democracy, much less the Priests presiding in their Assemblies, which is no more to be wondered at, than that the Bishops have still Votes, and their share of Legislature in the House of Peers: Or that a Bishop, when Chancellor or Keeper should be Speaker in the House of Peers. Or supposing that their Priests had more Power among them, than the Christian Clergy had after they were Converted, doth it therefore follow, that it was not the same Government, or that it must therefore be so intolerable, that I would not have been willing to have lived under it? Since I must tell you, I am not against Civil Offices, though exercised by Clergymen, as far as the Business of their Function, and the Canons of the Church will permit. As for the rest which you object concerning the Barbarous living of the Ancient Germans, it either makes nothing to the matter in hand, or else against you; since it proves plainly, that Absolute Monarchy, was not the first Government among all Nations, as you suppose. Nor doth it therefore follow, that because these People were Rude and Barbarous; therefore they had not the Wit to prefer Absolute Monarchy, before all other Governments, since their Conquerors the Romans (who sure were a Civilised People) did likewise as much abhor it.  
But as for what you say against Hengist, and those other Leaders, who brought the Saxons into Britain, being Elected Kings by their Followers, is nothing but mere Guests, and Conjecture. For that they were not Kings at home, you yourself grant; and whether they were able well to Subsist at home, or not, is nothing to the Purpose: It is plain, they thought they could mend their Condition, or else would never have left their Country. And though it be granted, that Hengist with his Followers, came not over as Enemies, but Auxiliaries to the Britain's; Yet it is not therefore more likely, that they were chosen by the King of their own Nation, than that their own Followers should afterwards Elect them, especially when the one is agreeable to our own Historians, and the other not: For Mattheus Florilegus tells us, that Horsus being slain, the Saxons Fratrem suum Hengislum in Regnum Cantiae sublimaverunt, that is, they Elected or Advanced him to be King, if I understand any thing by that word, and this agrees with the Polichronicon of Ranulph Higden, who places the beginning of Hengists' Reign, immediately after the Death of his Brother Horsus, viz. An. Dom. 465. Eight years after the coming of the Saxons into Britain; and that the rest of the Saxons who came hither after, had no better Title than Election. I could farther prove, if the time would give me leave: For they that will read the Ancient Accounts of the Saxon Nation, and what Government they had among them, long after the time of Cesar and Tacitus, will find that it was impossible, that they should be thus Created Kings, before they came over; since at that time, they had no such things as constant Kings amongst them, for in those times it was rather an Aristocracy, than a Monarchy; for as johannes Pomarius in his Saxon Chronicle showeth us, for which I refer you to Verstegan, where this passage is made use of at large. Verstegan p. 68 So that if this were the Government of the Saxons; as low as the time of Charles the Great, I durst leave it to any indifferent person to judge, whether the first Saxon Kings in this Island, were made so by their own Princes before they came over, or were chosen by their Followers, since no Historians mention the former, though all of them agree of the latter: They commonly using this Phrase, Regem fecerunt, or elegerunt. And that all the first Kings of the Heptarchy were Elective, 
Vid. Earl of Stamfords' speech at the General Quarter Sessions at Leicester, 1690. and the Notes thereupon. Vide Bromton f. 770. Chron. de Mailros. f. 137.  nothing is more plain, since the Great Council of the Nobility and People did not only Elect them, but often Depose them too, when they grew intolerable, through Tyranny or Misgovernment, as may appear by the Example of Sigibert, King of the Westsaxons and divers others I could Instance in, who were Expelled this Kingdom (as Brompton, and other Ancient Chronicles tell us) by the unanimous Consent and Deliberation of the Nobility and People. Many like Instances I could give you in the other Kingdoms of the Heptarchy, but that it would be too tedious.  
Nor doth your Reason signify any thing, that it is not probable, that the first Princes were made Kings upon Condition, because of the Absolute Authority they had over the Lives and Fortunes of their Subjects; since it is altogether false in matter of Fact; none of the Saxon Kings being able alone to make Laws, or impose Taxes upon their People, without their Consents in their Great Councils, much less to make War without it; for then the War though begun by the King alone, must have signified 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 sort, and their Revenues being mostly paid in Victuals.  M. 
Pray Sir give me leave to interrupt you a little, I own indeed, that the particular Laws and Constitutions of each of the Kingdoms of the Heptarchy, are not particularly known, and perhaps some of their Kings might be Elective, and consequently liable to be Deposed by their People; whether by Right or Wrong, I will not now Dispute, but if we consider the State of things, after these Seven Kingdoms became reduced into one; you will find them much altered: And as Egbert our first Saxon Monarch, Reduced all those Kingdoms into one, So it is to be supposed, that having no Right to them, but by Conquest, and the Submission of their Kings, when overcome in Battle, both he and his Successors, must needs have become far more Absolute, than they were before, and if they were Elective before that time, did now certainly become Hereditary Monarches; The Crown Descending from Father to Son, for divers Descents: And so Consequently, these Princes granted divers Privileges and Liberties to the People of those Kingdoms they Conquered: And that they were no other than the free Grants or Concessions of our former Kings, upon Petition or Request of the People, and accepted by the Clergy, Nobility and People of the Kingdom in their Great Councils. For this I need go no farther than the Coronation Oath, taken by the Kings of England, when the Archbishop of Canterbury asks the King, Sir, will you grant and keep, and by your Oath, confirm to the People of England, the Laws and Customs granted to them, by the Ancient Kings of England your Predecessors, and namely the Laws and Customs and Liberties granted to the Clergy, and People by the Glorious King Edward your Predecessor?  
From whence we may observe, that all the Bishops, Earls, Barons and People there present, do own and confess; that their most Ancient Laws, Customs and Liberties, were granted to them by Edward the Confessor, and other Ancient Kings.  F. 
I doubt you will prove as much out in the account you give me of our King's Power, after the Seven Kingdoms were reduced into one, as you were before. For though I grant that the Title of the West-Saxon Kings over all the rest, proceeded from Conquest, and the Submission of the Kings and People they Conquered, yet were they not all actually reduced into one Kingdom or Monarchy, till a good while after; the Kings of Mercia, and of the East-Angles, continuing in Being, till the Coming in of the Danes, as you will find by our Saxon Annals. And though 'tis true, the West-Saxon Kings made those King's Tributary to them: Yet that they did not become more Absolute thereby, appears from the Testimony of our Ancient Histories, Since we find them Transacting all Affairs in their Wittena Gemots, or Great Councils, as well after their Conquest, as they did before. And therefore we find in an Old Register of St. Leonard Abbey in York (cited by Mr. Dodsworth in the Monasticon Anglic. put out by Mr. Dugdale) this Memorable passage: 
Vol. 1. p. 367.  Memorandum quod Anno Domini 800. Egbertus Rex totlin Britanniae in Parliamento apud Wintoniam mutault nomen Regni (de consensu Populi sui) & jussit illud de Caetero vocari Angliam. And Will. of Malmsbury, 
Ch. 6.  that Ancient and Exact Historian, says expressly of this King Egbert. Lib. 11. Has omnes Regnorum Varietates Egbertus animi Magnitudine composevit, & ea uni quadrans Imperio ad uniforme Dominium, servans unicuique proprias Leges, vocavit [Angliam.] It is therefore most evident, that upon the Submission of those Kingdoms he Conquered, he promised and agreed, to govern them according to their Ancient Laws. And hence we find the Mercian Laws, called Merchen Lage, to have continued in force long after that Kingdom was united to that of the Westsaxons.  
Nor will your Inference from the Coronation Oath, prove of any greater Moment. For though it be therein recited, that divers of the Laws, Liberties, etc. we now enjoy, were granted by King Edw. the Confessor, and other Kings: Yet must it not be so understood, as if the People of England had no Laws, or Civil Rights before his time; for that were to contradict plain matter of Fact, and the Histories themselves I have already Cited. But why they were called his Laws, and his Customs: Will. of Malmsbury hath very well observed, when speaking of the good Laws made by Ancient Kings, and especially by King Ethelred, which were confirmed by King C●●●e, he hath this remarkable passage, In quarum custodiam etiam ●unc temporis Bonarum. Sub nomine Regis Edwardi juratur, non quod ille Statuerit, sed quod observaverit. The like I may say for the Laws of divers other Saxon Kings, which though they go under their Names, Yet were made by the Assent of the Great Council of the Kingdom, as by the Titles of the Laws themselves in Mr. lambert's and Sir H. Spelman's Collection of them, you may be satisfied if you please.  
But for a Taste, pray see the Laws of King Alfred (which you Cited) which tho said 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 also shown, and assented to by the Wittenae Gemots, pray see the Conclusion of these Laws, in Sir H. Spelman: The words are Remarkable. Ego Aelfredus West Saxonum Rex, ostendi haec omnibus Sapientibus meis, & dixerunt places ea custodiri. So that the calling them the Laws of King Alfred, or King Edward, doth no more prove, that they alone made them then our now Citing such, or such a Statute of K. Henry 8th. or King Charles the 1st. do therefore suppose, that those Kings made Laws by their own Sole Authority: such Phrases among Ancient Historians, as well as ourselves at this Day, being used only for Brevity sake, and signify no more than their Confirmation of them.  M. 
I shall not deny, but that our Ancient English Kings, did for the most part make no Laws, without the Consent of their Great Council: Yet I think I can give you an unanswerable Argument, to prove that the very Being and Constitution of Parliaments or Great Councils, did in the beginning, wholly proceed from the Grace and Favour of some of our Ancient Kings; th● to which of them to ascribe, it is not easy to Determine. But if we may believe your own Author the Mirror, he tells us almost at the very beginning: That King Alfred, for the Good State of the Realm, caused to Assemble the Counts or Peers, and then ordained for a perpetual Custom, that twice in the Year, or oftener, for Business in time of Peace, they should Assemble at London, to treat of the Government of the People of God, and how folks should keep themselves from offences, and live in quiet, and should receive Right, by certain usages and judgements. And According to this Establishment, were made divers Ordinances by divers Kings, until the present King (viz.) Edw. 1st.  
But to come to the proof of what I affirm, it is certain, that in those first times, the Saxon Kings conferred all the Bishoprics and principal Abbeys in England, per Annulum & Baculum, as Ingulf and Malmsbury expressly tell us. And as for the Earls or Aldermen of Counties, as also the Great Thanes, Judges or Noblemen of the Kingdom, they were only Offices held for life in those times, which the King might Discharge them of at his Pleasure: And hence we find the Titles of Aldermanus Regis, and Thanus Regis, so frequently to occur in our Ancient Histories and Charters: These comprehended under the general Name of Wites, were the only Constituent parts of the Great Council in those times; for as concerning those we now call the Commons of England, we do not so much as find the least mention of them, or any Representatives for them, till the latter end of the Reign of King Hen. 3d. or the middle of Edw. 1sts. Reign, as I think Dr. Brady hath Learnedly and fully proved in his last Edition of his Answer to Mr. Petyt's Treatise of the Rights of the Commons of England Asserted. Now if it plainly appears, that every part or Member of the Parliament, did Anciently receive their very Being, from the mere Grace and Concession of our Ancient Monarches; can you, or any Reasonable Man assert, with any Colour of Truth, that our Great Councils or Parliaments, could be a part of the Fundamental Constitution, and as Ancient, as the Government itself? And if Parliaments did thus receive all that Authority they now Exercise from the King's Bounty, can any Man doubt whether all the Rights and Privileges we now enjoy, are to be Ascribed to any other Original? For if the very Keepers (as you will have it) of these Liberties, did all proceed from the King, then certainly the things to be Kept, must do so too; and when you can answer this Argument I have now brought, I think I may safely promise you to be your Proselyte, and to come over to your Opinion.  M. 
I confess, this is the most plausible Argument you have hitherto urged, and if I can't answer it, I do likewise promise you to become your Convert. But though granting that Parliaments might have received their Being from the Favours of our Kings, I might deny your Consequence, that therefore it will follow, that all the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects of England, must do so too; since they might very well have reserved to themselves both Hereditary Properties, as also a Right to their Lives, Liberties and Estates, which the King should not take from them, without just Cause, and Legal Trial; which when they found invaded by succeeding Princes, they might then (and not till then) find constant Great Councils, and Parliaments to be necessary for that End, and as the firmest Bulwark against the Tyranny of Succeeding Princes: But the Author of the Mirror in the Section, before the place from whence you took your last Quotation, expressly tells us, that upon the first Election of a King to Reign over the rest of the Saxon Princes, they first of all mad● him to Swe●r, that He would maintain the Holy Christian Faith, with all his Power, and would govern his People according to Right, without regard to any Person, and should be liable to suffer Right (i. e. judgement) as well as 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 Island at once: Yet the Substance of it may be true, that this Election was made of King Egbert, by the 40 Earls or Counts of Provinces, which were afterward by King Alfred, called Shires.  
But that this Author ascribes the Beginning of Great Councils, to the first Institution of the Government; pray see what he there f●rther says. And though the King can have no Peer in the Land, nevertheless, if by his own wrong, 
Fr. nequidant  he offends against any of his People, none of those that judge for him, can be both judge and Party: It is therefore agreeable to Right, that the King should have Companions to Hear and Determine in Parliament, all Writs and Complaints, concerning the Wrongs of the King, Queen and their Children, of which Wrongs they could not otherwise have Common Right. These Companions are therefore called Counts after the Latin, C●mit●e. Whereby you may see, that this Author and Bracton, who were Contemporaries, were of the same Opinion in this important Point. And I cannot imagine, how any Prince who had Power sufficient in his hands, to do what he pleased (as you suppose our English Saxon Monarches to have had at the first) would ever, if they could have helped it, have instituted a Court, one of whose chief Businesses it was, to examine and redress the Wrongs and Oppressions of themselves, their Wives and Children.  
But besides all this, what you say might be somewhat likely, that our Parliaments or Great Councils did owe their Original only to the King's good Will and Pleasure, did we not find the like Constitution, to have been in all the Neighbouring Kingdoms in Europe, which have been raised according to the Gothic Model of Government, upon the Ruins of the Roman Empire, now let us look into Scotland, and there we shall find this Institution as Ancient, as any History or Record they have. If we pass into France, we shall find their Assembly of Estates or Great Council, to have been as Ancient as their first Kings, 
Vi. Hottoma● Franco Gallia.  and to have had as much Power, as any where else in Europe: Since they not only frequently Elected, but also Deposed their Kings of the first Race, and disposed of the Succession of the Crown, as they thought fit. If we look into Spain, we shall find in the two greatest and most Considerable Kingdoms, viz. Castille and Arragon, the like Assemblies▪ the Power of which was so great in the latter, that they could even Depose the King himself, if he Tyrannised over, or Oppress't them; If we go more Northward, we shall find in the Ancient Kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden, and Norway, that their Assembly of Estates, or Diets, Elected their Kings, and could likewise Depose them, till those Kingdoms became Hereditary, which was but of modern times. I shall omit Poland, because perhaps you may dispute whether it is a Kingdom, or a Commonwealth. But if we pass into Hungary, which was Instituted by the Huns, a Nation of Gothic Original, we shall find not only the like Assembly of Estates, as in the other Kingdoms, but also, that they had a Magistrate called the Palatine, who was as it were the Conservator of the People's Liberties, and who could Resist even the King himself, if he invaded them, and which is also very remarkable in all these Kingdoms (except Denmark) the Representatives of the Cities, or Principal Towns, (which constituted the third Estate, or Commons in those Kingdoms) had always a place in those Great Councils.  
So that to conclude, it is almost impossible to conceive, how these Kingdoms I have now mentioned, could all agree to fall into the same sort of Government about the same time, unless it had proceeded from the particular temper, and Genius of the German and Gothick Nations, from which they were derived. Or who can believe, that all these Nations, and their Kings finding the like Conveniences from these Great Councils, and Inconveniences by the want of them, should all Conspire to set them up in each of these particular Kingdoms.  M. 
I will not deny, but that the Institution of Great Councils, or Assemblies of the Estates, might be as Ancient as the Government itself, in several of those Kingdoms you mention, which were at first Elective; but what is that to England, where our Monarchy hath been by Succession, from the first Institution of it, and not Elective, as you suppose. Nor do I much value the Authority of the Mirror, as to the Great Antiquity he Ascribes to this Assembly of Counts or (Comites as Bracton calls them) and in which by the way, no Commons are mentioned.) And though I grant the judicial Power of the House of Peers, is very Ancient: Yet that it wholly proceeded at first from the Indulgence of our Kings, 
F.F.O.I. p. 34.  appears from hence, that there was always a necessity of the King's Presence in Parliaments, which is very well proved by Sir Robert Cotton, in a Learned Treatise written on that Subject; wherein he proves, that in all Consultations of State, and Decisions of private Plaints, it is clear from all times, the King was not only present to Advise, but also to Determine. And whensoever the King is present, all Power of judging, which is derived from his, ceaseth, the Votes of the Lords may serve for matter of Advice, the Final judgement is only the Kings: But indeed of late years, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth, by reason of their Sex, being not so fit for public Assemblies, have brought it out of use, by which means it is come to pass, that many things which were in former times acted by Kings themselves, have of late been left to the judgement of the Peers; who in quality of judges Extraordinary are permitted for the Ease of the King, and in his Absence to determine such matters as were Anciently brought before the King himself, sitting in Person, attended by his Great Council of Prelates and Peers: And the Ordinances that are made there, receive their Establishment either from the King's Presence in Parliament, where his Chair of State is constantly placed, or at least from his Confirmation of them, who in all Courts, and in all Causes, is Supreme judge. All Judgements are by, or under him, and cannot be without, much less against his Approbation: The King only, and none but He, if He were able, should judge all Causes (saith Bracton.) so that nothing seems plainer to me, than that the jurisdiction which the House of Peers have hitherto exercised for the Hearing and Determining all Causes, as well Civil as Criminal, by way of Appeal, not only between Subjects, but also in all Accusations against the Lords themselves, proceeds wholly from the Kings, which may appear by an Ancient Precedent, 
Vi. Script. x An. 1041. Col. 937.  mentioned by Abbot Brampton in his History. It is the Case between King Edw. the Confessor, and Godwin Earl of Kent, whom the King accused for the Death of his Brother Prince Alfred, before the House of Peers, and there you will find, that after the Earl had put himself upon the judgement of the King's Court, the King thereupon said: You Noble Lords, Earls and Barons (i. e. Thanes) of the Land, who are my Liege-Men now gathered here together, and have heard my Appeal, and Godwin's Answer: I will, that in this Appeal between us, ye Decree Right judgement, and do true justice: And upon their Judgement that the Earl should make the King sufficient Satisfaction in Gold and Silver, for the Death of his Brother, the King being thereof informed, and not willing to contradict it (the Historian there sayeth) He ratified all they had judged. I could give you many other Precedents of latter Date, were it not too tedious: But this is sufficient to show, that what the P●ers acted in this matter, was by the King's Sole Will and Permission. I shall only conclude with one Precedent more, in Case of some what alike Nature. It is that of Hen. Spencer Bishop of Norwich, 7 Rich. 2d. who was accused fo● joining with the French: The Bishop complained, what was done against him, did not pass by the Assent and Knowledge of the Peers, whereupon it was said in Parliament▪ that the Cognisance and Punishment of his Offence, did of C●mmon Right, and Ancient Custom of the Realm of England, solely and wholly belong to our Lord the King, and no other. From all which I infer, that the judicial Power exercised by the House of Peers, is merely derivative from, and Subservient to the Supreme Power, resi●●ing in the King. From whence it also follows, that if the Peers have no Power nor Honour, but what proceeds from the Prince▪ and that the Commons were of a much later Date; then both the Being and Privileges of both Houses, had but one and the Selfsame Original, viz. nothing else but the mere Grace or Favour of our Kings. I have only added this, the better to enforce my former Argument; And therefore I desire you would now answer them both together.  F. 
I am very glad your last Argument doth not prove so formidable, as you suppose, for to remove that out of the way. I must tell you, that you now very much mistake the Question, which is not only concerning the judicial power of the Peers alone, but the Legislative Power of the House of Peers and Commons taken together, which is the Subject of our present Dispute. And therefore if I should grant you, that the judicial Power of the Peers▪ is derived wholly from the King, Yet would it not at all ●mpai● the Legislative Power of either of the Houses, which no Historian or Law-book that I know of (that is of any Credit or Antiquity) ascribes to the King's Favour, as you suppose. Nor is it true, that the House of Peers can give no judgement, either Civil or Criminal, without the King's Consent or Approbation, which is never so much as asked, let the Cause be what it will; nor is his Presence at such Judgements at all 〈◊〉, but indeed you confound the King's Council in Parliament (where I have showed you already, he sat and dispatched divers Causes in a Room or Chamber, distinct from that of the Peers) with the House of Lords.  
But to come to your main Argument, that our Parliament must owe its Original to the King, because each of the Estates of which it consists doth so. This I hope will prove as weak, when throughly considered: For first of all, I could show you, that those Councils could not owe their Original to the K. since the Saxon Kings rather owed their Original to them, by whom they were most commonly Elected, as I could show you out of our Ancient Historians, if it were now a proper time for it. But as for our Bishops and Abbots, etc. which anciently made so great a figure in our Saxon Great Councils (which I can show you, were then both Civil and Ecclesiastical Assemblies) I have already proved out of Tacitus, that among the Ancient Germans (a part of whom our Ancient English Saxons were) their Priests (who were their Clergy) had a Considerable Authority in their Common Councils. And can any body believe, that a sort of People so Powerful and Subtle, as the Priests than were, would lose their Power after they came over into England? 
L. 2. c. 13.  And we find in Bede that Edwin King of Northumberland, consulted with a Council of his Great M●n and Priests, concerning his embracing the Christian Religion, and when it was generally received, can any body think, that the Christian Bishops and Clergy would not expect to Succeed in the same Station, which the Heathen Priests before held in their Councils? And that they enjoyed this Power very early, appears from hence, 
Vi. Spel. Coun. p. 619, 620.  that the same Ethelbert could not endow the Church and Monastery of Canterbury, Sine Assensu Magnatum & Principum tam Cleri quam Populi.  
But indeed you are as much mistaken in the manner of the Ancient Elections of Bishops, and Abbots in England. For though I own that at the time of the Conquest, and somewhat before there might be no such Elections of them as the Ancient Canons required, Yet that this was not so at the first you may see in Bede's Ecclesiastical History, and other Historians, where it is often mentioned, that Bishops were chosen according to the Canons by the Archbishops and Bishops of the Province, and Abbots by their Convent: Nor was the Kings investing of them per annulum, & Bacculum, then looked upon as any Derogation to their Canonical Election, that being no more than either a Ceremony of investing them with their Temporalities, or a token of the King's Confirmation of the Election. And that this was so, appears by King Edgar's Charter to the Abbey of Glastenbury, wherein he retains to himself and his Heirs, jus tribuendi fratri Electo baculum pastoralem.  
But that which so much Scandalised both Ingulf and Malmsbury, was a Custom then in use, as also long before the Conquest, of confirming the Bishop Elect in a full Synod or Parliament. And to this Custom, Ingulf refers when he tells us, A multis annis retroactis nulla eras Electio Prelatorum merè Libera, 
Ingulph. Hist. fol. 509. b.  & Canonica: Sed omnes Dignitates tam Episcoporum quam Abbatum Regis Curia pro su● complacentia conferebat. Where by Curia Regis, you must not understand the King's Court in the Sense it is commonly taken, but for the Great Council or Mikel Synod, as it was then called, and which dispatched Ecclesiastical, as well as Civil Affairs, in the same Sense as Curia Regis is used by Brompton, in the Case of King Edw. and Earl Godwin, which you but now cited. And in which Sense it is always used by Ingulph, when he speaks of the Great Councils under the two Williams: I will not be very tedious on this Subject, and shall therefore give you but one Authority on this Head, and it is that of Walslan, who was made Bishop of Worcester, 
p. 20.10.  in the time of Edw. the Confessor, and that as Mat. Paris tells us, Vnanimi consensu tam Cl●ri, quam totius Plebis (Rege ut quem vellent sibi eligerent praesulem annuente) in Episcopum ejusdem loci eligitur. And then he goes on thus, Nam licet fratrum non deesset electio, Yet that there concurred to it, Plebis petitio Voluntas Episcoporum, Gratia Procerum, Regis Authoritas: All which amounts to no more, than that he was Elected, Chosen and Confirmed by the King, and all the Three Estates. For here is the Petition of the Commons joined with the goodwill of the Lords, and both backed by the King's Authority. Yet that all this did not hinder him from being invested per Baculum, & Annulum as the Custom than was, may appear by the Speech this Bishop Wulstan made at the Tomb of Edward the Confessor, whither he went to resign his Pastoral Staff after his being deprived of his Bishopric, by Archbishop Lanfrank, and the Synod. And the Conclusion of this Speech is remarkable, Tibi, (Scil. Edwardo) Baculum resigno qui d●disti, Curam ●orum dimitto quos mihi commendasti. A like Example I could give you of the Election of this Archbishop Lanfrank himself in the Kings Curia, or Great Council not long after the Entrance of K. William; but for this I refer you to Eadmerus.  
But admitting that the King alone had in those days conferred all Bishoprics, does it therefore follow, that his Nomination of Bishops in the Pursuance of that Trust, which the Kingdom reposed in him did likewise make them to derive all the Right they had to sit in the Great Council from the King's Sole Authority? you might indeed with as much Reason urge, that because the Emperor Theodosius (as likewise divers of his Predecessors) did Nominate Bishops to Sees, therefore they did likewise receive from them all the Authority they had of appearing, and acting in General Councils, which I am sure you are too good a Church of England Men to affirm.  M. 
I must confess, I never did so closely examine the Ancient Form of conferring of Bishoprics before the Conquest, as I find you have done, and I will better Examine your Authorities, and if I find this Custom to have been constant and uniform I shall come over to your opinion; tho' I doubt it will not prove to have been so general as you would make it, since by the Authority you have now brought out of Mat. Paris it appears, that it was the King who gave leave to this Election of Bishop Wulstan in the Great Council, which I am not yet convinced did then take upon them to meddle in Ecclesiastical matters without the King's Consent: but since you have spoken enough concerning the Right, and Antiquity of the Bishops sitting in our Great Councils, it is time you now speak of the Right of the Peers, or Temporal Lords, which certainly could have no place there but from the Favour and Concession of our Kings: So that whether we consider those Lords in the Saxon time as Rulers of Counties, called in old English Earls or Aldermen, in Latin Deuces, or Comites, or else as Judges or Counsellors called in old Saxon, Wites, or Wisemen, in Latin Sapientes; or lastly as Thanes, in Latin Ministri, who were either Military Tenants, or Civil Ministers, or else Officers of the King in his Court, or other Employments, none of them were Hereditary in those times, but all of them either depended upon the King's Will, or else owed their Honours and estates to his Favour,  F. 
I hope, notwithstanding the Confidence you put in this part of the Argument, that it hath no more weight in it, than the former. For tho' I grant there was no such thing as Hereditary Earldoms before the coming in of the Normans; so that though both the Earls and Aldermen might have places in the Great Councils, ratione officii (as the Earl Marshal of England has at this day) and not by Tenure, 
Vi. Dugdale 's Preface to his Baronage of England.  as they did after that time: Yet I very much doubt, whether they sat there only ratione officii, and not as Thanes, or by reason of their great Lordships, or Estates in Lands, but if they sat there as Earls or Alderm●n; yet might they not be the only Persons that sat in those Councils by that Title: For there were besides these, aldermans of Cities and Burroughs, who were Elected by those Places, and who it is very likely appeared for them as their Representatives in those Councils, until by Succession of time those Towns began to send two Burgesses in their stead, some Footsteps of which still remain in London, where the Aldermen of every Ward are first proposed to be Elected Parliament Men before any other, and it is certain that these Aldermen, in the most Ancient Cities, as London, York, Lincoln, & ●. are not Elected by any Grant or Charter from the Crown, but by an immemorial Right of Prescription.  
But admitting that these Earls or Aldermen appeared in these Councils, by reason of their Offices, or Dignities which the King conferred upon them, yet doth it not prove, that the very Office itself proceeded 〈◊〉 from him, since we find the Authority of those chief Men, whom 〈◊〉 calls Princes (and which Answer these Earls) to have been used among the Ancient Germans long before, when he tells us in the same Chapter, where we cited the rest: jura per Pag●●, Vi●osque [Principes] reddunt, ●enteni Singulis ex plebe Comites Consilium simul, & auctoritas adsunt. Which exactly answers our County and Hundred Courts, under the Saxon Kings, wherein the Alderman of the County or his Deputy the Sheriff presided, and the Free Men of the County or Hundred were the judges of all matters of Fact. So that though the King might appoint these 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 said before) supposing that the King had Anciently the Nomination of all the Bishops and Abbots in England, that therefore they must also owe their Place in our great Councils, or Synods wholly to them, since the King performed both of them as a Public Trust committed to him by the Common Weal in the one case, as much as in the other.  
But indeed, I think the greatest part of the Members of this Assembly (besides Aldermen, and Burgesses for Cities and Towns) consisted of those Thanes, whose Names are often found in the Subscription of the Ancient Charters of our Saxon Kings after the Principes, Deuces and Com●●●s, and that though many of them might be the Kings Feudal Thanes, or 〈◊〉 Grand Serjeanty, or Knight's Service in Chief, as Mr. S●lden tells us in his Titles of Honour, 
Seld. Tit. ●on. ●ol. 507, 508, 515.  yet that Author no where excludes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. middle, or less Thanes from having Voices in those Assemblies who were afterward Styled Vavissours, or Lords of Townships (afterwards) called Maunors, with Courts annexed to them under the Names of Sac & Soc; which were the same with our Court- 〈◊〉. and Courtbaron: Especially if you please farther to consider, what a vast n●mber of Al●dari●, or Free Tenants there were then, who held their Lands Discharged of all Services, but the Common Burdens 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 consider the Nature of our Saxon Councils, will find, that the Greatest part of the Persons that appeared there, did not owe their 〈◊〉 to their being the King's Ministers or Officers, as you suppose▪ but to their holding such Lands and Poss●ssions as Capacitated them, and gave them a Right to have places in those Great Councils: And that this was 〈◊〉 we need go no further, than the Laws of King Athel●●an, where you will find G●mility itself▪ annexed to an Estate in Land. 
Vi. Lamb. p. 54.  For if you will but be pleased to Consult King Athelston's Laws, you will there find, that if a Villa●aus or C●eorl could so thrive, as to get an Estate of five Hides in Lands, he was reckoned a Thane, i. e. a Gentleman or Nobleman, as they were promiscuoully reckoned at that time.  
So that though I suppose, there might not be in those times that exact distinction between Peers and Commons, as there hath been established since the coming in of the Normans; Yet was it the same thing in effect, since the Bishops. Earls or Aldermen of Shires (though not enjoyed as Hereditary Honours) might make then the Greater Nobility or Peers, as the Thanes were the Less Nobility, Gentlemen or Freeholders; who all appearing in person, might together with the Aldermen or Burgesses of Towns Represent those which we now call the Commons; And supposing that then there were no Knights of Shires, yet these being then the only Proprietors of any considerable Estates of Land in the Nation, might very well represent all their Vassals or Vnder-Tenents, as Tenants for years, and at Will, are at this day by the Knights of Shires, though they have no Votes at their Election.  
To conclude, though I grant that the King's of England, are the Fountain of that Honour, which we call Peerage: Yet it is only in Pursuance of that Ancient Constitution, which their Ancestors brought out of Old Saxony and Normandy, along with them, as the firmest defence of Kingly Power against the Insolency and Encroachments of the Common or Meaner sort of People, as well as Tyranny in their Princes. And therefore in all Monarchies where there is no Hereditary Nobility, the Prince hath no surer ●ay to maintain his Power, than by Standing Armies, to whose Humours and Pactions, he is more Subject, and is also more liable to be Murdered, or Deposed by them (when discontented with him) than ever any limited Prince yet was, or can be by his Nobility or People: As I could show you from a multitude of Examples, not only from the Roman, but Moorish, Arabic and Turkish Histories; and therefore to constitute a lasting stable limited Monarchy (as ours is) it must be according to the Model I have here Proposed.  M. 
I shall not contradict the latter part of your Discourse; but I must freely tell you, that if as (you yourself grant,) there were no Knights of Shires in the Saxon times, I cannot see how those we call the vulgar or Commons of England, had then any Representatives in the Great Council, since those Thanes or Lords of Manors, whom you suppose to have Represented their Tenants or Vassals, were never chosen by them, and consequently could not properly be their Representatives: But I think it will be easy enough to prove, that none of your Inferior or middle Thanes, but only the Chief or Superior, had places in those Assemblies. So that these Feudal Thanes, or such as held of the King in Chief by Military Service, were of the sam: Kind with them that were after the Norman times, Honorary or Parliamentary Barons, and their Thainlands alone, were the Honorary Thainlands, and such as were afterwards Parliamentary Baronies. Nor can I find any Footsteps in our Ancient English Histories of Cities and Buroughs, sending any Representatives to those Great Councils: So that admit I should own at present, that the Bishops and some Great Abbots, had from the first Settling of Christianity in this Island, an Indisputable place in the Great Councils, and likewise that the Earls, Aldermen or Great Nobility, had also Votes in those Assemblies, and that the Chief Thanes, or less Nobles, had also their places there, by reason of the Tenure of their Estates; yet certainly the House of 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 else to those that had Usurped their Power: And this I think Dr. Brady hath very well proved against Mr. Petyt; and I think I could convince you also of the Truth of it by his, as well as other Arguments, were it not now too late to enter upon so long a Subject.  F. 
Therefore, pray let us defer any further Discourse of this Question, till the next time we meet, wherein I hope I may show you, that if you owe that Opinion to the Doctor's Arguments, he hath led you into a very gross mistake. And I shall only at present take my leave of you, and bid you good night.  M. 
I wish you the like.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
A Brief Discourse of the Law of Nature, according to the Principles and Method laid down in the Reverend Dr. Cumberland's (now Lord Bishop of Peterborough's) Latin Treatise on that Subject. As also his Confutations of Mr. Hobb's Principles put into another Method. With the Right Reverend Author's Approbation.  
FINIS.   

Bibliotheca Politica: Or, A DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE, WHETHER The Commons of England represented by Knights, Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament, were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th. of Edw. I.  
Collected out of the most Approved Authors, both Ancient and Modern.  
Dialogue the Sixth.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, near the Oxford-Arms; where also may be had the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Dialogues. 1693.   

Authors made use of, and how denoted.  

1. Mr. Pettit's Ancient Right of the Commons of England Asserted. P.R.C.  
2. Dr. Brady's Answer thereunto. Edit. in Folio▪ B. A. P.  
3. The said Doctor's Glossary at the end of it. B. G.  
4. Anamadversions upon Treatise janii Anglorum forces novo. B. A. I.  
5. The Author of janus, etc. his Confutation of the said Doctor, entitled janus Anglorum ab Antique I. A. A.  
6. Dr. Brady's Preface to his History. B. P. H.  
7. Dr. Iohnston's Excellency of Monarchical Government. I. E. M. G.    

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
HAving in my last Discourse treated of the Legislative Power of this Kingdom, as also the Ancient Constitution of our English Government by great Councils or Parliaments; (the former of which questions, I should scarce have dwelled so long upon, had I then known of a Learned Treatise now 〈◊〉 to be published on that Subject) I am at last arrived at the hardest, and most important, though perhaps in the judgement of some, the driest, and most unpleasant part of my Task, viz. Who were anciently the constituent Parts or Orders of Men who made up th●se Assemblies; That the Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, and Chief Thanes, or Barons, were Principal Members, is granted by all Parties; but whether there were from the very Original of these Great Councils, (nay, till long after the coming in of the Normans) any Representatives for the Commons, as we now call them, in distinction from the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, is a doubt; which as it was (for aught I can find) first raised by an Italian, 
Pol. Virgil.  who writ the History of England in the last Age, so hath it been continued by some Antiquaries of our present Age; though the first that ever appeared to prove the contrary, was a Treatise published by James Howel in the Cottoni Posthuma, under the Name of Sir Robert Cotton, about 1654. but whether it was his or no, I know not; only it was supposed to be so by Mr. Pryn in his Preface to the Collection of Records, which he published under the Name of the same Author in 1657. and after him this Notion of the Bishops, Lords, and other Tenants in Capite being the Sole Representative for the whole Nation in those Councils, was next printed in the Second part of Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary, Tit. Parliamentum; where King John's Charter is made use of at the main Argument to prove that Assertion. The next who appeared in Pr●nt on this Question, was Sir Will. Dugdale in his Origines Juridiciales, who though he Transcribed the same Notion and Arguments from the 〈◊〉- mentioned Glossary, 
P. 15.  yet allows the Commons of England to have been always after some manner represented in Parliament, though not by Representatives of their own choosing; yet agrees with the Author of the passage in the Glossary, that the Commons first began by Rebellion in the 49th of Henry the Third.  
Which Opinions being look upon not only as Novel and Erroneous, but dangerous to the Parlamental Rights and Liberties of the People of this Nation, were opposed by William Petyt Esq in his Treatise, entitled, The Rights of the Commons of England assertio; which was also seconded by the Author of the Treatise, called Jani Anglorum facies Nova; but it was not long before both these Books were animadverted upon by Dr. Brady, in two several Editions of his Answers to them; and these were again vindicated by the Author of Jani Anglorum, etc. in another Treatise, entitled Jus Anglorum ab Antiquo; which hath not been yet answered.  
I have been the more particular in giving an account of these Authors, because the Controversy having been largely debated in them, I have for the saving your trouble of reading so many several Books, reduced all the material Arguments and Authorities man use of by both Parties in this weighty Controversy, into this Dialogue, and the next, since so copious an Argument could not be dispatched in a less compas●. And 〈◊〉 have not here given you all the Arguments and Authorities that are there made use of, but only the most material and indisputable; yet I hope I have used this Liberty with that sincerity and respect to those Learned Authors, that none of them shall have any just ca●●t to complain of any Partiality; And therefore I have as near as I could, confined myself to the Words of those Authors, as you will find by the Quotations in the Margin.  
But I must own, that having had the happiness of a long and familiar acquaintance with Mr. Petyt, I have been furnished by him with divers Authorities (both Manus●●●p: and Printed) not hitherto taken notice of by any on this Subject: And had I the like opportunity of being personally known to the Dr: I should have desired the same favour of 〈◊〉 for such Replies as he might perhaps make to them. Therefore all I can now do in this Case is, that if the Dr. or any Friend of his, shall think it worth their while to peruse, and impartially to consider these Discourses, and shall then remain unsatisfied with any of the Authorities or Arguments here made use of; if either he or they shall think fi● to m●●● any Observations on them, and will communicate their Papers to the Publisher of these Dialogues, I do here engage to take care that they shall be fairly and truly published with Answers to them, if they will admit of any, in an Appendix at the end of the whole Work, when it is finished.  
I have little more to trouble you with, than to assure you, That all the Authorities here made use of from our English Historians and Records, are truly cited, without leaving out or concealing any thing that I thought made for or against either Opinion; but as for the Records, they are either such as having been sufficiently tried, have passed for current between the Dr and his Antagonists, or else such as I have seen and examined with my own Eyes, and considered the purport of them.  
But I hope you will pardon me if I seem too prolix in the beginning of this Dis●●●se, in the interpretation of divers Words and Phrases used by the Dr. and his Opponents in a quite different sense from our Ancient Historians, Records and Statutes; for if the ●●●ous use, and equivocal meaning of those Expressions be truly stated, and laid open according to the several Ages in which those Authors lived, or such Laws were made, I reck●● this great Dispute as good as half ended.  
All that I shall farther desire of you is, carefully and diligently to peruse the Arguments and Authorities, and to examine the truth of them yourself, if you doubt of any thing in them, weighing and comparing Historian with Historian, and Record with Record, and sometimes both together, as the Subject-Matter requires, and then I kept you will be able to make a right and impartial judgement on the 〈◊〉; For as I have 〈◊〉 in my Province fairly to report other men's Arguments and Notions, so it is yours to judge of them, which I heartily desire may be without any unjust Bias or Partiality to 〈◊〉 Side.   

THE Sixth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman, AND Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian.  M. 
SIR, You are welcome; and since you were pleased to send me word, that you would come and sit 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 Burgesses for Cities or Burroughs; the only persons there mentioned, as Members of those Great Councils, being Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and Great Lords, and judges; often called by the general 〈◊〉 Names of Magnates, Principes, Proceres, Optimates, or Primates Regni, which were all comprehended under the Saxon Word, Wites, i. e. 〈◊〉; 
Tit. Wites. B. G.  by whom (as Sir H. Spelman shows us in his Glossary) 〈◊〉 meant only Senators, or Wisemen; that is, either Noblemen, 〈◊〉 Great Lawyers; Wite, in Somner's Saxon Dictionary, being first ●●endred Optimas, 
Pag. 66, 67.  a Noble Man; and than Sapiens, a Wiseman. So 〈◊〉 these Wites, or Sapientes (so often mentioned in our Ancient 〈◊〉 Laws) when they are put alone, 
Et Sparsim.  signify all the Ecclesiastic, 〈◊〉 well as Lay-Members of the great Council, such as Earls, Aldermen, and Thanes, and Judges, as Dr. B. more particularly proves, in his Glossary 〈◊〉 the end of his first Volume. But by Principes, and Optimates, can only be meant Nobles, or Chief Men, as the Word Princeps, Magnas, and Optimas do al●●ys signify in the Latin Tongue; That is to say, such of the King's great Officers, noblemans, and Judges of the Kingdom, as he pleased to choose out, and 〈◊〉 to his Great Councils, either for their great Wisdom or Estates, to make 〈◊〉 of their Advice and Assistance for the making of Laws.  
Therefore pray show me where there are any Commons once mentioned in any of these Councils, 
B. A. P. P. 9, 10.  or any that represented them. Here are indeed particularly mentioned, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Abbots, Aldermen, Wites, Great-men, and Chief-men, or Noblemen. These were all the Orders of men that were then the constituent 〈◊〉 of those Great Councils, Wittenagemotes. And if the Commons, as now taken, and understood, were then Members of them, they must be comprehended amongst the Wites or Sapientes, the Wisemen. But that it cannot probably be so, I shall prove (1.) That most of the Saxon Laws, in their Prefaces are said to be made and ordained by their Kings, with the Advice and Assistance of their Wites, or Wisemen simply, without mentioning any particular Orders of men whatsoever. And when any Rank or Degrees of men are particularly mentioned, they are only the same before rehearsed, both ecclesiastics and Laics (2.) I note, that it cannot be denied, but that in every one of these Wittena G●motes, Micel Synods, Micel Gemotes, or Great Councils, where the Laws are said to be made only by the King, with the advice of his Wites or Sapientes, without particularising any degrees of Persons, the Bishops and Abbots for the Spiritual Nobility, and the Eorls, or Aldermen and Thanes, for the Temporal, were present at the making of them; as also the Judges, if there were any of the higher Class, other than Bishops, aldermans, and Gereves, or Praepositi. (3.) I note, that it follows from thence, that these all jointly were the Sapientes, where there are only Wites or Sapientes in general named, without reciting any particular Orders or Degrees of Men. Now if you can show me from as good Authorities as I have here produced, that any of the Commons sat in these Great Councils, at least to represent the Body of the Commons among the Saxons, I will grant, that during the Saxon Government, the Freemen, or Commons of England, as now called, and distinguished from the Great Lords, were an essential constituent part of the Common Councils of those times.  F. 
To return you as short an Answer as I can, to those Authorities you now cite, I must in the first place premise, That though I grant all Nobility among the ancient Germans, Saxons, and Franks (who were but so many Stirps or Branches of the Gothic Nation) were at first wholly Military; yet it is a very great mistake, and savours of the Prejudices of the Age and Country we live in, to imagine, that anciently there were the same Distinctions between Peers, or Noblemen, and Gentlemen, (whom we now call Commoners) as there are now. For if we go but over into France or Germany, we shall find no difference there between the greater and the less Nobility; and a Gentleman is as noble as a D●ke, or a Marquis. And if we pass farther, into Denmark and Norway, from whence most of the Danish Laws are supposed to come, it is certain, that but few years ago, there were no such Titles among them as Earls, or Barons; every Lord of a Town, or District, being that which they call an Adelman, or Nobleman. And so I suppose it anciently was among the English Saxons. The Word Athel, or Adel, comprehending (to speak in our present Dialect) all Degrees, as well Noblemen, as Gentlemen; And for this I can give you the Authority of an Ancient Author, viz. Paulus Warnefridus de gestis Longobardorum, 
Cap. 21.  who speaking of these Adelmen, or Adelings, tell us; Sic and eos quidam Nobiles prosapia vocabantur. So likewise Sir H. Spelman in his Glossary, Tit. Adelingi, Tit. p. 9, 10. writes thus, Anglorum legibus dici pro nobilibus in genere, quod nec dum apud Germanos antiquatum est, qui omnes nobiles Aedelmen vocant▪ a Saxonico Aedel pro nobili; And Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour, makes the Word Aethelum to signify all one, 
Pag. 708.  either Gentlemen or Noblemen. Besides, Adam of Bremen, and 
* Lib. 4.  Nitardus likewise, both Ancient Historians, divide the Saxon Nation into three different Degrees, or Orders, viz into Athelings, i. e. Nobles, Friling, i. e. Freemen, and Lazzos, i. e. Villains, Bours, or Bondmen.  
Besides which Noblemen, or Gentlemen, there was likewise another sort of men, who though of an inferior Rank, yet as Freemen, and having a considerable share of the Riches and Strength of the Nation in their hands, had likewise a Place in the Great Councils, as well as the former. And these were the Aldermen, or other Magistrates of Cities and Burroughs; and in this they resembled the Germane Diets, whose constituent Members were, according to Gonterus, an Ancient Germane Poet, 
Praelati, Proceres, missisque potentibus Urbes.  But since this is a Dispute about the Signification of Words, in what sense they were used in that Age we are now treating of, it will not be inconvenient to examine from the most Learned Glossarists, the Ancient Signification of those Words, which are in dispute between us. And therefore, since we are agreed about the meaning of all other Words except these viz. Aldermen, Thanes, Wites, Magnates, Optimates, and Principes, Preceres, or Primates, let us examine each of their Ancient Significations. To begin then with the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉- man, Alderman, which Word was of a very general Signification; For Sir Hen. Spelman in his Glossary, Tit. Alderman, tells us, that there was Aldermannus Regis, Comitatus, Civitatis, Burgi, etc. de quorum potestate non facile est definire, 
In his Glossary Tit. Alderman.  Mr. Lambard renders the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man, in Latin Senator, (i. e. one that had place in the Great Council) and so doth Mr. Somner in his Saxon Dictionary, from whence you may learn, that this Word is of a large signification, and might comprehend such as in latter times were called Commons, 
* Tit. Alderman.  to distinguish them from the Lords or higher Nobility, and could not exclude them.  
Verstegan renders this Word thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, So written in our ancient Language, 
P. 326.  is properly an Elder, or Senior; yet an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man, which we call now an Alderman, was such in effect among our Ancestors, as was the Tribunus Plebis with the Romans, that is, one that had chief jurisdiction among the Commons, as being a Maintainer of their Liberties. And if so, such persons must certainly have had a place in the Great Council as Commoners; and therefore must from the reason of the thing, signify something more in those times than an Earl, or great Officer of the King only.  
So likewise, that the Word Thane comprehended more than the Kings Great Feudal, or Military Tenants, may appear by these Interpretations of it, which our Antiquaries have given us. The Industrious Mr. Somner, in his Glossary at the end of the X. Scriptores, as also Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour, 
P. 267.  do both agree in the difference I now make between the Greater and the Less Thanes, the former being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thani Regii, 
Spel. Council. in Leg. Canuti p. 69.  the other called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mediocres, vel Inferiores Thani Middle, or Less Thanes, who were Maneriorum Domini, Nobiles mi●●●es, Vavasores & nonnunquam liberi tenentes; with whom Sir H. Spelman in his Glossary agrees, Thanorum duo erant genera, Majores quos Thain●s Regis appellabant, nos Barones Regis, & Thaini Simpliciter, seu Thaini Minores qu● iidem erant qui Barones Minores, hoc est Maneriorum Domini, Nobiles minores, & nonnunquam Liberi Tenentes nuncupantur. So likewise Mr. Lambard in his Glossary, 
P. 223.  thus, Thani autem appellatione viri interdum Nobiles, interdum liberae conditionis homines, interdum Magistratus atque sup● m●ner● Ministri notantur. And also in his Perambulation of Kent, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was usually taken for the very same that we call now from the Latin word Gentilis, a Gentleman, that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A man well born, or of good Stock and Family. So that I think nothing can be more evident, than that according to the Opinion of our best Critics in the Saxon Tongue, the word Thane doth not always signify a great Lord, or Baron of Parliament, as he is now called, in distinction to an Inferior Nobleman or Gentleman. And that there were also Burgh Thanes, Thanes of Cities and Boroughs, will evidently appear from a Writ or Charter of K. Edward the Confessor, 
Sub Effigie Faustinae. A. 3. F. 97. Ex Cartulario Canobi Westmin.  which is still to be found in Sir john Cotton's Library, in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Willem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alle mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Charter with divers other of like nature, confirming the Privileges of that Monastery, were collected by a Monk of Westminster called Sulcardus, who lived not long after the Conquest.  
In the next place, as for the word Magnates, though I grant it there often signifies Great men or Lords; Yet not only such as were Lords or Noblemen by Birth, but as I shall show you by several Instances, as well before as after the Norman Entrance, that it likewise also comprehended the Gentry, or Inferior Nobility, and such as were eminent and considerable either in the Countries or Cities, for Interest, Office or Estate.  
As for the word Optimates, I know it signifies the better, or best sort of men, yet not always great Noblemen, or Lords; For in Monastic Anglic. Tom. 3. we read of one Goda, who under Edw. the Confessor subscribed himself Optimatem, & Ministrum Regalem, (i. e. Thane.) And lest you should apprehend that Optimas should always signify the King's Thane, or Tenent in Capite, du Fresne in his Glossary defines Optimates to be Vassalli Barones qui ab ullo Domino ratione Hominu need pendet; but I shall speak more of this word Optimates, when I come to speak of the times not long after William the First.  
In the next place, for the word Proceres, it doth not only signify Men Noble by Birth, but Isidore (a Spanish Author in the Gothic-times) in his Origines, Lib. 9 Cap. 4. says thus, Proceres sunt Principes Civium; and that this word often signified in the ancient English Saxon, the Chief Magistrates of Cities or burgh's, 
Pag. 56.  appears by Alfrick's ancient Glossary, where these words Proceres Primates, vel Primores, he thus renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 buph papa. 
Pag. 420.  And Du Fresne in his Glossary says also, Proceres app●●labantur qui in Civitatibus pracipuos Magistratus gerebant.  
As for the word Principes, any man that understands any thing of the Latin Tongue, knows that it doth not always signify Princes, or Men Noble by Birth; but any Chief, or Principal Man remarkable by Place, Office or Dignity; and therefore we often read in Livy, and other Latin Authors of Principes Civitatis; and in this sense I suppose every Member of Parliament may be reckoned inter Principes, among the most Considerable or Chief Men of the Kingdom: So that when our ancient English Historians, (as well before as immediately after the Norman Conquest) do often, after the Arch-Bishops▪ Bishops, etc. add, & caeteri toti●● Regni Proceres, & Optimates, or Principes, as Members of the great Councils of those times; Yet that these Writers did not then mean what you would understand by these words, only Princes, Earls, or Great Lords, Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour teaches us, 
Pag. 605.  when speaking of this word Principes (as the most comprehensive of any) says, that though Princeps in the Singular, were proper to every Earl or Alderman; yet in the Plural Principes is more often applied comprehensively to others also of less, though of special Eminency, such as were Viri Primarii, or Thanes. And for this he refers us to the Charter of King Ethelwulf (as it is recited by W. of Malmsbury, Lib. 2 Cap. 2. And Ingulph) wherein that King granted Tithes, 
P. 862. edit. Frank.  and divers other Privileges to the Church Abbey of Malmsbury, which is said to be done Consilio Episcoporum, & Principum snorum; as also of Hen. Hunt, 
P. 364. Edit. Ibid.  who relating the Election of Harold the Son of King Cnute, expresses it thus; Fuit magnum placitum apud Oxonford ubi Leofricus Consul, & omnes Principes eligerunt Heraldum.  
Lastly, As for the word Wites or Sapientes, there can be nothing in that word which can limit it only to Men Noble by Birth, since it signifies no more than the King's Great Council of Wise men or Senators, and might also well refer to the Chief Magistrates, or Representatives of great Cities and Boroughs. For Du Fresne in his Glossary tells us, 
Tom. 3. p. 700.  That among the L●mbards, Sapientes in Italia appellabant, & Civitatum Cives Primarii. quorum Consilio Respublicae gerebantur. Hieron. Rubeus Lib. Hist. Raven. Anno 1297.— Sed longe antea illud nomen abt●●uit in aliis Longobard●rum Civitatibus ut colligere liceret ex Ottone, & Acerbo Morena in Hist. Rerum L●ndevetium, etc. Nor is this Authority inconsiderable, since the Lombard's were derived from the Goths, 
Vi. Grotius Prolegomena in Histor. Gothicam.  from whom also the English Saxons had their Original, and had the like fundamental Constitution, and were governed by much the same Laws.  
But that the Title of Wites or Sapientes, was often attributed to the Commons of England, I shall explain to you when I come to treat of the Antiquity of the House of Commons, after the Normans Entrance; where I shall show you, that divers Petitions were directed a tres Sages les Communes. And sure whosoever is chosen by a County, City, or Borough, as their Representative, and is by them thought wise enough to be trusted with their Purses, and to make Laws for them, may very well (I think) be called in Old English a Wite, or in our modern Dialect, a Disercet or Wise man. But let this word Wites signify what it will, yet it could never mean here great Lawyers or judges, as your Dr. will have it; since I very much doubt whether Law was then a Trade or Profession, or not; And that the judges in those 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 satisfied, since if they had any such Power in those days, I do not believe our Kings would ever have let them have lost it, since it was so advantageous to their Prerogatives that they should 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 those for the times after the Conquest; but I beg your pardon for being so prolix already, which the abuse your Dr. hath put upon these words, would not permit me to avoid. But now we have cleared most of the Terms in dispute between us, I hope we may proceed with greater Certainty.  M. 
Though your Discourse hath been long, yet since it is so essentially necessary to the right understanding the matter in hand, I am well satisfied; and I shall more fully consider the account you give of these words another time; but a present give me leave to tell you, That suppose I should admit, that those words on which you have now given Interpretation of divers Authors, may sometimes be taken in the sense you have now put upon them; and that consequently the Commons might be represented under some of those general Names; Yet am I not satisfied, how the Aldermen and Magistrates of Cities and Boroughs, could be included under this word Wites, since in the Auctuary to the 35▪ Law of Edw. the Confessor, 'tis said, Erant & aliae potestates, & dignitates, 
B. G. p. 67.  per Provincias, & Patrias universas, & per singulos Comitatus totius Regni constitutae, qui Heretoches apud Anglos vocabantur, Scilicet Barones, Nobiles, & insignes Sapientes, etc. And Gregory of Tours, Rodovicus, and many of the foreign, ancient Historians mention, Sapientes only as Lawyers, Counsellors, Judges, and among the modern foreign Lawyers, Hottomon and Calvin, say expressly they were such. But perhaps not of the Inferior Ran●, no more than the Saxons Sapientes were, of which their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only consisted. And we have at this day the judges, and King's Council▪ and other great Lawyers, that sit in the Lord's House, and are assistant to the Parliament, when there is occasion. Nor have you yet brought any proof, that the Cities or Towns then sent their Representatives to the great Councils in the Saxon times, by this, or any other Title. But as for the Knights of Shires, though I grant the Treatise called, Modus tenendi Parliamentum, mentions such Persons to have been present in Parliament in the time of K. Ethelred; yet by that word Parliament so often used by the Author of that Treatise, and divers other Circumstances, it may be easily perceived that the Author lived but about the time of Edw. 3. or Rich. 2. as Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour, and Mr. Pryn in his Animadversions to Sir E. Cook's 4th Institutes, have very fully proved; so that admitting that your Thanes, or Lords of Towns, did then appear in those Councils for themselves, and their Tenants, yet could they not be properly said to be their Representatives, because (as I told you before) they were never chosen by them; whereas now the ordinary Freeholders, of forty Shillings a Year, and the Freemen and Inhabitants in Cities and Towns, have the gr●●test share in the Election of Knights, Citizens and Burgesses.  
And as for those Thanes you mention, they, or those under whom they claimed, owed their Estates wholly to the Grants of former Kings, and held their Possessions from them by some Tenure or other. And by virtue of this Tenure it was, that all the Lands of England were liable, even those that belonged to the Church, to those three Services, anciently called Trinoda Necessitas, viz. Expedi●●●, Castelli, & Pontis extructio, that is, Military Service against a Foreign Enemy and the Repair of Castles and Bridges; and subject to the common Services of the Kingdom. And that the Earls and Chief Thanes did hold their Lands by Knights or Military Service, appears by the reliefs of the Earls and Thanes, ex●●rest in the Laws of King Cnut. in Sir H. Spelman's Councils. So that if all the persons who held those Lands, owed them wholly to the King's bounty, it seems plain to me that they must likewise owe their places in the great Council to the same Original.  F. 
I think what you have now farther urged will be of no great moment against my Opinion; for as to the Authority you bring from the Addition to that Law of Edw. the Confessor; it is plain by the word Barones, that it was added long since that time, that word not being commonly in use, till some time after the Norman Conquest. But letting that pass, it is plain by the rest of the Law, if you would have been pleased to have read it out, that these Heretoches (here called Barons) were no other than ordinary Gentlemen, or Thanes (which then answered the word Barones. And these (as this Law itself expressly tells us) were chosen by all the Freemen in the Folemote, or County-Court. And therefore though I grant they might be men of Estates, yet there was no necessity of their being Lords, or Noble by Birth; nor is it likely that the people would have chosen their Earls, or any other of the like Order to command them, when they had sufficient choice of Thanes or Gentlemen in their own Country, to command the Military Forces of it. And though it is true these Gentlemen are called Nobles, and remarkable Wise Men, yet this (according to your own showing) doth not exclude others, and those of a far different Profession, viz. Counsellors, Lawyers, and judges, all which, you suppose had then Places in the Great Council, as they have now in the Lord● House. And if this Word might comprehend both Swordmen and Lawyers, I cannot see why it may not also take in the better and richer sort of Citizens and Magistrates, who in that Age, as was notorious, were elected by their respective Corporations; And I have already proved that these were called Sapientes in other Countries; and I see no reason why they ●ny not have been called so here too. But that the King's Judges and Counsellors could have no Votes in the Saxon Great Councils, I have already given a sufficient Reason to the contrary.  
But I shall now farther show you, That the Cities and Boroughs in the Saxon times being so much more numerous and considerable than they are now, must needs have had (according to the custom of those Times (a considerable share in those Great Councils▪ since in them consisted a great part of the Strength and Riches of the Kingdom; and were many more than they are at this day; for Bede 〈◊〉 in the beginning of his History, That there were in England long before his time, 28 Famous Cities, besides innumerable Castles, and walled Towns of note; many of which, 
Vi. Holli●sh Chro. p. 192, 193▪ where he sufficiently proves thi● Assertion from diviri ●●nc Authors  though now extremely decayed, or quite mined, were then very considerable, the greatest and richest part of the Nation inhabiting in those times for the most 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, and long after, ●y incultivated, and over run with Forests and Bog●, so that the Inhabitants of those Cities and Boroughs being them so considerable for Estates in Lands, as well as other Rich●●, could not ●e excluded from having Places both in the British, or Saxon Great Councils? what man of Sense can believe, that the Ancient and Potent Cities of London, T●●, C●nterbury, Lincoln, etc. Should ever be excluded from having any hand in the Great Consultation of giving Money and making Laws, and for the public defence of the Kingdom in the Saxon times, any more than they are now? And therefore we find, that in all the Kingdom of the Germane, or Gothick original, the chief Cities and Towns have still sent Deputies to the Diets, or Assemblies of Estates, as I said but now.  
In the next place, though I do not positively assert, that there were Knights of Shires before the Conquest; yet am I not convinced that there were none. For though I confess the Treatise you mention, appears to have been written since the coming in of the Normans, yet might the Substance of it have been much older than the times of Edw III. and Rich. II. or else certainly King Hen. IU. or his Chancellor for him, would never have been at the trouble of transmitting a Copy of this said Modus into Ireland under the Great Seal (which is thought to encroach so much on the Prerogative, had he not been very well informed of the Antiquity, as well as Authority thereof. And therefore it might very well be written about the Time of Hen. III. from some Ancient Historians 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 admitting that there were no Knights of Shires before the Conquest, and though the Thanes (who I suppose made the greatest Figure in the Wittena Ge●●●er) were not Earls, or chief Thanes, that is, of the Greater Nobility, yet they were great Freeholders, and though Commoners, yet Gentlemen, and of the Lesser Nobility, in the same sense as Gentlemen, or Knights of Shires are now. And the not elected by the Countries, yet might be as well esteemed their Representatives, as they are now of Freeholders, under 40 s. per Annum, Lease-holders' and Copy-holders' for years, who have no Votes at the Election of Parliament men; whereas these Thanes were then the chief (if not the only) Possessors of all the Freehold Estates in the Kingdom.  
Nor is it any material Objection to say that these Thanes might at first owe those Estates to the Grant of the First Saxon Kings, and might also after a sort hold their Estates of them as Heads of the Commonwealth, by such Services as were settled by Public 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 first place it is to be considered, that though the First Saxon Kings conquered this Island from the Britain's, yet those that assisted them being only Volunteers, the chief Officers or Commanders of them, might not only deserve, but also capitulate for their Shares in the Land so conquered. And these being given out by the King, according to each man's quality, condition, or desert, might constitute those who were called the King's Thanes, as those who held likewise under them, were the Middle Thanes or Vavassors. Supposing (till you can prove the contrary) that these 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. Whereas I have already proved, that an Estate of Five Hides in Land, of whomsoever holden, made a Thane or Nobleman of the Inferior Rank: And we find by the same Laws of King Athelstan, his Weregild, or Price of his Head, was valued but equal with that of a Mass Thanes or Priest, (viz.) at 2000 Thrymsas. So that a sufficient Estate in Land, did not only make a man a Gentleman, but also give him a place in the Great Council. And there were besides all these several Alodoril; who held their Lands, discharged from all Services, and could sell or dispose of them without the consent of the King, or any other inferior Lord, and are those mentioned in Doomsday Book; qui potuit ire cum terra que ●●but. Nor is your Argument conclusive, That because in those times as well as now, all Lands were held either mediately, or immediately of the King, and were chargeable with those three general Services you mention for the public safety and good of the Kingdom, that therefore not only all men's civil properties, but also their right of coming to the Great Councils must wholly depend upon the King's will; Since I have already proved, that the first Saxon Kings by their conquest of the Kingdom, could not acquire the sole property of all the Lands thereof to themselves, though they might be made use of as public trusties, to distribute them according to those men's qualities and deserts, who had helped them in the Conquest. So that when they were once possessed of such Estates, they had immediately thereupon a right to a place in the Great Council, the burden of the Government lying chiefly on such as had Estates in Land.  
And that many others besides the King's Thanes, or Great Lords, had places in the Great Council of those times, appears as well by the name of Mycel Synods, ●● Wittenagemots, which are rendered by our Ancient Glossarists Numerosa, or Popu●●sa Conventio; as also the Titles and Conclusions, to divers of the Titles of those Great Councils in the Saxon Times, where are often mentioned after the Comites, & Proceres Terrae, aliorum fidelium infinita multitudo, which must certainly take in many more than the King's Thanes, Judges, or other of his Great Men, who were then but a few in comparison of all the rest of the Freeholders of England.  M. 
I will not longer dispute the probability of what you say, all the difficulty lies in the proof of the matter of Fact. For in the first place I deny that any other of a less Degree than the King's Thanes, of chief Tenants, had any Places or Voices in the old English Councils. Nor can you find (as you yourself are forced to confess) in our Saxon Laws, or Ancient Historians of those times, any Representatives of the common people mentioned; such as are now, much less Citizens or Burgesses for any City or Burrow in England. And therefore what you say concerning the Riches or Power of the Cities and Towns before the Conquest, though perhaps it might be true, yet doth it not therefore follow, that they must then send their Representatives to the Great Councils. Nor is it any Argument to prove that they did, because great Cities and Towns do or did lately send Deputies to the like Assemblies in other Countries, since our Government might not only originally differ in that from theirs, but that also the sending of those Deputies might be granted by some later Princes, long since the time of the first beginning of those Kingdoms, and I do believe will prove so, if closely looked into.  
And in Denmark (which you know was an Elective Kingdom) the Cities and great Towns never sent any Deputies to their Great Councils at all; and since the Government of England (as you yourself grant) did very much resemble that, why might it not be so here too?  F. 
I think your Reply hath no more weight in it, than what you have already urged; For in the first place it lies upon your side to prove, that none but the King's or chief Thanes had any Places in the Great Councils of those times; and whe●● you can prove that, you may do something.  
But what I have now brought to prove the great Antiquity of our Cities and Burroughs in England, is not so little to the purpose as you would make it; since it confirms that Right of Prescription, which all ancient Cities and Burroughs is England do claim of sen●ing Members to Parliament; and therefore pray 〈◊〉 what Mr. Lambard, a Person whom all the Learned own extremely knowing in the English Saxon Government tells us on this Subject, 
Pag. 256. Pag. 257 etc.  in his Archeion in these Words.  
That whereas in the beginning of the Law, (viz. those made by the Saxon Kings he there mentions) all the Acts are said to pass from the King and ●is Wisemen, both of the Clergy and Laity, in the Body of the Laws, each Statute being thus; And it is the advice of our Lord, and his Wisemen. So as it appears that it was then a received Form of Speech, to signify both the Spirituality, and Laity (that is to say, the Greater Nobility, and the Less, or Commons) by this one Word Witena, i. e. Wisemen.  
Now as these written Authorities do undoubtedly confirm our Assertion of the continuance of this manner of Parliament, so is there also unwritten Law or Prescription, 〈◊〉 doth no less infallibly uphold the same. For it is well known, that in every Quarter of the Realm, a great many Burroughs do yet send Burgesses to the Parliament, which are nevertheless so ancient, and so long since decayed, and gone to nought, that it cannot be showed that they have been of any reputation at any time since the Conquest, and much les● than they have obtained this Privilege, by the Grant of any King succeeding the same. So that the Interest which they have in Parliament groweth by an ancient usage before the Conquest, whereof they cannot show any beginning; Which thing is also confirmed by a contrary usage in the self same thing; for it is likewise known, that they of ancient demesne, do prescribe in not sending to the Parliament; for which reason also, they are neither contributers to the Wages of the Knights of Shires, neither are they bound by sundry Acts of Parliament, though the same be generally penned, and do make no exceptions of them. But there is no ancient Demesne saving that only which is described in the Book of Doomsday, under the Title of Terra Regis which of necessity must be such as either was in the hands of the Conqueror himself, who made the Book, or of Edward the Confessor, that was before him. And so again▪ if they of ancient Demesnes, have ever since the Conquest prescribed not to elect Burgesses to the Parliament then (no doubt) there was a Parliament before the Conquest, to the which they of other Places did send their Burgesses.  
From whence we may conclude, that the Learned Author did not only believe that the Lords, but that also the Inferior Nobility, and Representatives of Cities and Towns were included under the Word Wites, and also that these Place● claimed that Privilege by Prescription, and not by Grant of any King since the Conquest, or before  M. 
I shall not deny but Mr. Lambard was a Learned Antiquary, yet there are others more in number, and perhaps of greater Learning, who do suppose, that no Cities or Burroughs sent Burgesses to Parliament, but since the Conquest; the I confess the time is not exactly agreed on, but whenever they began to appea●● there, it is certain they could have no right of coming, but from the King's Summons or Grants; since none but such Cities or Towns, that held of th● King in Capite, 
B. A. B. Pag. 38.  had anciently any place in those Assemblies, no● of them neither any other, but those whom the King pleased to call. And from thence proceeds that great Variety we find in the List of those Towns, which send Members to Parliament. But I shall omit speaking any thing farther of this at present.  
But as for those middle inferior Thanes or Vavassours (as they were afterwards called) whom you suppose to have made so great a Figure in the Saxon Great Councils, I do not believe that they had any Votes there, and I hope I shall be able to prove to you by and by, that none but the King's Tenants in Capite appeared in those Meetings, from the time of William the Conqueror, to the 49 Hen. III. Now if it be true (as you suppose) King William made no alterations in the constituent parts of the Great Council of the Kingdom, after his conquest of it, it will likewise follow, that the same sort of persons, viz. Tenants by Knight's Service, were the only Members of it before the conquest too. But if you have any express Authorities, out of our Ancient Saxon Laws or Histories, to prove that the Commons appeared at the Wittena Gemotes in the Saxon times, pray let us see them.  F. 
I shall perform your Command immediately; but in the first place give me leave to tell you, that what you have said concerning Cities and Towns not sending Burgesses to Parliament, till after the Conquest, is a great mistake, built upon a false and precarious Hypothesis, that they all held in Capite of the King; the contrary of which, I shall make out, when I come to treat of that Question. So likewise is it as precarious, that none but the King's Tenants in Capite, had any Votes in our Great Councils, in the times immediately succeeding your Conquest, till the 49th. of Hen III. and that therefore it must have been so before the Conquest. For as I own that King William made no material alteration in the Government of the Kingdom, after his entrance, so I likewise affirm, that as well after as before that time (if not Knights of Shires, yet) all Thanes the or Barons, i. e. great Freeholders of England, had Places in that Assembly before 49th. of Hen. III.  
But to proceed to the Authorities you desire, I shall begin with the first, and most ancient General Council we have left us in the Saxon times viz. that which was held at Canterbury, A. D. 605. by King Ethelbert, not long after the settlement of Christianity in this Island; which is recorded by Sir H. Spelman in his British Councils, in these Words; An. Incarnationis Dominicae, 685. Aethelbertus' Rex in fide Roboratus Catholica una cum Beria Regina silioque ipso Eadbaldo, 
Pag. 126.  ac reverendissimo praesule Augustino, caeterisque optimatibus Terr● Solenitatem Natalis Domini Celebrant Cantuariae; Convocato igit●r ibidem Communi Consilio tam Cleri quam Populi; Whence you may observe that the people than made a considerable part of the Great Council from the very beginning of the Saxon times.  M. 
Pray, Sir, 
B. A P. Pag. 4.  will you give me leave to answer your Questions, one by one as you go, for fear I should not only forget them, but also tyre you with too long a Speech. In the first place therefore give me leave to tell you, that you are very much mistaken to suppose, that by the Word Populus, is here meant the common People, or Vulgar; Whereas, when Clerus and Populus are used together, in our Ancient Writers of those times, it signifies no more than a Common Council of the Clergy and People or Laity, and not the Common People; for then the Lords, or Great Men would have been quite left out of this Council, as certainly they were not; and so when Clerus, and Populus, are used together, and thus contradistinguished, than they are expressive of two different Estates or Conditions of Men or Christians, the Clergy and Laity, or secular Men; and those were the Optimates Terrae, the chief Men of the Land before expressed. Neither was this, Council held under a sole Saxon Monarch, but under Ethelbert King of Kent only; and that but eight years after Augustin's coming hither, and above two hundred years before the Seven Kingdoms were united into one Monarchy.  F. 
I am not at all concerned at this Answer, since I can prove, that by the Word Populus must be here understood somewhat more than Kings, noblemans, and judges, viz. the Representatives of the Commons likewise; or else the Saxon Witenagemotes were not what their Titles speak them to be, Common, or General Councils of the whole Kingdom; that is, of all the Estates or Orders of it there, but only a Convention of the Bishops and Great Lords. And therefore if the Word Clerus did then comprehend all the Clergy, both Superior and Inferior, i e. as well the Bishops as Abbots, Priors, Deans and Clerks, for the Secular Clergy, and Cathederal Chapters, etc. I pray give me a Reason why the Word Populus, when put alone, must be wholly confined to your Earls, or chief Thanes, and may not also take in the Middle or Less Thanes, Freeholders, or Lords of Townships, and the Representatives of Cities and Burrough Towns; and why not with as much reason, as that the Word Populus amongst the Romans, took in the whole Body of the People of Rome, both Patricians, and Plebeians, when assembled in their Comitiis Centuriatis, to make Laws, or create Magistrates. The rest of your Argument is not very material; for though I grant this Council was held before the Heptarchy was united into a Monarchy, yet I think it is very easy to prove, that as all the Saxon Kingdoms consisted of several Nations of the same Language and Original, so were they likewise under the same Form of Government: And that Councils consisted of the same constituent Members, 〈◊〉 I shall prove to you from the Kingdom of the Westsaxons, from which was the Foundation of our present English Monarchy. And for this I shall give you the Authority of Will. of Malmesbury, and H. Huntingdon, (who 'tis highly probable) had seen the ancient Histories and Records of those times) and they both agree in the Relation of the Deposition of Sigebert, King of the Westsaxons, for Tyranny and Cruelty, Anno. 754. the Words are remarkable, which pray read; Unde in Anno secundo ipsius Regni congregati sunt Proceres, & Populi Totius Regni & provida deliberatione, & unanimi consensu omnium expulsus est a Regno & Kinewulfus satus ex Regio sanguine electus est in Regem; where you may observe a plain difference made between the Higher Nobility, here called Proceres, and the Representatives of the People here styled Populi; as also from another Authority of a Great Council, held under the same King Aethelbert, as it is mentioned by Roger Hoveden, Domestic to King Hen. II. in the 2d Part of his Annals; where among the Laws of King Edw. the Confessor, and which he writes to have been confirmed by King William I. you will find under the Title de Aptb●●s, & de aliis minutis Decimis (which are there said to be given to the Clergy by former Kings▪ and particularly by this King Ethelbert) these Words; Haec ent●n Sanctus 〈◊〉 praedicavit, & docu●t & haec concessa sunt a Rege, Baronibus & Populo. So that it Populus ●ere doth not signify an Order of Men, contradistinct from the Barons or Great Lords, it would have been a Tautology with a witness.  M. 
I must confess, if this Authority you now urge, had been as ancient as the time to which it is ascribed, it would be of some weight; but it appears by this Word Baronibus (not used in England till after the Conquest) that it was added long after that time (by some ignorant Monk) to the Confessor's Laws, and therefore will not prove that for which you bring it, viz. That the Vul●●● understood for the People or Commons, in the sense they are now taken had any Place in the Saxon Great Councils.  
But make the most of it, this was but the confirmation of a Law made by King Aethelbert,; 
B. A. A. Pag. 297, 298.  but how and by what Words the Legislators were expressed near 500 years after the Law was made; or how they were rendered in Latin after the coming of the Normans transiently, and without design to give an account of them, cannot be of much Validity to prove who they were; and that the Laws of King Edw. were made, or at least translated into Norman Latin, after the Norman Conquest, appears by the Word Comites, (besides Barones already mentioned) Milite●, Servientes, etc. all Norman Words, and not known here, till their coming hither. He that will assert any thing from a single uncouth Expression in one Case, and upon one occasion only, brings but a slender Proof for that he says; so▪ will any man think, because 'tis said in one of King Edward's Laws, (and perhaps no where else concerning this King's Coronation) quod debet in propria persona ●●am Regno, & Sacerdotio & Clero, jurare ante quam ab Archiepiscopis, & Episcopis Regni coronetur) That the Priests were not Clergymen, nor the Clergymen Priests; and that the Arch-Bishops and Bishops were neither. Many other uncoath Expressions do often occur in the old Monks, which are to be interpreted according to the common usage and practice of the times in which they are delivered. And therefore seeing before the time of the Conquest, and for two, or near three Centuries of years afterward, the Commons (as at this day understood) were not called, nor did come to Great Councils or Parliaments as I shall prove when I come to speak of those times); So that by Barones must be here meant the Great Barons, and by Populus, the Communitas Angliae, or which was then all one, the Communitas Baronum, the Less Barons, or Tenants in Capite; and the sense of the Words is farther confirmed by several undeniable Authorities; wherein, by the Communitas Populi, must be understood not the Community of the People or Commons, but the whole Body of the Less Tenants in Capite.  
But to give you an answer why the Word Populus could not comprehend all sorts of people among the Saxons, as it did among the Romans, but only the Nobility, (who were then, properly speaking, the only Freemen) is this, that none but the Nobility possessed any Lands in Fee-simple; all the rest of the meaner sort of people (then called Cheorl Folk) holding theirs in Villanage under their Lords or Thanes, being no better than mere Villains, or Costagers, and who were all bound to the Good Behaviour, every tenth Family being bound one for another, in the Sheriff's Torn, or Court of Franc-Pledge, under their Head, or Tenth Man, called the Tythingman, who was to answer for them. So that the common People of England were not such a Free People, nor had any share in the Government, as some suppose, there being I believe no such persons as our Yeomen or Farrier's in those days.  F. 
Tho perhaps this Law might very well be transcribed from some old Cop●● of King Aethelberts Laws not now extant, and in which there might be the Word Thanes, instead of Baronibus, which is but a Translation of it, in the sense i● which it was used not long after the Conquest.  
Nor is it true which you affirm, that the Word Barones was never in use before the coming in of the Normans, in ancient Charters, as I shall prove to you by this Charter of King Edgar, to the Abbey of Westminster, containing a confirmation of their ancient Charters and Privileges, collected 〈◊〉 the aforesaid Sulcardus, 
Ex Cartulario Caenob à West. Bib Cotton sub Effigie Faustin●e. C 3. s. 7.  a Monk of Westminster, as it is to be found in the Cottonian Library; the Charter itself is long, but concludes thus, In Concilio habito infra Basilicam Westmonast. Praesidente 〈◊〉 Filio suo Edwardo, & Archiepo Dunstano, & universis Episcop●● & Baronibus suis; where you may see that the Word was not unknown before the time of William I. and I could give you more Instances of other King's Charters, where the same Word is used, before the Conquest, were it worth the while to trouble you with them.  
And so likewise Populus for People or Folk in the Saxon; Yet take it (as you suppose) to have been writ not long before the time Hoveden writ his History, (which was above 80 years before the 49th of Hen. III.) This Author, or whoever else added this Passage to this Law about Tithes, did then suppose, that according to the custom then used, the People had Representatives in those Assemblies; which I shall prove from your own sense of these words; for if the word Populus signifies here another sort of men different from the Lords, than this word Populus must necessarily signify some that were Commons, and not Lords by your own concession, and who also must represent others besides themselves; but it is highly improbable, that by this word Populus should be meant the Communitas Angliae, or the Communitas Baronum; for then since the word Baronum would have included all the Tenants in capite, both Great and Small, to what purpose should the word Populus have been added at all? Therefore I am so far from believing this way of expressing the several Estates of the Kingdom, to have been a Monkish Blunder, (as you suppose) that ●t was rather a common and ordinary way of Expression among the Writers of those Time●, as well in Records as Histories, who then very well knew the People or Commons, to be an Estate, or Constituent part of the Common Council of the Kingdom, quite different from the Lords, and in which sense it is recited in an ancient Charter of King john, That He being divorced, the New Queen was crowned, 
Rot. Cart. 5. Johan m. 5. n. 33.  de communi assensu & concordi Voluntate Archiepiscoporum, Episcoporum, Comitum, Baronum Cleri & P●puli totius Regni; Where by Clerus it is plain must be meant the Inferior Clergy represented by their Proxies in this Great Synod or Parliament; and by Populus was understood the People or Commons likewise present by their Representatives; or else the Words Clerus and Populus had been idle Tantologies in this Record. And in the like sense it is also used by Matt. Paris, 
P. 223.  in the 9th of Hen III. presentibus Clero, & Populo, cum Magnatibus Regionis; Where this Author makes a plain distinction between the Magnates, and the Populus, which had been altogether in vain, if the Word Magnates would have comprehended all your Greater or Less Barons, or Tenants in capite.  
But I shall in the next place proceed to that Great Synod, or Council, that was called by King Edward the Elder, Anno Dom. 905. and is mentioned by Simeon of Durham, and other Authors quoted by Archbishop Parker, the Compiler of the British Antiquities, in these Words? Plegmundus Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus, ●●● cum Rege Magnifico cognominato, Edwardo seniore Consilium Magnum Episcoporum. Abbatum Fidelium, Procerum & Populorum, etc. convocavit. Which Synod, or Council was called to divide the large Dioceses of Winchester and Sherbarn into five other (as I have already told you); where you may plainly see the Words Fidelium & Populorum, put distinct from the Word Proceres, if we take that Word to signify only the Greater Nobility.  
I shall now conclude with a few Words in reply to your Answer, why the Word Populus, could not among the Saxons take in all sorts of People, as well as amongst the Romans; for I cannot take it as a satisfactory answer, for these Reasons: 1. Because, though I should grant that the Vulgar sort of People were greater Slaves than they are now, and that they had no hereditary Properties in their Estates, but at the will of their Lords; yet does it therefore follow, that all the Freemen of the Kingdom were Noblemen or Gentlemen, or else Villains, as now understood; since Nitardus tells us in the place above mentioned, that there were three sorts of people among the Saxons, Edelingi, Friling●, & Lazzi, i e. Gentlemen or Noblemen Freemen, and Slaves or Villains; and this middle sort of men might also possess Lands in Allodio, or Free-Tenure, though they did also depend upon other greater men for Protection, and seem to be those who were after the Conquest called in Doomsday Book, 
B P. H. Pag. 56.  Commendate, i. e. such who though they lived under the Protection, and within the District of some Great Men, Lord or Patron; yet, as Sir Hen. Spelman tells us, were free both as to their Persons and Estates, not as sworn to, or holding of any but the King; And besides these there were also great Bodies of men in Cities, and Burgh Towns, and those very considerable for Estates, and other Riches; who though not nobly born, and yet being Freemen, it was but reasonable that they should have their Representatives in Parliament, as well as the former.  M. 
I shall not at present dispute the matter farther with you concerning the Word Populus, since I shall refer speaking more about it, till I come to the times after the Conquest. And therefore to return to the Matter in hand; Had you but read a little farther in the same 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 these, Edwardus Rex Synodum Praedictam Nobilium Anglorum congregavit cui presidebat Plegmundus. 
B. A. P. Pag. 7.  Here your own Author tells us in few words, the meaning of a long Title of this Synod now mentioned, viz. that the Bishops, Abbots, Fideles, Proceres & Populus, were all Nobiles, Noblemen, that is, the ecclesiastics▪ and Lays; or the Bishops and Lay-Nobility, as I shall make more evident hereafter, and not the Vulgus, Commons, or ordinary sort of People.  
And to this effect Malmsbury, and the Manuscript in the Bodleian Library cited by Sir William Dugdale, and Mr. Somner, from the Treasury of the Records, and Evidences of the Church of Canterbury, cited by Sir H. Spelman, do all report of this very Council, That Edwardus Rex congregavit Synodum Senatorum Gentis Anglo●●● cui prasidebat Plegmundus, etc. That King Edward convened a Synod of the Senators (in the Saxon, Aldermen of the English Nation) that is, such as were usually called to such Councils, which were only the Nobles, and Great men, for aught yet appears from this Instance. But what if after all, there was never any such Synod called, and consequently no such Title to it. For it was said to have been assembled, by reason of a chiding Letter from Pope Formosus. Now this Formosus died, Anno 895. that is, ten years before this Council was supposed to be called.  F. 
I see this Authority galls you, therefore I do not blame you to do what you can to be rid of it; but I shall not give it up for all that. For that this Word Populorum, then signified all the Lay-people, who were actually Noblemen that is, of the Greater Nobility, I think is a great mistake; for to what purpose are all these different Words here heaped together, since the Word Proceres had don● as well alone in your sense, and at once comprehended all those Lord● or Noblemen, that you would only have to be there. But the Word Nobiles did not in those times, neither doth at this day in any other Country but England▪ signify none but Great Lords, Barons, or Peers; since in Germany and France, and other Countries, every private Gentleman is Nobilis. And I think the Middle or Less Thanes, might then as well be called Nobiles, as the Great ones. And the Aldermen, or other Magistrates of Great Cities and Towns, might also very well be styled Nobiles, ratione officii, for the time they acted in that Employment, and might also deserve the Name of Senators, as well as the Greater Aldermen, or Earls▪ And if there were no other Lay-Men, but your greater sort of Aldermen, than what becomes of your chief, or Kings Thanes, which you yourself grant were constant Members of those Councils. Nor indeed doth the Word Senator only signify such who were Noblemen by Birth, since among the Romans there were Senators of the Plebeian as well as Patrician Order; as any man who hath but read Lucius Florus, may quickly see. But as for your Exception, That there was no such Council, because Pope Formosus is said to have died ten years before this Council was called, it is a bold Assertion to annihilate a whole Council, because of the mistake of the Date, or time of its meeting, or perhaps in the Name of the Pope, or King then reigning, especially when it was assembled upon so remarkable an occasion, as the erecting of these new Bishoprics, which all our Historians ascribe to this Council.  
But I shall now proceed to another Authority, and that is to the Great or Common Council held at Winchester Anno 853. where you will find in Sir H. Spelman's Councils; 
Pag. 350.  as also in Ingulphus' History, that after the Bishops, Earls and other Great Men, or Thanes, who subscribed to the Law of Tithes, granted by way of Charter there mentioned, wherein these following Parties are mentioned, Aliorumque Fidelium infinita multitudo qui omnes Regium Chirographum laudaverunt, Dignitates verò sua nomina Subscripserunt; and the Learned Commentator upon King Alfred's Life, published in Latin at Oxford, is so well satisfied, that the Commons were meant by this Expression, that he hath this remarkable Observation upon this King's granting of these Tithes. Bis videtur Rex Decimas Ecclesiae concessisse. Primum Anno 844, & 2▪ vero 855. vel ut alii 854, è tota Regione, & cum Assensu omnium Nobilium, & totius Populi; where this Author rightly supposes, that the Words at the conclusion of this Council, did comprehend the consent of the People or Commons, as well as of the Lords, or Noblemen. Or else this reciting of this Word Populus; as distinct from the Nobiles, had been altogether in vain.  
So that though I do not affirm, that the mere Vulgar, or Plebeian sort of People. did appear personally in the Great Council of those times, any more than they do now, yet they were there by their Representatives, viz. either by Knights of Shires, as now, or else the chief Thanes, or Freeholders of the Kingdom; as also by the Aldermen, or chief Burgesses of great Cities and Towns, who I suppose did then represent those Politic Bodies, since all men could not appear there in person.  
But I shall give you another Authority out of the same Author, viz. Archbishop Parker's British Antiquities, 
Pag. 87.  where when he relates the calling of the Council of Calne▪ for the turning of Married Priests out of Monasteries, and Cathedral Churches, and putting Monks into their places; He tells us a remarkable Accident that then happened, viz. The falling down of the Room where the Council was assembled. So that there fell together all of a sudden; (pray take the words themselves out of the Authors there cited) Praesules, Proceres, Equites, Nobiles, pariter & Ignobiles Corruerunt. So that you see here were other sorts of men present in this Council, beside the Prasules, (i. e. Bishops and Abbots); and the Proceres, (i. e. the Earls and chief Thanes) viz. the Knights, or Inferior Thanes, noblemans or Gentlemen; as also Ignobiles, those that were not Noble by Birth, such as were the Representatives of Cities and Burroughs; and of this opinion the Archbishop himself seems to be; for at the end of this Relation, he makes this Remark; Sed nec hujus domus in qu● 〈◊〉 Ordinum, tam Conspicui Clarique viri, Consulto Convenerunt tam repentina rui●●●pe Diabolica carere potuit; Where by Omnium Ordinum, he must certainly mean the three Estates of the Kingdom, in the same sense as the word Ordines is used by Camden, and other Latin Writers, who call our Parliament Conventus Ordinum, that is, the Assembly of Estates.  M. 
I Pray give me leave to answer this Authority before you proceed farther; I must beg your pardon, if I cannot believe that all the persons whom the Historian relates to have perished by this Fall of the Council Chamber, to have been all of them actual Members of that Assembly, since there might have been there divers persons, who though of an inferior Rank, might have been presents Auditors, or lookers on; it not being then the custom to hold those Councils so privately, as we do now, so that divers of the Common or Ordinary sort of People, called here Ignobiles, and perhaps of the Inferior Gentry too being there, might all partake of this common Ruin, and so pay dear for their needless curiosity.  F. 
I must beg your pardon if I do not assent to your opinion in this matter; for I cannot believe (unless you can show me very good Authority for it) that ever the common people, or Vulgus in the sense you take them, were let in only to gaze at such Assemblies. For what Room could have contained so great a crowd, and if they were in those days so great Slaves, as the Gentlemen of your opinion please to make them, it is not likely that they should 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 stick to the Arch-Bishops opinion, who supposes them to have been the whole Assembly of the Three Estates, who were all involved in this Ruin.  
But letting this pass, I shall now give you an Authority of a Great Council held under King Ethelred, which will farther confirm our Sense of the Word Populus; which Council you may see in the 1st Volume of Monastic●● Anglic contains a concession and confirmation of divers Privileges to the Monastery of Wolverhampton in these Words; 
Vol. 1. Fol. 988. Col. 2.  Haec decreta sunt Sigerich Archiepiscopi in placito coram Rege Ethelredo, & Eboracensi Archiepiscopo, & omnibus Episcopis, Abbatibus Regionis Britanni●, seu Senatoribus, Ducibus, & Pop●lo Terrae: where it seems plain to me, that the Populus Terrae are here put as a distinct order of men from all the rest a●oregoing.  
To come now to the time after the Danish Invasion, and the settlement of the Crown upon King Knute, who after he was made King, partly by Conquest, and partly by Election, yet altered nothing of the ancient Constitution And therefore Florence of Worcester tells us, that Anno 1017 being the first year of his Reign, 
Fol. 619.  he divided the whole Kingdom into four parts, and also foedus cum Principibus & omni Populo, Ipse & illi cum Ipso parcus cess●runt; Where you see the Populus or Commons is put distinct by this Author from the Great Lord● or Noblemen here called Principes; and this Council is called by Abbot Bromton in his History Parliamentum apud Oxoniam; 
Bromton Fol. 908.  And also in his Charter to the Abbey of Briadricesworth (since called St. Edmundsb●ry) which is still to be seen in the Office of the King's Remembrancer of the Exchequer, it is thus recited, Ego Cnut Rex totius Albionis Insulae, & aliarum Nationum plur●marum, in Cathedra Regali promotus, cum Consilio, & Decreto Archiepiscoporum, Episcoporum, Abbatum, Comitum aliorumque omnium Fidelium eligi Sanciend: Whence it plainly appears, that under the word Fideles, was then comprehended other persons of an inferior Rank, or Order to the Comites, or Earls, there mentioned; and these could mean no other, than the Representatives of the Commons, whom I have proved to have been present in these Councils.  M. 
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 must now tell you once for all, that by this word is not here meant, or any where else in our Saxon Laws, to be understood the ordinary or common sort of People, or any that represented them, but only Tenants in Capite, or in Military Service, which were then called the King's Thanes, and were afterward the same with the Barones Minores, mentioned in King john▪ s Charter. But I shall plainly prove, when I come to it, that the word Fideles, after the Conquest, signified only the King▪ s Tenants in capite, and were the same with the Mirites, whom we find to be witnesses after the Dukes, or Earls, to this Charter of King Cnute. And though I confess this word Fideles, doth in a common, or larger acceptation, signify all such Subjects as owe Fealty and Allegiance to the King; yet in a strict and Legal Signification (as it is here to be taken) it signifies only the Barons or Tenants in Capite, as Dr. B. hath very well showed us in his Glossary. And therefore Sir Henry Spelman himself distinguishes between these and all other Subjects, 
Gloss. Tit. Fideles.  in these words, Inter●um Specialiter dicuntur ●dem, qui Vasalli, qui F●udo acc●pto in Patron▪ Fide, & cli●ntela sunt, Vicissimque Suamci certi obsequii nomine fidem astrinxerunt But indeed it is impossible to understand it in your sense, for then all that swore fealty to the King (and so were called Fideles) should have had a place in Parliament, and all the men in England above fourteen years of age, must have been there in person, which would have been a pretty large Assembly, and such a multitude, as no one place could have contained them.  F. 
If what Dr. B. in his Preface to his Norman History, pag. 157. as also in his Answer to Mr. P. pag. 20. be true, 
pag. 156.  that Fendal Tenors owe their Original to William the Conqueror, though in other places he is of another mind; then certainly this word Fideles, must have been used in a larger sense, in the times before the Conquest, and must have extended to all those who were bound to take the Oaths of Fealty and Allegiance, in the Folk mote, or County Court: as they did long after the Conquest, and aught to do so still, if required; and therefore this word Fideles could be then no more limited to Tenants in Capite in that time, than it is now; who though I grant they could not all be present in the Great Council in person, yet they might be there by their Delegates (as well as they are now) and who might also consist of far greater numbers than they now do; since we find in the Council of Winchester, (but now mentioned) that after the Dukes, Earls, and Great Men of the Kingdom, there is also added, alior●mque fidelium infinita multitudo; which great multitude sure must have signified somewhat more than your Chief Thanes, or Tenants in Capite alone; or else the words Comites, and Proceres, might very well have comprehended all the Degrees of Laymen; And therefore I desire you to show me by some better Authorities than you yet have done, that before the Conquest, the word Fideles must needs signify Tenants in Capite and no other; But that it did not signify only so after that time, I shall join issue with you by and by.  
I shall now proceed to my next Authority, which is from Ailrid, Abbot of Rievallis, 
Script. X. Col. 372.  who lived not long after the Conquest, who, in his Life of Edward the Confessor, relating the manner of that King's Election in his Mother's Womb, tells us, How Ethelred his Father called a Great Council about appointing a Successor, that hereupon says thus, Fit Magnus coram Rege Episcoporum Procerumque Conventus, Magnus Plebis P●lgique Consensus; Where you see apparently, that the Abbots made a distinction between the Assembly of the Bishops and Great Lords, and that of the Plebs, Vulgus, or Common People.  M. 
Pray give me leave to interrupt you a little before you proceed to any fresh Authorities. I grant it is true, that the Abbot in the place you mention, tells such an idle Tale, that this Edward was chosen King whilst in his Mother's Womb, and so his Father made the Nobility swear Fealty to him before he was born. He is the only Author of this Legend, that I know of; and sure you yourself must own that it is a little too gross to be believed; and therefore I wonder that you should urge that to me for a sufficient Authority, for the People or Commons having any place in the Great Council in those times.  F. 
Pray, Sir, observe to what purpose I make use of this Authority; it is not to make good the Election of Edward the Confessor in his Mother's Womb, but only to prove who were then supposed (when this Abbot writ) to make up the constituent parts of the Wittena-Gemot, or Parliament, in the Saxon times, which was then believed by all men, to consist of the Clergy, Higher Nobility, and Com●●●, unless you can suppose that the Abbot should mention the Commons by Prophecy. And granting that it was only according to the custom of his own time (which the Author of the Preface to the Decem Scriptores, makes to be about the middle of King Henry II. Reign) it will sufficiently prove the antiquity of the Commons in Parliament, to be near a hundred years older than the earliest time you assign for it, (viz) the 49th of Hen. III.  
But I shall now conclude with the conclusion to King Edward the Confessor's third Charter to the Abbey of Westminster, in a great Council held in the last year of his Reign, 
vi. Spel. Coun. Fol. 625.  as you will find it thus recited in Sir H. Spelman's Councils in these Words, Hanc igitur Chart●● meae donationis & Libertatis, in die dedicationis praedictae Ecclae. recitari jussi coram Episcopis, Abbatibus, Comitibus, & omnibus, Optimatibus Angliae, omnique Populo audiente, & vidente; where by the Optimates Angliae, I think can be understood no other than the Thanes, or Freeholders of all sorts, as well the Kings as others; as also the Deputies of great Cities and Burroughs, the Words being Optimates Angliae (non Regis) and though it is not likely that the Populus, who are here mentioned to be present, should be the Mob, or Common People, only admitted to stare and hearken at such a great Assembly; yet since the Words are in respect of them only, audiente, & vidente, I shall not insist 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 Representatives of the Commons, I shall conclude with the Answer of K. Harold, the last Saxon King, to the Message of William, Duke of Normandy, demanding the Kingdom of England; and that Harold according to his Promise should marry his Daughter; 
William. Malm. de gestis Anglorum Lib. 2. Fol. 52.  The Words are remarkable, and therefore pray read them out of Will. of Malmesbury, who lived near that time, Contra, 〈◊〉 scil. Heraldus) quae dixi de Puellae nuptiis referens, de Regno (addebas) praesumtuosum fuisse quod absque generali Senatus, & Populi Conven●● & Edicto alienam illi hereditatem juraverit; now that by the Word Senatûs is to be understood the higher Nobility, such as the Bishops, Abbots, Earls, etc. and by Populus, the Representatives of the People, we have Mr. Selden's Authority on our side, 
Cap. 10. Fol. 552.  who in his Dissertations on Fleta, speaking of the great Question that arose in Parliament in K. Edward III. Reign, concerning King John's Donation of his Kingdom to the Pope, gives their conclusion to this debate, in these Words, Ordine universi ●am generis Hieratici, quam Proceres, & Senatus Populus, s●l●●niqu● in it a deliberatione in Comiciis illis responderunt unanimes irritam plane fuissi 〈◊〉 Donationem illam ut pote tam sine ordinum assensu, quam juran ento ina●gu●a●i advers●n; but of this great Authority I shall speak 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 Councils before the Conquest (as you call it) I desire that you would be pleased to show me how they came to lose it after the coming in of the Normans, and to be so long without it, as until the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edward I. If your Authors are to be credited.  M. 
I must confess the Authorities you have brought out of the Saxon Councils, would seem to be of some weight, were I not sensible, that the Monks, who were the only Recorders of these Councils, are very short and careless in giving a true account of them, and if we go to the Councils themselves, we might be sufficiently convinced, that all those that are said to be present at them, could not have any Places or Votes in those Assemblies, as Members of them; for in some of them (as in this Example) we find the Queen to have been there, and to have given her consent to the King's Charters; and yet I suppose you will not allow the Queen to have been there as an Estate by herself, much less to have been a Member of any of the Three Estates.  
The like we may say for those Abbesses we find mentioned to have been present in divers of those Councils, and particularly in that of Winchester, you so much insist upon, wherein Tithes were granted; and these are said to have approved of the Royal Charter, as well as any of the rest; and sure you do not make Women to have had Voices in our great Councils in the Saxon Times. So that it appears plain enough to me, that persons being mentioned as present in these Assemblies, or being Witnesses to Charters there granted, do not make them to have been constituent Members thereof: And therefore since the Saxon times are so dark and obscure, and so little to be collected of certainty from what we find in the old Monkish Histories, and those Fragments of Laws and Charters they have left us; I think it is time that we pass over this to the next Period after the Conquest, wherein I doubt not but to show you, that for above an hundred years after that time, none but the Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, or Tenants in Capite, were summoned by the Great Council or Parliament till the time I have so often mentioned:  F. 
I see you do all you can to perplex very plain and evident Proofs; For as to the Queens being often present at the Great Councils of those times, it is no more than what was usual in these Elder times; and that in France as well as here, as any man that will but peruse the Charters of some of the Kings of France, 
Pag. 156. Pag. 158. Pag. 106.  of the second Race, as they are in Father Mabilion de Rediplomatica, may easily satisfy themselves; and as for the Abbesses, whom we find sometimes mentioned to have been there before the Conquest, they might also according to the Custom of those times have appeared in Person in the Great Councils, in the Right of their Monasteries, and of those great Possessions they held, or else they might have been often represented by their Oecomi, or Stewards, who transacted all business for them; and your own Civil Law doth always suppose, that what any Persons perform by their Lawful Proxies, it is said to be done by themselves; and that the Abbesses and Prioresses, did together with the other Spiritual Tenants in Capite, join to grant Scrutage upon the Knight's Fees they held; I shall show you before we have finished this Discourse. But since I think I have sufficiently proved, the Commons being in possession of this Right by a long Prescription, I shall now leave it to you to prove, that they did not enjoy it after the Conquest, and that not until the time you suppose.  M. 
Since you are pleased to impose this Task upon me, I shall willingly submit to it; and therefore before I proceed farther, pray let us see how far we are agreed. In the first place I think you will grant, that till about the latter end of Edward I. Reign, there is no express mention made in our Records, or Historians, of any Representatives for the Commons, either by Knights of Shires, Citizens or Burgesses of Towns; much less the word Commons, mentioned by them in the sense it is now taken; For if we peruse Ingulph, or Eadmerus, or any other Ancient Historian of William the Conqueror, or his Son's time, when they have occasion to mention the Great Councils of that Age, we can find none mentioned (besides the Bishops) but Principes, Proceres, Primates, or Optimates Regni; or else in the following Age, under the Titles of Optimates, or Magnates Regni, by Matt. Paris, and Matt. of Westminster, who are often comprehended under the more particular Titles of Comites & Barones, or Baronagium Regni, or else by the more general of Nobilitas, Universitas, or Communitas Regni, that is, the whole University, Community, or Body of the Kingdom, represented in Parliament, by the Bishops, Abbots, Earls, and Barons thereof. As for most of these words, I have given you my sense of them already, in the Times before the Conquest; and though I grant there may be other Persons, sometimes mentioned after the Barons, as Milites, Liberi Homines or Tenentes, yet I think Dr. B. very plainly proves, by those Authorities he produces in his Answer to Mr. P. as also in his Glossary at the end of it, that by all the Words beforementioned, which are used in our Ancient Historians, can only be understood either the Greater Barons, or else the Less, who were Tenants in capite, and were a part of the Baronage or Nobility of those Times, and whose Votes did then conclude all their Subfeudotaries, or Mesne Tenants, who held of them; and these together with the Bishops and Abbots, etc. did represent all degrees of Men in the Kingdom, and being often comprehended under the General Titles of Clerus and Populus, 
vi. B. G.  or else Pleb●, or Valgus; or else under these Titles, as yet more generally expressed by Regnum, and Sacerdotium, i. e. the Clergy and Laity of the Kingdom; the Words Populus, and Plebs, or Vulgus, signifying no more in those days, in our Historians (when they treat of Parliamentary Affairs) than the Lay-Earls and Barons, with the other Less Tenants in capite: So that the Vulgar or Common People, neither by themselves, nor their Representatives had then any Place in our Great Councils: And therefore I think I may boldly affirm with Dr. B. first, That the Commons represented by Knights, 
B. A. P. Introduct.  Citizens, and Burgesses in Parliament, were not introduced, nor were one of the Three Estates in Parliament, before the 49th of Henry the Third.  
Secondly, That before that time the Body of the Commons of England, or Freemen (as now understood, or as we now frequently call them) collectively taken, had not any Share or Votes in making of Laws for the Government of the Kingdom, nor had any Communication in Affairs of State, unless as they were represented by the Tenants in capite. And these two Propositions I think I shall be able to prove by undeniable Evidence, drawn from our Ancient Historians, the Laws and Charters of our Kings, as also from those Parliament Rolls, Records, and Acts of Parliament, we have yet left us.  F. 
I confess you have made a very bold challenge, and if you can make it out, I grant you will carry the day, and I shall then willingly submit to your Opinion; But since I find the greatest part of our Arguments do consist in the equivocal use of those words, by which I confess the Commons in Parliament are generally expressed in our Ancient Historians: I shall in the first place show you (to avoid all unnecessary dispute about words) that by every one of these Expressions you have mentioned▪ the Commons might very well be comprehended as well after the Conquest, as before. And therefore to take the words in the same order as you have recited them, I shall begin with the word Principes, which I have already proved signified before the Conquest no more than Chief, or Principal Men; and that it means no more after the Conquest, I shall show you by several Authorities; and though I grant that word is most commonly used by Eadmerus, yet could it not be meant in the sense it is now understood, there being then never a Prince, nor so much as a Duke in England; but what was understood by this Expression in aftertimes, we must appeal to Historians. Mat. of Westminster, in his Flores Histor. Anno Dom. 1280. 
Fol. 409.  (being the 7th Year of Edward the First, which was but 15 years after the 49 Hen. 3.) thus reckons up the constituent parts of that Parliament, Rex, Pontifices, & Principes Anglicani convenerunt in unum, etc. Yet in Rot. Claus. 7. Edward 1. It is called a Parliament; and at which the Statute of Mortmain was Enacted. And that the Commons were there as well as they are now, I shall prove when I come to those times. But as for the word Proceres in the ancient Manuscript Chronicle of Walter of Coventry 9ᵒ. Hen. 3. Anno Dom. 1225. 
In Bib. Cotton.  you'll find these words; Purificatione Beatae Mariae convocantur apud London Proceres Angliae ibique tractatu habito diffusiore cum Clero, & Populo ibidem convocato Rex concessit Libertates tam Ecclesiae quam Regni, quam Forestae sicut Cartae suae inde confectae & singulis Comitatibus liberatae plenius testantur ibidemque con●●ssa Domino Regi a Comitibus, & Baronibus, & Clero & Populo ibidem praesentibus, Quintadecima omnium mobilium de Communi assensu, praeterquam de Ecclesiis.  
But as for the word Magnates, Mat. Paris in his History of this year relates it thus: 
Fol. 223.  Rex Hen. ad natale tenuit curiam suam apud Westm. Praesentibus clero & populo, cum magnatibus Regionis solemnitate igitur ut decebat completa, Hubertus de Burgo ex parte ejusdem Regis proposuit coram Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, comitibus, Baronibus, & aliis universis▪ etc. But to give you the rest in English; The King here demanded the fifteenth part of all their movable Goods; upon which the Parties above mentioned, with one accord answered, That they would willingly yield to the King's desire, if He would confirm the great Charters. To which the King having assented, and sealed them; they granted the said Supply. From which we may observe, that as all the inferior Clergy were comprehended under the word Clerus; so must, by a like parity of Reason, the Commons be under Populus▪ or else it would have been an idle Tautology when it is put, as it is here, distinct from Magnates.  
Now though there be no other persons expressly mentioned by these two Historians to have been at this Parliament of the Laity, but the Earls and Barons, comprehended by them under the general Names of Proceres, Populus & Magnates; yet do but read the conclusion to the great Charter of 9th Hen. 3. and you will find, that besides the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Earls and Barons, there were also present, the Knights, Freeholders, and all others of the Kingdom, by their lawful Representatives, as I shall show you more at large when I come to make use of this Charter, as an Argument to prove the Commons to have appeared in Parliament before 49 Hen. 3. So likewise the Statute of Fines made 27 Edward. 1. was ordained de Communi Concilio Regni, and yet no mention made either of the Assent of the Lords or Commons; and yet this Statute was made but 9 years after the 18th of that King. Since which time the Dr. himself acknowledges the Commons to have been always represented in Parliament, as they are at this day; and yet Mat. Westminster speaking of this Parliament, mentions its Orders only in general words, thus; Dominica secunda Quadragesima citatis Magnatibus Regni apud Westmonasterium; and yet it is certain all the Estates of the Kingdom were there: So that it is not safe to conclude from the general, and equivocal Expressions either of ancient Statutes, or Historians, That the Commons were not in Parliament, because not particularly mentioned.  
I could give you more Instances of the like Kind, but I will not tyre you: But shall now proceed to show, that notwithstanding the use you make of the Testimony of Mat. Paris, as to the sense of the word Magnates, yet, that all those Historians that writ immediately before or after him, and continue his History, do frequently make use of the word Magnates & Primates, to signify the Commons, as well as the Lords assembled in Parliament. And for the proof of this, I shall give the Testimonies of two approved Authors. The First is Thomas Walsingham, in his History of England, who in Anno Dom. 1313. 6 Edw. 2. hath these words Reced●ns: (Rex) de Berewici partibus pervenit Eboracum, ubi magnum 〈◊〉 Clero tenuit Concilium, & Regni Magnatibus Universis.  
So likewise Mat. of Westminster, in his Flores Histor. in the 24th of Edw. 1. Anno Dom. 1296. relates a Parliament held at St. Edmondsbury, at which appeared Primates, ac Magnates sui Regni, etc. a quibus novum Tallagium postulavit, etc. I could give you more of the same kind out of this Author, but I fear lest I should tyre you; and therefore I shall conclude with the Testimony of Hen. de Knighton in his History, De Eventibus Angliae, where in 9 Hen. 3. he thus speaks concerning this King's granting the Great Charters, Post haec Rex Henricus concessis Magnatibus terra duas chartas, unam de Foresta, & aliam de libertatibus, ob quam causam Communes Regni concesserunt quintam decimam partem Mobilium, & immobili●m. From all which you may observe, that in the time when this Author wrote, it was generally believed, that this term Magnates comprehended all the Estates of the Kingdom, and likewise supposed the Commons (whom he here calls Communes, to have had a principal share, not only in the paying, but granting this great Tax. And forth farther proof of this, pray see what W. Malmesbury says in his History, when reciting the Speech of the Bishop of Winchester, than the Pope's Legate, speaking of the Londoners, hath this remarkable passage, Londinenses, quì praecipui habebantur in Anglia sicut Proceres; so that if the chief Citizens of that famous City, were reckoned sicut Proceres, sure those they chose to represent them in Parliament, might much better deserve that Title. And thus likewise Walsingham, in his History in the 17th of Edw. 2. tells us, that he summoned to a Parliament at London, Regni Proceres, & Praelatos ad Tractandum de variis Regni negotiis; but in the close Roll of this very year it appears by the Expensis Militum, 
Rot. claus. 17. E. 2. m 24. dorso.  that the Commons were there, as as well the Lords. So that you see they were all then comprehended by our Historians under the general term of Proceru Regni.  
I come in the next place to the words Nobiles & Nobilitas. Walsingham, 5 Edw. 2. gives us this account. Post Natale Dominicum convenit universa multitudo Regni nobilium ad Parliamentum Londoniis. Now what is here meant by this Multitudo Nobilium may be proved by the Parliamentary Writs of this year, 
Mr. Pryn's 2 part of the R. of Par. W.  as appears by the close Roll of this year, wherein there are Writs of Summons for the Commons directed to the Sheriffs.  
And that the House of Commons were often Styled Noble in latter times appears by a Speech Recorded in the Rolls of Parliament 7th of Rich. 2. to be spoken by Sir Mich. de la Pool, 
Rot. Parl. 7. Rich. 2. part 1. n. 1.  than Lord Chancellor, to the Lords and Commons, which begins thus, Ydist vous (i. e. I say to you) Messeurs Prelates, & Signior Temporelx, & vous mes Compaignons les Chivalers, & autres de la Noble common de Angleterre.  
And to prove that this Word was then used in this sense amongst Civilians, from whom we derive most of our Titles of Dignities, you may see in the large work of Barthol: Cassaanaeus, called Catalogus Gloriae Mundi, written on this subject; where, in his 8 th'. part, consid. 18. he hath this amongst other Comments on the word Nobilitas; Nobilitas etiam causatur ex loco, quoniam civis ex urbe splendida oriundus, Nobilis est; for which he there gives many Authorities. And this Title he looks upon as due also to Country Gentlemen, living upon the Husbandry of their own Estates, or Annual Rents.  
And that by the word Magnates, are often understood the Knights of Shires, commonly called in old French, Grantz des Countees; I can give you sufficient Authorities: Now this word Magnates is always rendered in our old French, by Grantz; 
P. R. C. p. 94, 95.  For the proof of this, I desire you in the first place to take notice, that Rot. Claus. 3 E. 2. in 16. dorso, you will find this Title, Inhibitio ne qui Magnates, viz. Comes, Baro, Miles, 〈◊〉 abqua alia Notabilis persona transeat ad partes transmarinas. Where you see the word Magnates is applied to Knights at least, as well as Earls and Barons. And amongst the Common Writs of Michaelmas. Term, Anno 34 Edw. I. in the keeping of the Remembrancer of the Treasury of the Exchequer, the Knights of Shires, and Barons of Cinque-Ports are called Magnates. So also in the Statute, 25 E. 3. de servientibus, it is there Enacted, per Assent de les ditz Prelatz, Countess 〈◊〉; & autres Grandes de la dite Communalte, illonques Assemblez. Also in the Statute-Book printed in French, in the Statute of the Staple, 27 E. 3. the Knights of the Shires are expressly called, Grantz des Counties. And lastly, as for the word Optimates, which is derived from the superlative Optimus, it signifies no more than the best sort of men in any Commonwealth or City. And in this sense, 
Pag. 189.  William of Malmesbury, in his History, speaking of the rich Citizens of London, hath this Remarkable Passage, Londinenses qui pro magnitudine Civitatis optimates sunt. And that not only Knights, but also such Citizens, as were remarkable and eminent for their Estates or Offices in Cities, had the appellation of Magnates, appears from an Ancient Manuscript Book, 
Liber de Antiquis Legibus, p. 64.  kept in the Archives of the City of London; where in Anno Dom. 1229. being the 13 th'. of Hen. 3. an Act of Common Council was made, per omnes Alderman●aes, & Magnates Civitatis, per assensum univer-sorum Civium, quod nullo tempore ●ermitterent aliquem vicecomitem admitti in vicecomitem per duos annos continuos, sicut 〈◊〉 extiterant. So likewise in the same Book, Anno Dom. 1244. 29. H. 3. mention is there made of a Dissension that then arose about the Choice of a Sheriff; and the Book says, that quidam de vulgo Elegerunt, Nichol. Bat. per assensum Majoris, & Magnates elegerunt Adam de ●ently. I could give you more of a like nature; but I will not tyre you; but no doubt but the Eminent Citizens of York and other Cities, were called Magnates in those times.  
From all which we may safely conclude, That not only Knights of Shir● were styled Magnates, but also the Representatives for the Cities were often styled Proceres, Magnates, and Nobiles, in our Ancient Rolls, and Acts of Parliament, and other public Writings. I beg your Pardon for being thus long; but I could not make an end sooner, and prove the true Sense of these Words in question, from Ancient Historians, Acts of Parliaments and Records; by which I hope you will be satisfied how unsafe it is to depend upon the general and various expressions of our English Historians (especially, as understood by those of yo●● opinion); since if we should depend upon them alone, the Commons would not oftentimes be found to have been present in Parliament, even when the Records themselves expressly prove they were there.  M. 
I must confess you have made me think more on this Subject, than perhaps otherwise I should have done; yet I must observe, That most of the Quotations you have made use of, concerning the meaning of the words Proceres, Magnates, and Nobiles, etc. are from Authors who writ after the time that I 〈◊〉 the Commons, as now Represented, to have been constantly Summoned to Parliament; so that they might very well, through haste or inadvertency, confound them with the Earls and Lords, and so style them by the same Titles. For I will prove to you, before the conclusion of this Discourse, by undeniable Records, That by the words Magnates and Proceres, are understood the Bishops, Earls, and Barons, as distinguished from the Commons. But I think I can sufficiently prove from Mat. Paris, and the Ancient Laws of our first Norman Kings as also from the Magna Charta of King john, That by the words Bartne● i● meant the Tenants in capite, who are there only mentioned to ha● constantly appeared in Parliament, till the 18 th'. E. 1. the Greater and Less ●●●ons, or Tenants in capite, together with those of higher degree, (viz. the Earls, Bishops, and Abbots), being the only persons who represented the who●e Body of the Nation, in our great Councils, or Parliaments. And I take this to be 〈◊〉 evident and clear, that I cannot quit this Opinion, without you can show 〈◊〉 better Reasons to the contrary, than hitherto you have done.  F. 
I see nothing will satisfy those who have once received a Prejudice; 〈◊〉 otherwise I think it may be proved sufficiently, from that Clause in Magna Chart● I have mentioned, That other persons were there before the 49 th'. of Henry 〈◊〉 besides your great Barons, and Tenants in capite. And as for the use of 〈◊〉 words you mention, in Historians after the Reign of Hen. III. nothing can be a plainer proof for me: For if those Historians did comprehend the Common under those general Words, or Phrases, we have been now disputing about, I de●sire to know why they might not have been likewise comprehended under th● same terms, by Mat. Paris, and those other Historians who writ other Historie● from the Norman Conquest to his time; and why thy might not have then con●founded the Commons with the Lords, as well as they did afterwards. But since I see you insist so much upon your Barones, and Tenentes in capite, whom you wi● have alone to constitute the Baronagium, or the Communitas, or Universitas Bar●●gii Angliae, pray give me leave to ask you a plain Question, Were your less● Tenants in capite, (or Barones minores) Lords or Peers of Parliament, or were they Commoners only?  M. 
To give you Mr. Selden's Opinion, in his Titles of Honour, cap. 5. 
P. 708.  He supposes, that from the time of the Conquest to about the middle of King john, every Tenant by reason of his Tenure of Lands he held in capite, was indifferently an Honorary or Parliamentary Baron; but that about the end of King John's time, some only that were most eminent of those Tenants (sometimes styled Barones Majores Regni) were summoned by several Writs directed to them as Lords or Peers of Parliament; and that the rest, being the lesser or lower Tenants in capite, (sometimes styled Barones minores), were for some time before this summoned by general Writs directed to the Sheriffs or Bailiffs, as appears by King John's Magna Charta. 
B. A. P. p. 18.  Now whether these men were ever really Peers or not, I have reason to doubt; since I do not find but it was they alone who for some years after the Conquest served upon Juries in County Courts, and dispatched all the public business of the Country, which was then (as at this day) a drudgery beneath the Peers to perform, and therefore I shall not insist upon it. But thus much I think is certain, That they were a sort of persons much above any other Laymen of the Kingdom; since they held their Estates immediately from the King, and were so considerable, as that by the Constitutions of Clarendon, they were not to be Excommunicated without the King's leave; and so were then in some sort of the same Order, ratione Tenurae, with the great Barons or Peers, being commonly styled Barones, and made up but one Estate or Order of Laymen in Parliament. And from thence I suppose proceeds that common Error of Sir Ed. Coke, that the Lords and Commons did anciently sit together, and made but one House. Now if you have any thing to object against this Notion, pray let me hear it.  F. 
I think you and I are come pretty near an issue in this question; for you confess that these lesser Tenants in capite, and whom you comprise under the word Barones, were not truly and properly Barons; and so far you are in the Right; but yet you will have them to be somewhat more than mere Commoners; as if there had been some Degree or Order of men in England, in those 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 Pee●s at all, nor equal with them, we need go no farther than their way of Trial in cases of Treason or Felony, which was by mere Commoners, who were not Tenants in capite, as well as those that were; so that a person who was no Tenant in Capite, and might serve upon a Jury of Life and Death upon them; and as well as the Dr. in his Answer to Mr. P. as you asserted, that they only served in the Country upon all juries; and that before the time of King john. So after all this noise of none but Lords and Tenants in capite, appearing for the whole Commons of England, we find by your own showing, that three parts in four of the Lay Members of that Council were as mere Commoners as our Knights of Shires, and Barons of the Five Ports at this day; nor can I see any reason why these latter might not be as well comprehended under the Word Barones, as the former, who were mere Commoners likewise; if we consider that it was neither Nobility, nor Birth, nor the King's Writs of Summons, but only the mere Tenure of their Lands that gave them a particular right to a Place in that Assembly in those Ages; or if a mere Citizen could get Money enough to purchase such an Estate in capite, he was as good a Member of Parllament as the best of them all: So that the Question than amounts to no more than this, Whether the Commons of England were then represented by Tenants in Capite, or by Knights of Shires, and others, as they are now. But since you will have none Commoners, 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, I allow it to all who held in capite by Knight's Service, and who also enjoyed a whole Knight's Fee, or so much as was sufficient to render them able to sustain the Dignity of that Place; not but that the King had also a prerogative of summoning or omitting whom of them he pleased, to his Great Council or Parliament, till the Less Tenants in capite thinking it a wrong to them, it was provided by King John's Charter, that all of them should be summoned by one General Writ of Summons, directed to the Sheriff. But I exclude from this Council all Tenants by Petit Serjeanty, who tho 'tis true held of the King in capite, yet was it not by Knight's Service. So likewise I exclude all Cities and Towns, though the Citizens or Burgesses of divers of them held their Lands and Tenements by that Tenure; since being neither noble by Blood, nor having Estates sufficient to maintain the Port of a Gentleman, or Knight, they had no Right to appear there in Person among the other Tenants, who were owners of one or more Knights Fees. Yet do I not affirm, that the Commons were not after some sort represented in Parliament by their Superior Lords, 
B. A. P. 117. & deim,  though not as Commoners, since the Bishops, Abbots, and other Barons did then make Laws, and give Taxes, not only for themselves, but their Feudatory Tenants also, though of never so great Estates; and Tenure in capite was then looked upon as the only true Freehold of the Kingdom, and the Tenants by it as the only true Freeholders.  F. 
I shall show you by and by the falsity of this Notion, but in the mean time pray tell me when a Great Council or Parliament was called, who represented those Persons, who you say did not appear there; and made General Laws, and granted General Taxes for themselves, and the whole Kingdom, when there was occasion. For I see you shut out the greater part even of these your true Freeholders from this Assembly.  M. 
As for the Tenants in Petit Serjeanty, I at present conceive (though I am not sure of it) that many of them might hold Lands, and perhaps divers Knights Fees, by Grand Serjeanty, or Knight's Service also; since those Estates which were given by the Conqueror to his Servants, to be held of him; by such and such Petit Services, might in process of time fall by Purchase, or Descent, into the hands of such Great Tenants in capite, as had sufficient Estates to maintain that Dignity; and as for the rest, they might, for aught as I know, before the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo, have been taxed by the King's Writs, according to the proportion of the Knight's Fees, or parts of Knights Fees, which they then held; and according to the Rate of the Sums imposed in Parliament, either by way of Aids, upon every Knight's Fee; or else by way of Subsidy, by so much a yard, or Blow Land throughout all England; which has been the only way of taxing ever since that of Knight's Fees hath been disused.  F. 
Then I find after all you have said, that scarce half your Tenants in capite had any Votes in Prrliament, either by themselves, or their Representatives; and so having Laws made for them, and being taxed at the King's Will, were as errand Slaves and Vassals, notwithstanding their Tenure in capite, as the meanest person of the Kingdom, who was taxed (as you would have it) at the Will of his Superior Lord; which, whether so great and powerful a Body of men would ever have suffered, I leave to any indifferent person to judge.  M. 
I grant this may now appear somewhat hard; yet since it was the received Law and Custom of the Kingdom, it was not then looked upon as a grievance; and it was then no more unjust than it is now, that persons under forty Shillings a year, though of never so good Estates in Money, or Stock; or that Tenants for years, or for the Life of another, should at this day have no Votes at the Election of Knights of Shires, and consequently be without any Representatives in Parliament of their own Choice, and yet be subject to all Laws and Taxes (though never so great) when made and imposed by the King in Parliament; And I am able to give you divers good Authorities to prove, that even London itself, and all other Cities and Towns which held of the King in capite, and were called his Demesnes, were often taxed by the King and his Council out of Parliament, before the Statute De Tallagio non concedendo; And I think Dr. B. hath proved this beyond exception, in his Animadversions upon Mr. A's jani Anglorum facies no●e; and he there gives us the Record itself of 39 Hen. III. now in the keeping of the King's Remembrancer of the Exchequer: That the King did that year (as he had divers times before) Talliate or Tax all his Demesne Lands in England, and then likewise demanded of the City of London the sum of 3000 Marks, in name of the Talliage or Tax so laid; And the Mayor and Citizens at last yielded, after a great Contest; It appearing upon search of the Rolls in the Ezchequer, that the Citizens of London had been several times before so taxed in the Reigns of King john, and the King himself; and so they paid at last the Sum which the King demanded. By which you see, that the greatest and richest Cities and Towns in England were taxed at the King's Will; nay, I think I am able to prove (were it now necessary) that the whole Kingdom was often taxed by the King and his Council only, before the granting of King John's Magna Charta; and the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo, above mentioned.  
But to return to the Matter from which you forced me to digress.  
I think nothing is more plain, than that our Ancient Parliaments were only the King's Court Baron for the dispatch of the Public Affairs of the Kingdom, and in which (as in the Lesser Courts Baroa, or Courts of Manor, the Suitors or Tenants were, together with the Lord, or his Stewards, the sole Judges; So that at first, after the Conquest, it belonged to the King alone, as the Supreme Lord of the Kingdom, to appoint or call which, or what sort of those Tenants be pleased, to attend him with their Aid and Advice, at his Common Councils, or Parliaments; And I think nothing is more evident (as I shall prove more at large from our Ancient Histories, Records and Statutes) then, that before the 49th Hen. III. and some years also after that time, none but the Bishops, Abbots, Earls, and Greater Barons, and some of the Less, called in King John's Charter, the other Tenants in capite, then constituted the whole Body of the Parliament, under ●he Titles of Baronagium Angliae, or Communitas, or Universitas Baronagii Angliae; And for this I can give you so good Authorities, that nothing but more cogent and evident Proofs can bring me from this Opinion; And therefore I must tell you, I do not value those loose and inconsiderate Expressions of Historians either before or after that time.  F. 
I see the Testimonies of Historians are of no credit, if they make against your Hypothesis; but I shall show you your Mistakes about the King's Taxing anon, but the main force of your Argument lies in the signification of those Latin Words you have last mentioned, and which I must needs tell you, I think you take in too strict a sense; 
P. R. C. Pag. 108.  For first, as to the Word Baro, I grant it was not much in use before William I. obtained the English Diadem; Baro, says Camden, Britanni pro suo non agnoscum, in Anglosaxonicis legibus nusquam comparet, 
Pag. 121.  nec in A●frici Glossario Saxonico inter dignitatum vocabula habetur. For the English Saxons called those in their own Language, Aealdermen, which in Latin were named Comites, and by the Danes, Earls; but it was of so extensive an import in its signification, that we read of Aldermani Regis, Aldermani Comitatus, etc. as I have already showed you; 
Spel. Gloss. Tit. Alderman.  So that according to the strict Sense of this Word, we had whole Regiments of Earls, whose Titles seldom, if at all, descended Hereditary, till the Confessors Time; and after William I. the Saxon Words, Aealderman, and Thegnes, began to be changed; and in the room of Aldermanni & Thani, we find Comites & Barones, as in all our Ancient Laws and Histories; Nor was the Word Barones only taken in those days for Great Barons; and Tenants in capite, but also for the Inferior Barons, or Free Tenants, which held great Estates of other Mesne Lords, as well as of the King, by certain Services, and to whom the Great Lords or Earls (as Sir H. Spelman shows us in his Glossary, Title Baro) often directed their Charters, 
Pag. 70.  Barombus, & Fidelibus nostris tam Francis, quam Anglis; and we there also read some Quotations from the old Book of Ramsey Abby, wherein the Barons of the Church of Ramsey, as also the Milites, and Liberi homines thereof, are particularly mentioned; all which (as this Learned Author tells us) non de Magnatibus sunt intelligenda, sid de Vassallis feodalibus, note Scil melioris.  
And the same Author says a little lower, that Barons are often taken pro liberè Tenentibus in genere, hoc est tam in Soccagio quam per servitium Militare.  M. 
What then? do you suppose that all the Freeholders in England, by whatsoever Tenure they held, appeared in Person in Parliament, before the time Sir H. Spelman in his Glossary, 
vid. Glossar. Tit.  and Dr. B. Assign for the summoning of the Commons to Parliament? At this rate every Yeoman, or Petty Freeholder was a Baron; so that this Assembly might then consist of above 50 or 60 Thousand Persons; Since Spot in his Chronicle tells us, that William the Conqueror reserved to himself the service of about 60000 Knights Fees, which by the time, I suppose, might have been divided into many more lesser ones, 
B. A. P. Pag: 19  by Co-heirship, or by sale; and otherwise parceled out by the King's Licence into Half-Knighs-Fees, Third Part of Fees, Fourth Part of Fees, Eight Parts, Sixteen, Twenty, Thirty and Forty Parts of Fees, and so have been increased into as many more; And these, besides the Tenants in Soccage, must needs have been so numerous that what Room, nay what Field or Place was able to contain so great a Multitude? Or how could any business have been transacted therein, without the greatest confusion imaginable?  F. 
So than you yourself must also grant, that when all your Greater and Less Barons, or Tenants in capite appeared in Person, Parliaments were much more numerous than they are now; since according to the Dr.'s Catalogue, out of Dooms-Day-Book, (in his Appendix to the English History, Vol. 1.) of all the Tenants in capite, or Serjeanty that held all the Lands in every County of King William, they did (besides the Bishops, Abbots, Earls, and Barons) altogether amount to about 700. and these in the 49th of Hen. III. by forfeiture, and new Conveyances from the Crown; or by those other ways you have now mentioned, might be multiplied into twice as many more, and those also of sufficient Estates to maintain the Port of a Member of Parliament, or Knight; Since 15 Pounds a year was in the Reign of King john, and Henry III. reckoned as a Knight's Fee, and he that had it, was liable to be Knighted: And if so, I pray according to your own Hypothesis, how could so great an Assembly be managed, as of about 3000 or 4000 Persons, without strange confusion and disorder? but upon our Principles there will follow no more Absurdities or Inconveniencies than in yours; for either these Barons of Counties, Burgesses and Inhabitants of Towns and Cities, were always represented by Knights and Citizens, as they are now; or else these Barons of Counties, appearing for themselves, were Lords of Manors, or Freeholders of good Estates, who were not so numerous or inconsiderable as you imagine; the Freehold Lands in England, being in those days but in a few hands, in comparison to what they are now. And for this Opinion I have Sir H. Spelman of my side; who in the place already quoted, under Barones C●●itatus, expressly tells us, Hoc nomine contineri videtur antiquis paginis, omnis 〈◊〉 ●eodalium specier, in uno quovis Comitara degentium; Proceres nempè, & 〈◊〉 Domini, nèc non liberè quique Tenentes, hoc est fundorum proprietarii, Anglicè Freeholders ut Superiù● dictum est. Normidum autem est hoc liberè Tenentes, nec tam ●iles 〈◊〉 fuisse, nèc tam Vulgares ut hodiè deprehonduntur; nam villas, & Dominia, in 〈◊〉 Hareditates non dum distrahebant Nobiles; sed (ut vidimus in Hibernia) penes se retinentes, agros, per precarios excolebant, & adscriptitios.  
So that you see Sir H. Spelman then believed, that the Manors, and Great Freehold in England, were not then parcell'd out into so many small Shares as you imagine; and that such Inferior Barons, whether they held in ca●●●e, or not, 
Lamb. Arch.  were also called Proceres; see the Laws of Henry I. Chap. 25. the Title whereof is de Privilegits Procerum Angliae. The law runs thus, Si exurgat placitum inter homines allcusus Baronum foenam habentium, tract●tur placitum in Curia Domini sui; Now that this Socha was no more than Soc. in old Saxon, see Spel. Gloss. Tit. Soc. i. e. secta de hominibus in curia Domini secundum consuetudinem; so likewise in Titulo Socha vel dicitur Soc. a Saxon soc●. i. e libertas Franchesia & vide manerium qd. dicitur etiam Soca dictum est. From all which we may observe, that these Lords of Manors (here called Proceres & Barones) had Court Barons, which took their Name from their Lords, though Feudatory Tenants or Vava●ours.  
But granting that about the end of King john, or beginning of the Reign of Hen. III. Supposing that these Lords of Manors, and Great Freeholders, whether Tenants In capite, or others, might amount in all to 5 on 6000 persons, I do not see why such an Assembly might not be as orderly and well managed as one of 1000 or 4000 (supposing your Greater Barons and Less Tenants in capite to have than made about that number); especially if we consider, that most business, or Acts of any consequence, (and for which Parliaments 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 Inconveniences and Improbabilities attend my Hypothesis, than yours.  M. 
That the Earls and Greater Barons, both Spiritual and Temporal, together with the Tenants in capite, then made the Body of the Baronage of England, I have very good Authority on my side; but that any Feudatory Barons or Tenants of a Lesser Degree, ever had any Places or Votes in those Assemblies, I think you can give me no sufficient Authority for it.  
'Tis true Mr. P. in his Treatise of the Rights of the Commons asserted, 
Pag. 110.  gives us two Modern Quotations; the one out of Mr. C●●den's Britannia, the other out of Mr. Selden to prove it. As for the former, it is in the Introduction to the Britannia, first published in Quarto; The Words are these, Verum Baro ex illis non imbus videatur, qua tempus paulatim moliara, & molliora reddidit; nam longo post tempore non Milites, sed qui liberi erant Domini, 
Fol. 16.  & Thani Saxombus dicebantur, Barones vocari caperunt, nec dum magni honoris erat, paulo autem postea (meaning after the Normans entrance) eò honoris pervenit ut nomine Baronagii Angliae omnes q●●dammodo Regni ordines continerentur. But he doth not tell us that this Learned Author, in his last Edition of this Work in Folio, being sensible of his mistake, hath added the Word Superiores before Ordines; whereby it is plain he now restrains it only to the Earls and Barons, as they are now understood.  
Mr. P's other Quotation is out of Mr. Selden's Notes upon Rancorous, 
Fol. 168.  where commenting on the Word Barones, he saith, Vocabulum nempe alio notione usurpari quam vulgo, neque eos duntaxat ut hodie significare, quibus peculiaris ordinum Comitiis locus est, but then conceals this that follows, which makes directly against him; Sed universos, qui Regiae munificentiae, ad formulam juris nostre Clientelaris quod nullius Villae Regiae glebam, sed ipsum tantum modo Regem spectat, Tenure en Chief (Phrasi forensi dicimus) sive Tenura in capite lati fundi● pessidebant; whereby you may see that he expressly restrains this Word Barones to Tenants in capite only; though your Author takes no notice of it; Nor indeed in his Title of Honour doth Mr. Selden give us any other Description of a Baron, 
Chap. V.  (I mean such who had a Vote in Parliament) but such in the Sense that is taken in Henry I. his Charter, as it is recited in Matt. Paris, Siquis Baronum meorum, Comitum vel aliorm qui de me tenent mortuus fuerit, i. e. One who was either one of the Earls, or Greater Barons; or otherwise, held in capite.  F. 
Mr. P. is not at all to be blamed (as you make him) in these two Quotations, since in that out of Camden, you cannot deny, but he hath truly quoted that Author, as it was in his First Edition; and if he afterwares altered it, it may very well be questioned whether he did not add the Word Superiores, rather out of fear of displeasing the Greater Nobility, (whom that Quotation had before Shockt) than out of any sense of his being in the Wrong; as it appears by the Words immediately following, when he tells us out of a nameless Manuscript Author; That Henry III. out of so great a multitude of Barons, which was seditious and turbulent, called the best and chiefest of them only by Writ to Parliament. By which it plainly appears, that he supposed all those Less Barons, or Tenants in capite, though no Lords, as now understood, who were thus excluded to have been only Nominal, and not Real Barons; and if so, Commoners; or else he must extend the Peerage of England to at least Three or Four Thousand Persons; For so many Tenants in capite might very well be at that time.  
The same I may likewise say as to the Quotation out of Mr. Selden; for by the Words, quibus peculiaris in ordinum Comitiis locus est; 'tis plain he supposed that all the rest of those Tenants in capite were but mere Commoners; yet he no where affirms, that none but these appeared in Parliament for all the Commons of England; for he very well knew the unreasonableness of that Supposition; Since besides these Barons or Tenants in capite, 
Chap. 8.  Bracton in his first Book tells us of divers other Orders of Men, of Great Dignity and Power in this Kingdom, about the time when you suppose this marvellous Alteration to have happened; His Words are these, Et sub iis (viz. Regibus) Deuces, Comites, Barones, Magnates, sive vavassores, & Milites, & etiam Liberi, & Villani & deversa Potestates sub Rege constitutae; and a little farther, sunt & alti Potentes sub Rege qui dicuntur Barones, hoc est Robur belli; sunt & alii qui dicuntur Vavassores viri 〈◊〉 Dignitatis. From which Words I desire you to observe, that he here makes the Magnates, and the Vavassores, or Feudatory Tenants to be all one, and also ranks them before the Milites. Now whether these Vavassores and Milites, who did not all hold of the King in capite, were men of so great Dignity and Power as these whom he here reckons immediately after the Earls and Great Barons, should have no Votes in Parliament, neither by themselves, nor their Representatives, is altogether improbable.  
And agreeable to this of Bracton, Du Fresne, in his Lexicon Tit. Vavasor tells us, 
Pag. 1262.  that Vavassorum duo erant ordines, sub majorum apellatione implectuntur, qui Barones apellantur, sub ●norum vero, quos vulgò Vavassores dicunt; ut leges Henrici I. Reg. Ang. Thaines minores, respectu Thainorum majorum qui Baronibus aequiparantur. But that these Lesser Thanes or Vavassors were also styled Barones, Sir H. Spelman tells us expressly in his Glossary, Tit. Baro; 
Pag. 70.  etiam Barones Comitum, Procer umque, hoc est Barones subalterni, & Baronum Barones s●pissime leguntur; and of this he gives us many Examples, and particularly of the Chief Tenants of the Abbey of Ramsey, above mentioned. So likewise the same Author, a Leaf or two farther, speaking of the Barones of London, mentioned in the Charter of King Henry I. understands them, pro civibus praestantioribus qui socnas suas, & consuetudines, i. e. Curias habuerunt, & Privilegia, eorum instar, qui in Comitatu Barones Comitatus dicuntur, etc. Nor did this Title of Barones extend to London alone, but he also immediately tells us in the same place, Sic Barones de Ebaraco, de Cestria, de Warwico de So Feversham, & plurium Villaram Regiis Privilegiis insignium, cum in Anglia tum in Gallia, etc. and that Barons of Counties were no more than Lords of Manors, I have just now proved; for Socna means no more than a Court Baron, or Court of a Manor; So that here arises a plain distinction between the Barones Regis, the King's Great Barons or Tenants in capite; and these Lesser Barons, we now are here speaking of, called Medmesse Thegnes, and Burgh Thegnes, by the Saxons, till they 〈◊〉 on the Word Parliamentum, to signify 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 Nobiles, in that Age; and is such made up the Body of the Baronage, called by Matt. Paris, and other Authors, Baronagium, or Communitas Baronagit totius Angliae.  M. 
I see you do all you can from the equivocal use of the Word Barones, to crowd in new and unknown men into the Great Council of the Kingdom, viz. your Barons of Counties, Cities, and Towns, whom (since you dare not affirm there were then any Knights of Shires) you suppose to have served instead of them; and these you would have to be, not Barones Regis, but Regni, or Terrae, 
B. A. P. Pag. 161.  forsooth, i. e. of the Land or Kingdom; whereas we never had any True Barones held by mean Tenors here in England; this if you deny, you must deny all History, and all our Ancient Laws, and Law-Books too; and if you grant it, you must confess that every Baron was a Tenant in capite, and by your own Concession he must then be the King's Baron, or Baro Regis: I grant indeed, there were Nominal or Titular Barons (such as you mention) many in those Times, such as were Tenants to Great Lords, Bishops, or Abbots, of whom we find frequent mention in our Ancient Histories, Records, and Charters. But these are not the men who had ever any Place in our Great Councils, and I desire you would prove to me, that ever they appeared there before the Times I assign; and I would also have you inform yourself of the Gentlemen of whom you borrow this Notion, if they can prove that there were any such kind of Tenure, as Tenura de Terra, or de Regno? or whether there was ever any man that held an Estate de Regno? Whether forfeitures or Escheats were to the Kingdom? And whether Fealty was sworn, or Homage done to the Kingdom? Or whether an Earl was invested or Girt with the Sword of the County by the Kingdom? Or whether the ancient Ceremonies used at the Creations of Earls and Barons, were done by the Kingdom? Thus all the Barons of England held of the King, and thus all these things were performed and done to our Ancient Kings, and by them; which are most manifest Notes of the King's immediate Jurisdiction over the Barons, and that they were his Tenants in capite, and by consequence his Barons only, which you cannot deny; and of which Tenants in capite the Earls and Greater Barons always created by Investiture of Robes, or other Ceremonies, were summoned by particular Write, and the other Less Barons, or Tenants in capite ever since the 17th of King john, were summoned by one Common Writ, directed to the Sheriff of the County▪ since which time (if not some time before) I grant these Tenants in capite were not looked upon as Barons or Peers of the Kingdom, properly so called; Yet did their Votes in Parliament still conclude, and charge their Tenants in the making and imposing of Taxes or Laws, which they alone, together with the Bishops and greater Barons still, performed, until the Times I assign.  F. 
I see you are in a Wood, and do not know well under what Class to rank your Tenants in capite; for if they were at first all Lords or Peers, how could they serve upon. Juries in Hundred or County Courts? If they were mere Commoners, than there were Commons in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. and why might not others as considerable Commoners, have Places in the Great Council as well as they▪ whether they were the King's Barons, or Tenants in capite, or not? But in answer to this, you tell me, that we never had any Barons held by mean Tenure, here in England; this is plainly equivocal; for if you mean it of Baronies in capite, it is true; if of other Baronies, it is false by your own Confession; And Sir H. Sp●lman tells us, in the Title last quoted, that the Barons of Burford pleaded to hold of the King per Baroniam, and yet he was never any Baron of the Kingdom. Now I desire you to show me, if he and such like Barons as himself, had no place in Parliament, who it was represented them there? And therefore in answer to your Dilemma, I grant that every Baron by Tenure, was a Tenant in capite; but every Tenant in capite was not a Baron; and this I think is so plain, that you yourself cannot deny it.  
But in answer to your next Question; I can answer it without ask the Gentleman, from whom you suppose I borrow the Notion, that there might be other Barons, or Lords of Manors, who by reason of their Estates might have Places in Parliament (supposing Knights of Shires were not introduced till after Henry the II. or King John's Time, when such Freeholders became too numerous all to appear in person) and yet these might not be Barons by Tenure; And therefore all your Questions conclude nothing; For you suppose that which is still to be proved, That because all the Barons of England, properly so called, held of the King in capite, and were consequently his Barons; that therefore none but Barons, and Tenants in capite, had any place in our Great Councils; which is the thing you only suppose, and I as positively deny.  M. 
Well Sir, since you put it to that issue, I hope I shall fully convince you, that none but the Persons I have mentioned were the constituent Members of the Common Council or Parliament, before 49th Hen. III or 18th Edw. I and who done gave assent to all Laws that were made, and all Taxes that were to be imposed on themselves, and their Under-Tenants, who were then concluded by the Acts of their Superior Lords.  
But not to wrangle with you any longer, about the signification of the Word Barones, 
B. A. P. Pag. 116.  I grant there were Nominal or Titular Barons, very many, such as I have mentioned; nay, that there were several other Great Subjects, who had Tenants that held 5, 6, 7, 8 〈◊〉 nay more Knights Fees under them, and who had the Name and Title of Barons. But what is this to the purpose? I desire you would prove to me, by any direct proof, that these sort of men had any Voices, either by themselves, or their Representatives in our Great Councils, till after the time we allow them; and this (besides the Proofs I have already brought) I think is sufficient; Since it is plain, that the Barones Regni, or Terra, and the Milites, and Homines sui, are all one and the same Persons; that is, they were the King's Great Barons, or Tenants in capite; who alone constituted the Baronage, or University 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 farther than those very Arguments your own Author, 
B. A. P. Pag. 111.  Mr. P. hath made use of, in his Right of the Commons asserted; wherein he would prove from certain Letters that were sent from the Baronage, or University of the Baronage of England to the Pope, against the Church of Rome's Exactions here in England. And therefore I shall not bring only Fragments, Phrases, or single Words out of the Records or Histories which seem to countenance my Opinion▪ contrary to the true meaning of those Records, and the sense of the Historians, as some of your men do, but shall give you the Quotations out of those Authors whole, and entire; and shall make such reasonable Deductions from them, as I think you will have no reason to deny to be fairly raised from the Words themselves.  
And also, as Matt. Paris relates, in the 29th Hen. III. the Earls, and Barons sent Letters to the Pope, 
Fol. 658.  then at the Council of Lions, to complain of the Pope's Exactions; which Letters are said by this Author to be directed A Magnatibus, & Universitate Regni Angliae. And though it is also true, that in the same Year there were other Letters sent thither, from the same Parties, to the Cardinals there assembled, which are recited by the Old Manuscript to have sent Messengers to the Cardinals; and the Old Manuscript in the Cottonian Library; that they sent to the Cardinals, assembled at the Council of Lions▪ Let●ers a Baronibus, Militibus & universis Baronagii Regni Angliae per procuratores 〈◊〉 Rogeram Bigod Comitem Norff. Willielmum de Cantelupo, johannem silium Galfri●●● Radulphum filium Nicholas Philippum Basset, Barones, Procuratores Baronagii Ang●●● tunc temporis. Innocentio Papa Quarto celebrante Concilium ibi generale. Anno Gratia 1245. And the Letters are thus directed; Venerabilibus in Christo Fratribus uni●●sis, & Singulis Dei Gratia Salutem. Barones Milites, & Universitas Baronagii Regis Angliae. And that Matt. of Westminster does likewise agree in this Relation; only styles the Persons last named, Milites, whom Matt. Paris calls Viri Nobiles, & discreti; But this will make no difference, as I shall show you by and by; And to these Matt. of Westminster adds Mr. William Powic Clark, who seems to have been their Secretary.  
But notwithstanding it will appear that all these Persons so sent, named Barones & Milites▪ & universitas Baronagii, 
Ibid. Pag. 103.104.  did not represent the Commons of England at all, but only the Great Earls, Barons, and Tenants in Capite. For first it appears from Sir W. Dugdale's Baronage of England, 
Toine 1. Fol. 706. & dem.  that every one of the Persons here named, was either an Earl, Baron, or Great Tenant in capite, and n●● Common Persons, as your Author would have them; And though it true, the Cottonian Manuscript, and Matt. of Westminster calls some of them Milites; yet this makes nothing against our Opinion; for as I proved before, the Great Milites were often styled Barons, and the Barons Milites.  
Nor was this Earl, and the four Barons here mentioned, chosen or sent by the Baronage of the Kingdom assembled in Parliament to represent them at the Council of Lions, but were only pitched upon by a Body of Military men, or Barons, at a Tornament intended to have been held at Dunstable; which was forbidden by the King, and these 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 Business in the Paragraph immediately following: So that the History of the thing makes it plain, who were the Universitas Regni; to wit the Barons, or the Universitas Armatorum, who were met to hold the Tournament, and these the King there called his Barons.  
And after this, in the 30th of Hen. III. when the Pope did not give satisfaction to their Grievances, the King called (as this Author tells us) 〈◊〉 Parliamentum generalissimum, 
Matt. Paris. 696.  totius Regni Anglicani totalem Nobilitatem Londini (viz.) Prelatorum tam Abbatum, & Priorum, quam Epi●coporum Comitum quoque & Baronium ut de Statu regni jam 〈◊〉 efficatiter prout exegit urgens necessitas contrectarent. 
B A. P. Pag. 106.  In this very Parliament the King conferred with the Bishops by themselves; and the Earls and Barons by themselves about this Business of the Pope's not keeping his Promise: And certainly if there had been then any Commons in this Parliament, he would have also conferred with them about the same matter.  
The result of all these Conferences was, that yet for the Reverence due to the Apostolic See, they should again supplicate the Pope by Letters, to remove their intolerable Grievances, and insupportable Yoke. And this they do in separate Conferences. The Bishops write by themselves; the Abbots and Priors by themselves; and the Earls, Barons, etc. by themselves, to the Pope; and if there had been any Commons, as at this day, they most certainly would likewise have wrote to the Pope, as well as the other Constituent Parts of this Parliament did.  F. 
I hope I shall be able to answer what you have now said: In the first place, though I should grant that these Commissioners sent by the Baronage of England, were all of them Barons, and no Commoners among them; doth it therefore follow that the persons that sent them, must have been all Lords too? For if those Commissioners were all Peers, who represented your Barones minores, or Tenants in capite, (who, as you yourself have granted, were no Lords at all) and why might not those Lords as well represent all the Commons of England, as they did these Lesser Tenants in capite? So that it seems plain to me, that these Words, Universitas Baronagii Angliae, must needs then comprehend somewhat more than your Barons, and Tenants in capite only; since the Words Barones & Milites alone and sufficiently expressed all the Constituent Members of your Parliament, without adding & Universitas Baronagii, which would have been a Tautology, but that it was very usual for the great Lords in those days, to write Letters in their own Names, as also for all the Commons of England.  
I shall show you by and by, when I shall make use of two other Instances 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 Message, or Letters, because they did not write by themselves; much less is it so, because it is not expressly mentioned by Matt. Paris, that the King consulted the Commons as well as the Bishops, Earls and Barons; that therefore they were not there. Since this Author writing very concisely, comprehends all the Lay Estates, under the Words Comites, & Barones, or else Magnates alone. So likewise Matt, of Westminster, when he mentions divers Parliaments in the Reign of Edw. I and Edw. TWO, expresses them under the same Title. And tho' this Author often mentions the Earls and Barons to have done this, or that; yet it is no Argument to conclude, that the Commons were not then there. And for this, pray take these Examples our of Matt. Westminster, when Anno Dom. 1300. the 28th of Edw. I. he tells us, the King held his Parliament at Lincoln, where the Comites & Barones demanded a Confirmation of the Great Charters, and they further asked; that the Deforestations made by the King should be confirmed; and then he tells us, that thereupon the Charters of Liberties and Forests, were again renewed; and being passed under the Great Seal, were proclaimed before all the People, in every Country; Where you see that the Complains were made by the Earls and Barons; yet it is certain, that the Confirmation of these Charters, must have proceeded from all the Estates; for the Bishops; and Abbots, and Priors, are there no more mentioned than the Commons, who were then as Barones, Majores, Constituent Members of this Parliament. So also Henry De Knighton, 
Col. 2928.  Anno Dom. 1301. the 30th. Edw. I. tells us of a Parliament this King held at Stamford, where met the Earls and Barons, and with great courage persisted until they had got the Charter of Forests fully granted and confirmed to them. Where note, that though by way of excellency, the Earls and Barons (who then bore the greatest sway, are here only mentioned) yet it is certain, that the Commons were also summoned to this Parliament▪ Now if these Later Historians pass by the Commons, though then Constituent Members of Parliament, without any one express Mention, why might not Matt. Paris do so too?  
But that he did do so, appears very plainly from the Letters of the Parliament held in 30th Hen. II. to the Pope and Cardinals, being still at the council of Lions, to remove the intolerable Grievances above mentioned, That to the Pope is tecited at large by Matt. Paris, 
Bib. Cott. Sub Effigy Cleopatra.  though that to the Cardinals is omitted by him; but in an Ancient Manuscript of the time extant in Sir john Cottons' Library of both Letters, are said to have been sent to the Cardinals at Lions, a Baronibus Militibus & universitatib●● B●●●nagii Anglia; Now who these were the subsequent Letter to the Pope in Matt. Poris will inform us, which begins thus; Sanctissimo, etc. 〈◊〉 filii Sui Richardus Comes Cornubia, 
Mat. Paris, 696, 700.  etc. together with divers other Earls there named; but the Barons and Commons are not particularly recited, but are comprehended under these General Words, Barones, Proceres, & Magnates, ac Nobiles Portuum, marishabitatores, necnon & Clerus & Populus universus salutem; And pray note, that Matt. Paris had before called this a Parliament, 
Pag. 698.  Convenientibus igitur ad Parliamentum totius Regni Magnatibus; Which Words take in the Knights of Shires, as the Nobiles Portuum Maris habitatores, doth the Barons of the Cinq●● Ports; (which by the way are here called Noble, though mere Commoners); and to obviate your Objection, that the Word Clerus after Barones, may refer to the Bishops, Abbots, and Priors, that could not be; for they at the same time had already writ Letters apart to the Pope, concerning this Matter; as you may see in the same Author, immediately before. And therefore nothing seems plainer to me, than that by these Words, Clerus & Populus Universus, must be meant the inferior Clergy, and Commons, appearing by their Representatives in this Parliament, and that so became Generalissimum Parliamentum, as this Historian calls it.  M. 
Pray give me leave now to reply.  
In the first place I must tell you, that the Instances you have brought out of Matt. Westm. to prove that under the Words Comites and Barones, & Baronagium Angliae, were comprehended the Commons of England, and that after the time I allow them to have been there, will not do your Business.  
And as to the Instance about the Pope's Nuncio, it seems to have been an Order of the Lords only; the Words being in Latin, de Assensu Comitum & Baronum.  
As to the Third Instance, out of Knighton, He said indeed, that the Comites & Barones met at the Parliament at Stamford; and that might very well be, since they alone then insisted upon the confirmation of the Charter of Forests.  
But as for the Argument you draw from the Direction of this Letter to the Pope; The Learned Dr. in his Treatise against Mr. P. hath given us a very good Answer to it, 
Pag. 106.  to this effect; That though it is true, that after the Barones, & Proceres, there are divers other parties mentioned, yet was this Troop of Words put together in this Letter to no other purpose, than to make an Impression upon the Pope, and make him sensible what a general dislike the Nation had of his Exactions and Encroachments; and to induce him to a compliance with their Desires, the Multitude or Commons not being any-ways parties, or privy to the writing of the Letters; For the clamour of the people was a great Argument used in all these Letters, to affect the Pope, how ungrateful his Impositions were to the Nation. But in this of the Temporal Barons more especially, who address themselves to the Pope by Petition, enforcing it by the clamour of the People, against those Injuries and Oppressions upon the whole Kingdom; It is to no purpose to repeat all that follows, only observe this Clause, Alioquin necesse est ut veniant Scandala Clamore populi, tam Dominum Regem, quam nos intolerabiliter impellente; and the King likewise in his Letter to the Pope and Cardinals aggravates the matter, by the like Arguments; as appears by this Clause, in his Letter to them; verum Clamorem incomperabilem Magnatum Angliae tam Cleri quam Populi non possumus obaudire. From this general Clamour of the People, and not from their being parties, it was that the beginning of the Letters from the Baronage, or the University of England, was stuffed with so many Words and Phrases, to awaken his Holiness, and invite him to redress their Grievances.  F. 
In return to what you have said, I must tell you, that I am not convinced, that in the Parliament mentioned by Mat. Westm. that the Demand for the Confirmation of the Charters was made by the Lords only; Since it is not likely that the Commons (who are there styled Divites Plebis, and are said to have been grieved by their Infringement) should not have been parties to the Complaint for their Redress; especially since we find that in all succeeding Parliaments, the Commons are mentioned as most eager for the confirmation of these Charters.  
But as for the most material part of your Answer 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 Objection, by making the Parliament top upon His Holiness mere empty Words, instead of Matter; that is, according to the Dr.'s own Phrase, they only laid an airy Ambuscade to entrap him. But whether the Old Gentleman was thus like to be catched, I give you leave to judge. For certainly both he and his Consistory of Cardinals, knew as well as the Parliament itself, what were the Constituent parts thereof, and they could quickly have answered them; that they put a mere shame upon his Holiness, in mentioning the Noble Inhabitants of the Sea Ports, and all the rest of the people, both Clergy and Laity in their Letters; whereas they had nothing at all to do with the matter, nor had shown any dislike of his Holiness' Proceedings. For if they had no Representatives in Parliament, how could it be known whether they were aggrieved or not? Or is it likely that 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 Clamours of the Tinners in Cornwall, as of those of the Inhabitants of the Sea Ports, if it was only put in to augment the Clamour, or to fill up the Number of the Complainants; if the people (I mean both Nobility and Commons) had not been parties of these Letters? But you yourself have but now recited a Clause in the King's Letter to the Pope and Cardinals, which makes it plain it was so; when he tells them, that he could not stop his ears against the Clamour of the Magnates, tam Cler●, quam Populi, i. e. as well of the Clergy, as of the Laity, as the Dr. renders it. So that these Words, Clamorem Magnatum, must signify here the clamour of the whole people in Parliament; or else they signify nothing at all.  
And I may as well say that the Clerus and Populus never appeared in Parliament at all, but that these were also mere empty Words to frighten the Pope. But what say you to the next Precedent Mr. P. produces to prove that the Lords and Commons together have writ Letters to the Pope, 
P. R. C. Pag. 115.  when he attempted to invade the Right of the Crown or Kingdom, viz. The Letter from the Parliament at Lincoln to the Pope, in the 29th of King Edw. I. 
Matt. Westm. Ann. Dom. 1301.  wherein they assert the King's Superiority over the Kingdom of Scotland, and desire that his Holiness would desist from meddling farther with it. Which Letter, though subscribed by above a hundred Earls and Barons, as it was the custom of that Age, yet it is said expressly in the conclusion, In cujus rei Testimonium Sigilla tam pro nobis, quam pro tota Communitate praedicti Regni Angliae praesentibus su●t op●pensa.  M. 
Tho this Authority is after the time we acknowledge the Commons to have been summoned to Parliament, and therefore I need not speak particularly to it; Yet though I grant your Argument hath some weight in it, since it here seems that the Lords did sign this Letter, for the Commons as well as themselves, I shall endeavours to answer it. I confess it appears very specious at first sight; but what if I show you, that this Letter was written by the Lords only from Lincoln, after the Commons had been dismissed from thence by prorogation or Adjournment. For though it is commonly storied, but erroneously) that this whole Parliament, 
B. A. P. Pag, 153.  or at least the Temporal Lords and the Commons wrote to the Pope concerning the Jurisdiction and Superiority of the Kings of England over the Kingdom of Scotland: Yet it cannot be so, for this Parliament met on the Octaves of Hillary, or the 20th of january, and sat but eight days; the Writs for the Commons Expenses bear date january the 30th of the same Year, 
vi. Pryn's 4th part of the Regist. of Parliament Writs.  and the Letter to the Pope signed by the Temporal Lords for themselves, and the whole Community of the Kingdom of England is dated Feb. 12 th' next following at Lincoln, after the Commons had been discharged 14 Days. So that you see the Barons still continued to style themselves the Community of England; and both Spiritual and Temporal Barons, and other of the King's Council, did stay and dispatch much Business, after all others were dismissed, according to the Tenor of the there recited Proclamation, and may be fully proved from the Proceedings of that Pa●liament, as they are to be found in Ryley's Pl●cita Parliamentaria. 
Fol. 241, etc.  So that nothing seems plainer to me, than that the whole Community of England, for whom the Barons there named set their Seals to that Letter you mentioned, were the Community of the Barons only.  F. 
I confess Mr. Pryn in his Animadversions upon my Lord Coke's 4th Institutes was the first who started this Objection, That the Commons could not be present as parties to this Letter; 
Pag. 9:  Yet he still supposes that the Lords who stayed behind, and made a kind of a Great Council at Lincoln, signed it not only for themselves, but for the Commons also, though not actually there; and is not so extravagant as your Dr. to suppose, that by the Words in this Letter, Tam pro Nobis, quam pro tota Communitate, etc. are to be understood the Community of Barons only; for that would have been a Tautology indeed: For so the last Word Communitas, etc. would have signified no more than that they subscribed for themselves, and themselves, and that the Word Cumma●●tas Regni, (which I can prove to you by many Examples, did then signify the Commons of England) must 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 concession left off to appear in Parliament in a Body, as being now represented by the Knights of Shires, etc. So that Sir Edward Coke very well observes in his Fourth Institute, that this Letter was sealed by above 104 Earls and Barons, by the assent of the whole Commonalty in Parliament; and Mr. Pryn is so far convinced of this in his exact History of Papal Usurpations, that he ●tiles this Letter, 
Pag. 893.  The Memorable Epistle of the Earls, Barons, Great Men, and Commons of England, etc.  
But to show you farther that there was no change, neither of the constituent parts of our Ancient Parliaments, nor of the Terms by which they are expressed our Ancient Records, appears by a Plea among Mr. Ryley's printed Pleas of Parliament, in 35th of Edw. I. where it is recited, 
Fol. 376.  that in a Parliament at Carlisle, Will. de Testa, the Pope's Clerk, was impeached, per Comites, Barones, & alios Magnates, & Communitatem totius Regni; concerning divers new and intolerable Grievances laid upon them by the Pope; Where you see there is no change of this Word Communitas, after the Commons were (as you suppose) certainly present in this Parliament; and why the same Word should not signify the same 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 against such clear evidence as this; But this Record goes on, and farther recites, that these Letters were sent to the Pope, Ex parte Communitatis praedictae, and in which, Clerus & Populus dicti Regni set forth the said grievances to the full. Now as the Word Clerus here expresses all sorts of degrees of Clergy, as well Superior as Inferior, represented in Parliament and Convocation, so much Populus here signify the Laity of both Orders, as well the Commons as Lords, since the Commons were certainly present at this Parliament; and why the Word Populus should not signify the same thing long before, I can see no Reason for it, but the Dr.'s bear Assertion.  
And as for what you say, that the Commons could be no parties to this Letter, because it appears by the Writs of Expenses, that they were discharged before this Letter was written; admitting it were so, it makes nothing against my Assertion; For why could not the Commons agree upon the Substance of the Letter, and leave the Lords to draw it up, and subscribe it for them, after they were gone home? And that it was so, appears by the Letter if self, which recites, That the King had caused the Pope's Letter, In medio, or pleno Parliamento exhiberi, ac scriose nobis fecit exponi unde habito tractatu, & deliberation● Diligenti super c●●tentis in literis vestris memoratis, communis concors, & unanimus omnium, & singul●r●m consensus suit, etc. Now every one knows, that understands any thing of Parliamentary Affairs, that when any thing is said in an Act of Parliament, or other Record, to have been agreed upon in full Parliament, that is always understood to have been done, all the Estates being there present; Nor can I see any reason why this Letter should not be called the Letter of the Commons, as well as of the Lords, since the very Statutes of that Age were often said to have been assented to by the Commons, though it is clear they, were not drawn up into form till after the Parliament was dismissed.  
But that the Commons were certainly parties to this Letter, appears by a Record of the beginning of Edw. III. time, printed by Mr. Pryn, keeper of the Records of the Tower, (and which he tells us he found among the Rolls in the White-Town) which Record contains the Heads of a Defence compiled by the King's Council, in order to a stronger Defence against the Pope's taking cognizance in the Court of Rome, concerning the King of England's Superiority over Scotland; in the conclusion of the 2d. of which Records, 
Pryn 's Exact History. Pag. 895.  there is a remarkable Article relating to this very Letter now before us, in these Words, Item ad finem quod Nobiles Regni Angliae & Procuratores Cr●munitatis subditorum Regni praedicti admittantur per ipsum Domi●●● Regem ad hujusmodi defensiones propenend prout corum Antecessores ab Avo Dicti Dom●●● Regis nostri ●rant admissi: Now to what Transaction of this kind, in the Reign of Edw. I. this King's Grandfather, can this passage refer, but to this very Letter, which was assented, as well per procuratores Communitatis Regni, as by your Barons, here called Nobiles Regni: And this Application thereof is given by Mr Pryn himself, when he makes use of these Records.  
But to let you see farther, that the Lords and Commons for all this Author Opinion to the contrary, 
P. R. C. Pag. 119.  might join in a Letter ro the Pope, I shall show you by that which was writ in the Name of the whole Parliament to the Pope, in the 17 th' of Edw. III. about the Provisions of Benefices, which then grew so exorbitant, that Walsingham tells us in his History, Quod Rex & tota Nobilitas Regni pati noluit, etc. which Phrase the Letter itself will best explain; 
Vita Edw. III. Fol. 161.  The beginning and conclusion of which I shall give you in English, as you may find it in Mr. Fox's Book of Martyrs.  
To the Most Holy Father in God, Lord Clement, by the Grace of God, of the Holy Church of Rome, 
Vol. I. Pag. 501.  and of the Universal Church, Chief and High-Bishop, His humble and devout Children, the Princes, Dukes, Earls, Barons, Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, and all the Communality of the Realm of England, assembled at a Parliament holden at Westminster the 15 th' Day of May last passed, etc. In witness whereof we have hereunto set Our 〈◊〉▪ Given in the full Parliament at Westminst. on the 18th Day of May, Anno Dr● 1343.  
And it still appears by the Parliament Roll of this Year, viz. 17th Edw. III. n. 59 that the Commons petitioned the King, that the Lords might stay at the Parliament till they had perfected and sealed this Letter▪  
And that there was such a Letter then written by the Parliament, 
Tit. Rot. Rome 17 Edw. III. m 3.  appears by the King's Letter to the Pope about the same Matter, still among the Tower Records; (In which he imitated his Grandfather Edw. I. and Great Grandfather Hen. III. who also se● Letters to the Pope on such like occasions) but in those to excuse the Archbishop of Canterbury from being the Author of those Complain, he had this Passage that since it was the Judgement, tam Procerum & Nobilium, qua● Communitatis Regni in ultimo Parliamento contra Provisorum Exercitum.  
To conclude; I think nothing is plainer, than that under the Universitas Reg●●, in the first Letter to the Pope 29th Hen. III. and under the Communitas Regni mentioned in the Letter of the 29th Edw. I. were meant the same Estates or Orders of Men, as were more particularly recited in this present Letter, viz. The 〈◊〉 Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled.  M. 
I must freely tell you, I am not yet satisfied with the Sense you now put ●pon these Words, Universitas, and Communitas Regni, before the Commons were summoned to Parliament; for you yourself must grant, that as the word Universitas Regni takes in the whole Representative Body of the Kingdom, so likewise the word Communitas signifies no more than the same whole Body or Community thereof. Therefore if I prove to you, that in those times this Univers●●y or Community consisted only of the Earls, Barons and Tenants in capite, that word Communitas Regni ought never to be interpreted by the English word Commonalty or Commons of England, till after the time that I allow the Commons were admitted to make a constituent part of the Great Council or Parliament, nor always then neither; And Mr. P. in his Book which we have so often cited, hath done very unfairly to make the Universitas and Communitas Regni to comprehend the Commons of England, before they everappeared in Parliament at all; and so hath he likewise abused the Word Populus, as I have already observed, to signify the Commons, when indeed there is no more thereby meant, than the whole Assembly of the Laity, which at that time consisted of no more than the Earls, Barons or other Tenants in Capite; 
B. A. P. Pag. 28.  And though I grant that by Communitas Praelatorum, or Baronum, are often understood the Body of the Prelates or greater Barons only, called by way of Eminency, Proceres & Magnates; yet most frequently, these with all the other Tenants in capite did make the whole Body of the King's immediate Tenants in Military Service, and were altogether called the Baronage of England, the Community of the Land, or Community of the Kingdom; and for this I think I shall give you undeniable proofs by and by.  F. 
I am very well aware that the Word Populus often signifies the whole Body of the Laity, yet not excluding the Commons, as I have already sufficiently proved; For then the word must signify quite contrary to its genuine Signification; instead of People, the Greater Nobility only; yet that when it is put after▪ as distinct from Magnates, it must mean the Commons, as now understood, I shall show you by and by.  
But that this word Populus does not always signify the whole Body of the Nobility only, 
Fol. 55.  but takes in oftentimes the Commons too; pray see Matt. West. who tells us King Edw. I. in the 34th year of his Reign, making his Son a Knight, Pro hac melitia silii Regis concessus est Regi zomus Denarius a Populo & Clero, Mercatores vero vices●mum concesserunt; Upon which your Dr. in his Glossary very well remarks, that it is evident upon Record, who were the Populus meant by the Historian, viz. the Comites, Barones & alii Magnates, nec non Milites Comitatuum. So that unless the Knights of Shires were Lords, it is plain Populus takes in the Common● too. But Universitas Regni, and Communitas Regni, called in French le Commun● Dangletterre, is often taken for the whole Community or Body of the whole Parliament; and this Sir Edward Coke owns expressly in his 2d. Instit. upon these Words, In Articulis sup●● Chartas: 
Pag. 539.  Thus here Le Commune is taken for People; so astout le Commune is here taken for all the People; and this is proved by the Sense of the Words; For Magna Charta was not granted to the Commons of the Realm, but generally to all the Subjects of the Realm, viz. to those of th● Clergy, and to those of the Nobility, and to the Commons also.  
And this is a Rational as well as Grammatical Interpretation; For as the Word Universitas is derived from the Adjective Universus, which signifies the Whole, 〈◊〉 Universal; So the Word Communitas is derived from the Adjective 〈◊〉 Common or General. So that these two Words when used simply in a Political 〈◊〉 Legal Sense, aught to take in the whole Body of the Kingdom, or all sorts and conditions of Freemen appearing themselves, or their Lawful Proxies or Representatives in Parliament.  
But I have already sufficiently proved, that under those General words used in our Historians and Records, viz. Principes, Proceres, Nobiles, Magnates, Barones, & alii de Regno, were then comprehended either all the considerable Freeholders, o● Lords of Manners, or else the Knights of Shires, Citizens and Burgesses: So that if the Sense of these Words have been sufficiently explained, I think no reasonable man can have any cause to doubt whether these Abstract Words Nobilitas, Universitas, and Communitas, should be taken for all Sorts and Degrees of men, when thus represented in the Great Council; or whether they shall be confined to the Greater or Lesser Nobility only, viz. the Great Lords, Bishops and Tenants in ca●ite as you would make me believe which requires stronger Proofs than what you have yet brought.  
Besides which Sense of this Word Communitas, or le Commune, it is also more commonly used at this day, and often then too, in another more restrained and yet legal sense; and that is when it is used for the Commonalty or Commons of England, distinct from the Peers; and this may very easily be distinguished, by observing, that when it is taken in this Sense, it is always set after the particular enumeration of the other Orders of the Lords or Peers, viz. the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls and Barons, or when it is put contradistinct to the Word Magnates. I shall give you some Authorities and Examples from Historians and Records of both these, 
P. R C. Pag. 35.  and that in the Times preceding those that you allow the Commons to have been summoned in Parliament. Of this sort is that which Matt. Westm. mentions as a Parliament held 37th Hen. III. and which is thus recited in the Patent Roll of this year; 
Pag. 352.  where after the Excommunication denounced against all Infringers of Magna Charta, there is this solemn Clause a●ded, That if to the Writings concerning the said Sentence, any other thing, or in any otherwise should be added thereunto, besides the Forms of the said Sentence then to be denounced and approved of, that then Dominus Rex, & praedicti Magnates, & Communitas Populi Pretestantur publice before all the Bishops, that they would never consent thereunto; and conclude thus, In cujus Rei Testimonium, & in posterum Veritatis testimonium, as well the King as the Earl of Norff. Heref. Essex and Warwick, as Peter de Saba●dia, ad Inslantiam aliorum Magnatum & Populi Praescripti sigilla sua apposuerunt; where you may see that it was usual before the 49th Hen. III. for those that were Peers to sign for the Communitas Populi, or Commons.  M 
I pray give me leave to answer your Authorities as you bring them, lest I not only forget some of them, but also tyre both you and myself with too long a Discourse. I hope I am very well able to prove, by the learned Dr.'s assistance, 
B. A. P. Pag. 73. & dein.  that the Communitas Populi here mentioned do●h signify not the Commonalty or Commons, but the Community of the Laity there present, consisting of the Greater Barons, or else the Less, or Tenants in capite. And for proof of this, pray take notice that Matt. Paris called this Council Tota Angliae Nobilitas; 
Fol. 865.  And in this Parliament the King demanding a great Sum of Money of them, after much contest, and upon promise to reform all Abuses, according to the Tenor of the Great Charters, thereupon the same Author tells us, The Church granted the Tenth of the Revenue for three years, and the Knights or Nobility granted for that year Scutage; to wit, Three Marks of every Scutum, or Knight's 〈◊〉: And then the Arch-Bishops and Bishops in their Pontificalibus, with Light-Candles in their Hands, in the presence, and with the assent of the King, the Earl of Cornwall his Brother, and several Earls there named, & aliorum Optimatum Regni Angliae, and other chief men of the Kingdom excommunicated, and cursed all those that from thence forward should deprive the Church of her Right, and all those that should change, alter or diminish the Liberties of the Church and Ancient Customs of the Kingdom, especially those granted in the Great Charter of the Common Liberties of England, and Charter of the Forest granted by the King; Ar●hi●piscopis, Episcopis & cateris Angliae Praelatis, Comitibus, Baronibus, Militibus, & ●●berè Tenentibus, etc. i. e. To the Arch-Bishops, Bishops and other Prelates of ●●gland; and to the Earls, Barons, Knights and Free-Tenants, or Tenants in Military 〈◊〉 Knights Service; For they only were such a● paid Scutage, which was at this ●ime a kind of composition with the King, for the confirming Magna Charta, and was never charged but upon Knights Fees; and these were such that held perhaps one narrow or scanty Knights Fee only; or some part of a Knight's Fee; as an half, 3d 4th 6th 8th part, etc. who all paid a proportionable share of Scutage to the Great Lords, or Tenants in capite, for the Land they held of them in Military Service; which was paid first to the Great Lords, and by them paid to the King.  
And from thence I collect, that besides the Barones Majores that came to this Great Council or Parliament, there were also the Tenants in Capite, according to the Directions and Law for Summons in King John's Charter, who were comprehended under the Words tota Nobilitas, & Milites; and that other Tenants but held of the Tenants in capite by Knight's Service, were bound by their Acts, 〈◊〉 they all knew how many Knights Fees they held of the King in capite; and if ●●ey had given any away to others, they held of them as they did of the Crown, ●●d answered a proportionable rate towards this Tax, for the Fees, Quantities 〈◊〉 Parts of Fees they held of them; about which there could be no mistake 〈◊〉 the Scutage was ascertained. So that in so Great an Assembly, where all the Nobility of England were called together by the King's Writ, and upon so great 〈◊〉 occasion and solemnity, as confirming the Great Charter of Liberties, after such an extraordinary a manner, it cannot be doubted, but besides the Barons, all the 〈◊〉 in capite, both Great and Small, which were then very numerous, were present, or at least, most of them; from whence it is not difficult to tell you to the Communitas were; after the Prelates, Barons and Magna●●●, they were no other than the Small Tenants in capite, who were all summoned by one General Writ, nor chosen and sent by the people, but summoned as the Great Barons in general, by King Iohn' Magna Charta, as I shall show you hereafter.  F. 
I hope I shall be well enough able to prove, that what you have now alleged is pure imagination, or in the Dr. Phrase, an airy Ambuscade, and quite contrary to the Sense of Matt. Paris, as also of the Lawyers and Historians of those Times. For in the first place, nothing is plainer, than that this Author by the Words Communitas Populi, must understand an Order of Men distinct from the Magnates; or else if the Word Magnates might have comprehended them all, it would have been to no purpose to have mentioned any more.  
But to answer those Authorities you bring from Mat. Paris; As for the Word Nobilitas, since you still insist upon it, I have already proved that the whole Parliament, as well the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, as Commons, were both before and after this time comprehended under these words, Nobilitas Angliae; and if you yet doubt of it, I can give you a plain Authority out of Walsingham, for it is in his Life of Edw. II. Anno 1327. where relating the manner of that King's Deposition, he tells us, That when the Queen and Prince came to London, there then met Tota Regni Nobilitas, to depose the King, and choose his Son in his stead; and then there was sent to the King, being Prisoner in Kenelworth Castle, on behalf of the whole Kingdom, two Bishops, two Earls, two Abbots, and of every County three Knights; and also from London and other Cities and Great Towns (especially the Cinque Ports) a certain number of persons who informed him of the Election of his Son, and that he should renounce the Crown and Royal Dignity, etc. This Proof is so plain, it needs no Comment.  
As for the rest of your Argument, the strength of it chiefly consists in this, that the Tax there mentioned is said to be granted à Militibus, or Tenants in capite (as you would have it) of three Marks upon every Knights Fee. But in the first place I desire 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 this Passage in Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary, Tit. Scutagium; Edwardus primus habuit 40 Soli de quolibet 〈◊〉 Anno Regni 13 Dom. 1285. pro expeditione contra Wallos. And it was also granted by the Lords and Commons after the 18th of Edw. I. when you and the Dr. supposes the Commons to have then came to Parliament; and if so, I desire to know why a Militibus here mentioned by this Author, must only signify Tenants in capite by Knight's Service, and not the Knights of Shires, since it is not here said a Militibus qui de Rege tenuerunt in capite; And therefore it is a forced Interpretation of the Dr.'s, and without any Authority, to limit these words Militibus, & libere Tenentibus, & omnibus de Regno nostro (which you omit with an, etc.) as also the omnibus Hominibus Liberis Regni nostri, only to the Arch-Bishops, Bishops and other Prelates of England, and to the Earls, Barons, Knights and Free Tenants, or Tenants in Military or Knight's Service; because they were only such as paid Scutage; Whereas you have already acknowledged that Magna Charta was granted to all the people of England, who had all a benefit by it, and who paid towards the aid there granted, as well as the Tenants in capite.  
But if Knight's Fees alone were Taxed, and that by the Tenants in capite only▪ I desire to know by what Right all Tenants in Petit Serjeanty, and by Burgoge o● S●occage Tenure (who made a greater Body of men in this Kingdom in those Times) could pay this Scutage, since they held not by Knight's Service, but by certain Rents or other Services, and so not appearing in Person, could have no Representatives in this or any other Parliament of those Times. But if you will tell me they might pay according to the value that Knight's Fees were then reckoned at, viz. for every 20 l. a years Estate, I desire to know how this could be called Scutage, or how the Tenants in capite, or other Lords from whom they held those Lands, could give away their Money for them? And in the next place I desire also to know how all the Cities and Burroughs in England could be charged with this Tax; a great many of them (is you yourself grant) holding of the King in capite, or else of Bishops, Abbots or other Mes●e Lords by Soccage or Bargage Tenure So that this Tax, if granted only by the Tenants in capite, by Knight's Service, could reach them, and no other persons; but if by this Word a Militibus may be understood Knights of Shires, than the Tax was general, as well upon Soccage Tenants, as those by Knight's Service.  
But for the other Words you insist upon, viz. the Liberi Tenentes, which you translate Tenants by Military Service; if that had been the meaning of these words, than they had been altogether in vain, since you have already told me, that the ●●lites were so called non a Militari Cingulo, sed a Feodo; and if it were no Name of Dignity, then certainly the Word Milites would have served to comprehend all your Liberi Tenentes, or Tenants in capite, without any other addition. But that these Words Laberi Tenentes, do not here signify Tenants by Military Service, pray see Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary, Tit. Liber Homo, & liber Tenens; where he there gives us a more general Signification of thesewords thus: Ad Nobilesolim spectabant isti 〈◊〉, à majoribus ortos omnino Liberis; and then ends thus, vide Ingenuus, Legalis, 〈◊〉 Francus, Tenens Liberè, alias Liber Tenent quo etiam sensu occurrit interdum Homo 〈◊〉; which upon every one of these Titles he makes to signify all one ●●d the same thing, viz. an ordinary Freeholder. And therefore it is a very forced Interpretation of yours, to limit these Words Communitas Populi, only to the Community or Body of the Earls, Barons, and Tenants in capite.  
Tho I confess you are very kind in one main Point, in únderstanding the Communitas Populi to mean the Community of the Lesser Tenants in capite, that were no Barons; and then do what you can, these Words must here signify Mere Commoners, or Commons, unless you can show us a Third Sort of Men, who, though neither Lords nor Commons, yet had a place in Parliament. So that these Gentlemen, notwithstanding their Tenure, were no more Noble than their Feudatory Tenants, or Vavafors themselves; my, than the Knights of Shires are at this day: And then granting (as I doubt not but I shall be able to prove) that the Cities and Boroughs had then also their Representatives there; I pray tell me whether or no there were not Commons in Parliament before 49 Hen. III. or not? which is contrary to your Dr.'s Assertion in divers places of his Answers to Mr. P.  
And that the Word Populus must here signify the Commons, and not the whole Body of the Laity, appears plainly by this place you have quoted; since it is restrained by yourself, to mean not the whole Community of the Kingdom, but only the Community of Lesser Tenants in capite, who were not Lords. But that Matt. Paris doth also in another place take the Word Populus for the Commoners, and not for the whole Body of the Laity, pray again remember what he says in Anno 1225. where relating the manner how Magna Charta came to be confirmed in 9th Hen. III. he tells us Rex Henricus ad Natale tenuit Curiam suam apud Westm. Praesentibus Clero, & Populo, cum Magnatibus Regionis; which pray let us put into English, and see if it will not prove what I say, viz. the Clergy and People being present with the Great Men of the Kingdom. Now if the Word Magnates (as you affirm) did then comprehend all the Barons and Tenants in capite▪ to what purpose is the Word People put here as a distinct Member of this Parliament? But to show you father that this Word Populus is not always to be understood for the whole Body of the Laics, but Lords and Knights of Shires, 〈◊〉 shall show you out of Walsingham, Anno 1297. 24th Edw. I. where he mentions a Parliament held at St. Edmundsbury, In quo a Civitatibus, & Burgis concessa est Reg● Octava, a Populo vero reliquo duodecima pars Bonorum: Where by Populus 〈◊〉 not only meant the Peers, but Knights of Shires, or Grands des 〈◊〉 also.  M. 
I am not prepared at present to answer all the Queries and Difficulties that you can make or raise against the Dr.'s Arguments; yet I think I am able to give you a very satisfactory answer why all Tenants in Soccage should be boun● by the Acts of those of whom they held their Estates. For since (as I have a ready proved) all the Land in England (except what belong to Religious Houses) was granted out by King William the Conqueror, to be held in capite by Knight's Service, and was again granted out by these Head-Tenants, to their Feudatory o● Mesne Tenants by the like Services, there being very few Lands granted in Free Soccage at the first; And though it is true that in process of time, ma● of those Estates and Lands became Free Tenements, 
B. A. I.  or were hold in Soccage, that is, were Freeholds; yet the Lords still retai● the Homage (which in the Times we speak of was no idle insignificant Word and by that a Dominion over the Estate, whereby upon Disobedience, Treachery or Injury done to the Lords, the Lands were forfeited to them; and the● neither the Lands nor the Tenants to them (which were termed Freeholder● were subject to any base Services, or servile Works; yet the Lords had still great power over these Tenants, by reason of their doing Homage to them; 〈◊〉 ●o nominè, their Lands were many ways liable to forfeiture; and therefore it wa● but reason, that the Chief Lords being Tenants in capite, should conclude that Tenants in Soccage also, and both make Laws and give Taxes for them, without their being at all privy to it. But admitting I grant, that before 49th 〈◊〉 there were in some sense Commons in Parliament, though not as Knights, Citizen and Burgesses, chosen by the Common People as their Representatives; Yet 〈◊〉 it not destroy mine, or the Dr.'s Assertion; who in the Introduction before the Answer to Mr. P. only affirms, That before the 49th aforesaid, the Body of the Commons of England, or Ordinary Freemen (as now understood, or as we now call them collectively taken, etc. had any share or Votes in making Laws, unless as they were 〈◊〉 presented by the Tenants in capite.  F. 

vi. B. A P. P. 10, 21, 29, 30, 72, 82.  Be it so; But I am sure in many places of the Dr's Boo● he absolutely denies that there were any Commons in Parliament till the Time he Assigns.  
But as for what you allege in answer to my Queries, how Tenants in Soccage could have Laws made for them, and Taxes laid upon them 〈◊〉 ●heir Lords or Tenants in capite? your answer is wholly grounded upon mistakes; For in the first place King William did not grant all the Lands in England to be held of him by Knight's Service; since (as I shall prove hereafter) there were many subordinate Tenants to Bishops, Abbots and other Great Lords, who never forfeited their Estates at all, nor were disseized of them by your Conqueror, ●ad who had also great numbers of considerable Freeholders under them; as in 〈◊〉 at the greatest part of the Land was Gavelkind, which was Soccage Te●re.  
In the next place, neither were all the Lands he bestowed upon his Followers granted to be held by Knight's Service, since you your se●f own that a great deal ●land was given by him to his Inferior Servants, to be held by Petit Serjeanty; and besides this, a great deal of other Lands was regranted by that King himself, 〈◊〉 some of those old Proprietors who had been dispossessed, to be held in Soccage is appears from Fleta, 
Lib. 1. c. 8.  who speaking of these sort of men, says expressly; In 〈◊〉 maneriis [seilicet Regis] erant liberi Hemines, Lab●ri Tenentes, quorum quida●i 〈◊〉 per Potentiores a Tenementis fuerant ejecti, eadem post modum in Villenagium tenen●● resempserunt; & quia hujusmodi Tenentes cultores Regis esse d●gnoscuntur, provisa 〈◊〉 quiet, ne sectas facerent ad Comitatum, Vel hundredum, &c— quor●m ●●gregationem tunc Soccam appellarent, hinc est quod Sokemanni body dicun●●, etc.  
Where you may see that these Socmen, or Soccagers were then created by a ●ew Tenure from this King; Nor did all the Tenants in capite grant their Lands ●o others to be held by Knight's Service, since they as well as the King did at first, 〈◊〉 also in process of time, grant Lands to the Old English Proprietors to be held of ●●em in Soccage; nor was Homage the proper, or only Badge of Soccage Tenure, but ●ealty (unless the Land had been held by Knight's Service at first) as you may see in Littleton's 2d. Book, Sect. 118. Nor did this Soccage Tenure give the Lord any more right over his Tenant's Estate, to tax him de alto & b●sso, at his Will, by ●eason of the subjection he was in to the Lord, in respect of Forfeiture; since ●hen the King should have had for the same reason the same Rights over all his 〈◊〉 in capite, to tax them likewise at his pleasure; and this Right of Forfei●●● in case of Felony, or for want of Heirs, continued to the Lords as well of Soccage Tenants, as others, long after the time you assign for the coming of the Commons to Parliament, even to our own Times; and yet for all that those Lords could not give taxes for such Tenants in Soccage at their pleasure.  
But that we may proceed, pray consider also the form of the Peace agreed upon between the King, the Prince his Son, and the whole Body of the Kingdom assembled in Parliament, to compose all Differences between the King and the ●arons: The Title of which in the Record is thus; Haec est forma 〈◊〉 a Domino Rege & Domino Edwardo filio suo, 
48th H. III m. 6 dorso.  Praelatis, & Proceri●●●●●●●ibus, cum Communitate totâ Regni Angliae Communitèr & Con●●●ditèr approbata. Which Articles were signed by the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Ely, Earl of Norfolk Earl of Oxon, Humphrey Bohun, William de Monte Canisio, & Majore London; in Parliamento London Mense junii Anno Domini 1264. Haec autem ●rimatio facta est London de Consensu, Voluntate, & Precipto Domini Regis, nec. non ●●●datorum, Ba●onium, ac etiam Communitatis tunc ibidem praesentium.  M. 
I think the Dr. hath given us full satisfaction as to this Record, 
B. A. P.  in his Answer to Mr. P. the substance of which I shall here give you in short.  
First, It is certain, that at the making of this forced Peace Simon Mountford and his Faction then held the King and Prince, as also Richard Earl of Cornwall, the King's Brother, as good as Prisoners, and made them do what he pleased; and he carried the King and Prince along with him, until he had taken in all the strong places of the Kingdom; and when he had done, than he called this Parliament, which could not be one, in the sense it is now taken, since there was none there but the Earls, Barons, and Heads of the Rebels, which had the King and Prince in their power, and (as you yourself set forth) were the same persons that sealed it for themselves and the other Barons, and the whole Community of the Kingdom of England, which Community must be the Community of the Barons and Great Men, or Tenants in capite by Military Service, and no other; for how can the Lords and Barons sign any thing for the Commons, as at this day understood? They did not then nor now do represent them.  

B. A. P. Pag. 81. Fol. 217.  But I shall give you another Authority to make this clearer, of some years before, related in Matt. Paris, viz. Anno Dom. 12●●▪ 42 d Hen. III. where Letters are said to be sent, a Communitate Angliae, to the Pope concerning Aymer de Valence, Bishop Elect of Wachester, the Direction is thus, Sanctissimo in Christo Patri, etc. Communitas Comitum Procerum, Magnatum, Aliorumque Regni Angliae cum subjectione debita, Pedum Osr●●●, etc. And to put the Matter beyond all doubt, it is certain that these Letters were sealed by six Earls, and five Barons only; vice totius Communitatis. I need 〈◊〉 give you their Names, since you may find them in the Author himself, as also cited by the Dr. And as for H. Bigod, the Chief Justice, and the four Persons named after him, they are proved by Sir William Dugdale in his Baronage of England, to have been the Greatest Barons in the Kingdom.  
Now pray let me ask you this Question; Did these Eleven Persons, all Great Earls and Barons, represent the whole Commons or Community of England, as at this day understood, or did they represent the Community of the Barons only, together with the Alios, the Milites, which held by Military Service of the Great Barons, and the Less Tenants in capite; for the whole Community here intended, must be one of them; take which you please, you'll lose the Cause; For certainly these Great 〈◊〉 and Barons that sealed this Letter, vice totius Communitatis, were not chosen nor sent by the Commons to this Parliament or Meeting, nor were the Commons represented as at this Day by them, as you yourself have already granted.  F. 
I hope I shall not need to make any long Reply to this Answer of you●●▪ or rather of your Dr.'s since it is built upon the same false Supposition with the other, viz. that the Words Cum Communitate tot â Regni Angliae, must always mean only the Community of the Tenants in capite; which Supposition, if it be false in your former Argument, is also as false in this of the Lords and Commons too; and therefore it is impertinent to repeat my Answer to it.  
But if this were no true Parliament, because Simon Mountford had then the King and Prince in his power; This would likewise serve to unparliament that of the 49 th' of this King; from whence the Gentlemen of your Opinion date the first coming of the Commons to Parliament; since the King and Prince were as much in Simon Mountford's power then, as now; and yet no man as I know of, ever questioned the validity of it, though I cannot also omit, that you pass by in this Letter, 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 as Citizens and Burgesses, unless the words had run thus (as they should have done to have made out your Assertion) aliorumque qui de Rege Tenent in capite.  
But to come to the main point you insist upon, which is, How these Great Earl● and Barons could seal this Form of the Peace, and these Letters to the Pope, in the Name of all the Commons of England.  
Before I answer to that, I pray give me leave to ask you one Question; You have already allowed that the ordinary Tenants in capite, (of which that numerous Body chiefly consisted) though called by courtesy Barones Minores, were really no Barons, nor Peers of the Realm, and if so, were but Commoners. Now pray tell me how these Great Earls and Barons you mentioned to have signed this Peace, and this Letter to the Pope, could put their Seals for those who were no Barons themselves, by your own confession, and you cannot say they represented them, for they were as good Tenants in capite as the Greatest Lords? But if you say, they did it by their order and consent, pray why might not these Great Lords or Barons as well do the like for the Knights of Shires and Burgesses, by their appointment? Since I have already proved, that the Lords did act thus in the Letters which were sent to the Pope concerning the Business of Scotland. And besides I must here observe, that the Dr. and you do not deal fairly with your Adversaries, in citing this Authority of the Lords and Barons signing these Letters to the Pope, Vice t●tius Communitat●s Angliae; since I acknowledge in this place the Word Communitas being put alone, doth mean no more than the Community of the whole Kingdom. But in the Authority I have quoted, it is put after the Earls and Barons, and so then must mean the whole Commonalty or Body of the Commons, in the Sense they are now taken, and as it hath been always used in French as well as in Latin, when it comes after the Earls and Barons (as I have already noted); And for this pray see the Stat. of Westm. I. made 3 d Edw. I. but eleven years after the 49 th' of Hen. III. Per l'ass●ntments des Aechievesques, Evesques, Abbes, Priors, Counts, Barons & tout le Comminalty de la terre illonques summones; Which Phrase I can show you to have continued the same in most of our French Statutes, during the Reign of this King, and all his Successors in many Records and Acts of Parliament, whilst they were writ in Latin or French; which I shall omit reciting, because I suppose you yourself will allow it.  
I have a great deal more to say concerning the true sense of the Words Communitas, le Commune, & le Communality, which because it is long, and it now grows late, I shall defer till another time. But I think I shall be able to show you from undoubted Records, and Acts of Parliament from the Reign of Hen. III. as low as Richard II. that these Words when used as I have now said, after the Earls and Barons, cannot refer to them, but to another distinct Estate or Order of Men, than called les Communer or les Communes in English the Commons of the Kingdom, distinct from the Bishops and Lords.  M 
I shall nor now dispute with you concerning the Sense you have put upon the words, you mention but I grant they often signify the Commons, after the 18 th' Edw. I. in some Acts of Parliament and Parliamentary Records; but I must beg your pardon, if I cannot allow Communitas to signify▪ the Commons at this time in your Sense; and therefore am not yet convinced that the words la Communalty de la terre, mentioned in the Statute of Westm. I. ought to be understood or englished by the word Commons; who I do not suppose were then above once called to Parliament, till the 18 th' of this King.  
But as for what you argue from the Knights of Shires being often called Magnates, and Grantz des Countees, I allow they are often so styled in our Statutes and Rolls of Parliament; 
B.A.I.P. 219.  but if you consider the reason of it, this will do you little Service, since they were so called from their being most commonly at the beginning of their Election, chosen out of the Greatest and most considerable Tenants in capite, under the Degree of Barons in each County, and no other, who were chosen to represent the Omnes alios qui de Rege Tenent in capite mentioned in King John's Charter; or them and all the other Military Tenants by mean Tenure; For 'tis scarce to be believed that those Tenants in capite, who made such a noise for their Liberties, would part with this main point of being personally present; or else the Body of them represented by some of their own number in every County. And it may be upon this account they had the Title of Notable Knights, etc. in the ancient Writs of Summons, directed to the Sheriffs; So that only the Tenants by Knight's Service, as suitors to the County Courts, 
B. A. P. Pag. 19  were the Electors. And this was very likely the reason of the Statute of the 7 th' Hen. IU. that the Election should be made in the County Court by all the Suitors; and also why the Statute 18 th' Hen. VI 
Cham 15.  by which any man that had 40 s. per Ann. of any Tenure, who was before permitted to be an Elector, was altered by 10 th' Hen. VI and so explained, that none but Freeholders of 40 s. per Ann. should afterwards be Electors with respect to the least part of a Knight's Fee, 
cha. 2.  viz. 40 s. per Annum, which were now come into the hands of very ordinary Men. For anciently, soon after, or near the Conquest, there were very few, or no great Soc●ag●, that is, such as held great Estates in Soccage, and neither the small ones, 
LL: Hen. I. chap. 29.  nor the Nativi, or Copyholders, were reputed Liberi, ot Legales Homines (as before mentioned) or performed the service proper to such Military Tenants, or those to whom they had alienated part of their Fees. But since I have tired you as well as myself, in wrangling about the sense and meaning of the words in dispute between us, I shall for the future take a shorter cut, and give you two or three Authorities from our Ancient Laws of William the Conqueror, and Hen. II. and Rich. I. which together with King John's Magna Charta, will I think, make it plain enough in conscience, that the Commons, as now represented, were not summoned to Parliament during the Reign of King john; and whether they were so summoned before 49 th' H. III. (when they were called but once, till above twenty years after) will be the other part of my Task.  F. 
I approve of your Method very well, and I assure you I love pedantic Disputes about the Grammatical signification of words as little as yourself, unless where it is absolutely necessary, as indeed you have rendered it so, by raising the greatest part of your Arguments from the equivocal use of those general words whereby our Ancient Laws and Historians have styled the Constituent Members of our Great Councils, which if they are well cleared, I think it is high time to fall upon some more solid Arguments. But before you come to that, I cannot forbear observing that yourself do allow, that in all Acts of Parliament and Records after the 18 th' Edw. I. the words Communitas and l● Commune, when put after the Earls and Barons, do signify the Commons in the same sense in which they are now taken; but I must confess it seems incredible (nay almost impossible to me) that these words should signify the Community of the Tenants in capite. In the 48 th' Hen III or 18 th' of Edw. I. (begin where you please) and yet that the next Parliament after those the same words should be taken in quite another sense for the Knights of Shires, Citizens and Burgesses, and that no Statute, Record or Historian of that or succeeding Ages should take the least notice of it is understood.  
But before I conclude this part of the Question, I cannot but rectify a great mistake you have fallen into by adhering to the Dr. with too implicit a Faith; For whereas you suppose, that the reason why our Knights of Shires were called anciently Grantz des Countees, was because they were at first elected out of the Tenants in capite only, and who with the other Tenants by Military Service were also the only Electors of them at first, till the Statute of 7 th' Hen. IU. ordained the Election should be made in the County Court by all the Suitors, as if it had not been many Ages so before; Whereas if you please to peruse that Statute a little better, you will find it was not made to enlarge the number of the Electors of Parliament men, for long before that time all sorts or degrees of Freeholders, as well Tenants in capite, as their Tenants by any kind of Tenure, or whether holding of such Tenants in capite, or else of others, as Abbots and Priors, and other Mesne Tenants, did alike owe Suit and Service to the County Court, and consequently were all alike capable of giving their Voices there, at the Election of Knights of Shires, however small their Estates were; Nor was that Statute of Hen. IU. now cited (which requires the Election of Knights of Shires to be made by those that were summoned, and all other that were there present) made to confer any new Right upon such Feeeholders but only to prevent the Abuses of Sheriff●, who were wont before that Statute, to procure Knights of Shires to be chosen clandestinely, without any due Summons, or notice given to the Freeholders of the Election; much less doth the Statute of 8 th' Hen. VI confer any new Right or Privilege upon Freeholders of 40 s. per Annum, to give their Voices at such Election (as you suppose) but only takes away the Right which the smaller Freeholders of under 40 s per Annum (whether Tenants in capite or not) had before, and restrains it only to such as shall have Lands or Tenements to the va●● of 40 s. by year above all charges. And it is yet a much greater mistake to suppose, as your Dr. doth, that this Statute of 8 th' Hen. VI was at all altered by that of the 10 th' of this King, which is no more than an Explanation of it, viz. that by 40 s. per Annum, was meant 40 s. Freehold, and that of Lands lying within the County, where the Election should be made. So that nothing can prove more expressly, that all Freeholders, as well Tenants in capite, as by any other Tenure, were all alike capable of Elections; and being elected by the Ancient Law and Custom of England, long before those Statutes, and consequently were all alike Freeholders in the Eye of the Law.  
But if you have nothing at present to object against what I have now said, pray pursue the Method you have undertaken, and let me see those convincing Proofs you so much rely upon, and which you hope may also serve to convert me.  M. 
Before I undertake this Task, pray permit me to give you my Opinion, in answer to the Difficulty you have now proposed, which I confess seems to carry some weight with it; but those Prejudices will soon vanish, when we consider that the first time this Alteration was practised, it was done in the King's Name, though by the absolute power of Simon Mountfort, in the 49th Hen III. and after a discontinuance of above twenty years was again renewed by Edw. I. at the desire of the Earls and Barons. as I hope I shall show you before we have finished our Conversation. And therefore it being first done by the King's absolute Power, and after with the general consent of the Lords, there needed no Statute to introduce it any more, than there was in the Reign of William the Conqueror, to give the Bishops and Abbots that held by Knight's Service places in Parliament among the Temporal Lords, and to bring their Lands which were held before in Franc Almoigne, under the Yoke of Military Service.  
But to proceed in the Design I have undertaken; it is necessary that I show you first of all who were those Freemen or Freeholders properly so called, upon whom the whole burden of the subordinate Government of the Kingdom chiefly relied, and who then constituted the Legal University or Community thereof, immediately after the Norman Conquest, and during many King's Reigns after that time.  
I suppose you are not ignorant that King William the Conqueror having outed all the English Nobility and Gentry of their Estates, gave them away to his French and Norman Followers to be held of him and his Successors in capite, either by Knight's Service, or Petit Serjeanty, reserving to himself the Ancient Demesnes of the Crown, and adding more thereunto for the maintenance of the Royal Dignity; and for this I need refer you to no better Author than Doomsday's Book itself; And then after he had thus distributed the Lands of England as aforesaid, he composed a Body of Laws still extant, and which are in great part Addition to the Ancient Laws of King Edward, and his Predecessors. I shall give you three or four of these new Laws, 
B. A.A. Pag. 254.  and then I shall leave you to judge who were the true Freemen or Freeholders of the whole Kingdom.  

Lamb. Arch. Pag. 170. & dem.  The first is the 52 d Law of this King, Tit. De Fide, & obsequio ergo Regem. Statu●mus etiam ut omnes Liberi Homines, faedere & Sacramento affirmarent quod intra & extra Regnum Angliae, (quod olim vocab●o Regnum Britanny) Wil●ielmo Regi Domino suo Fideles esse volunt, T●ras & Honours illius omni fidelitate servare cum eo, & contra inimicos & alienigenar difendere.  
Now who these Freemen were that were thus to maintain the King in his Lands and Honours, we shall see in the 55th Law following; Tit. De Clienteleri seu Feudorum jure, & Ingenuòrum immunitate; Volumus etiam ac firmiter praecipimus, & concedimus ut omnes Liberi Homines totius Monarchiae Regni nostri praedicti habeant & ●● meant terras suas, & Póssessiones s●●s; benè & in pace, libere ab omni Exactione injusto, & ab omni Tallagio, it a quod nihil ab eis exigatur, vel capiatur, nisi servitium suum liberum, quod de jùre nobis facere debent, & facere tenentur; & prout Statutum est in & allis, a Nobis Datum & Concessum jure Hereditario imperpetuum per Commune Consilium votius Regni nostri; Whereby you may see, that all the Freemen here mentioned who were to hold their Lands and Possessions in Peace, and free from all unj●. Exaction and Taillage, were only such 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.  
So that none were properly Freemen, or exempt from Tax or Talliage, 
B.A.P. p. 17.  but such as held by Military Tenure, though not Knighted.  
And pray also by the way take notice, that by this Commune Consilium Regni, you are not to understand a Council of English men, or of English and French together, but one wholly made up of Frenchmen or Normans, who as well Bishops and Abbots, as Temporal Earls and Barons, held almost all the Lands in the Kingdom by Knight's Service.  
Which is also farther made out by the 58 th' Law; Tit. De Clientum seu Vassallorem prastationibus. Statuimus etiam & firmiter praecipimus, ut omnes Comites, & Bermes, & Milites, & Servientes, & Universi Liberi Homines totius Regni nostri pr●●●●tihabeant & teneant se semper benè in Armis, & in equis ut decet, & oportet & qud sint semper prompti, & benè parati ad servitium suum integrum, nobis explendum & p●●●gendum cum semper opus adfuerit secundum quod Nobis debent, de Feodis & Tene●●●tis suis de jure facere; & sicut illis statuimus, per Commune Consilium totius Regni nostri praedicti & illis dedimus, & Concessimus in Feodo, jure Haereditario, hoc praeceptum non sit violatum ullo modo super foris facturam nostram plenam; So that here all the Freemen of his Kingdom were to perform their Military Services, 
Ibid.  with Horse and Arms according to their Fees and Tenors. Therefore they were Tenants in Military Service only (which in those times were the only great Freemen, and that Service the only Free Service) which were meant in this Law; And ●ow different they were from our ordinary Freeholders at this day (for whom neither of these Laws were made) I dare leave it to the Judgement of every indifferent person.  
These than were the men, the only Legal men that named and chose Juries, and served on Juries themselves, both in the Country and Hundred Courts, and dispatched all Country Business under the Great Officers, as will appear by the next Law with a little Explication: Ut Iura Regia illaesa, servare pro viribus c●entur subditi, Statuimus etiam & firmiter praecipimus ut omnes Liberi Homines totius Regni praedicti sint Fratres conjurati, ad Monarchiam nostram & ad Regnum nostrum, pro viribus suis & facultatibus contra inimicos pro posse suo defendendum, & viriliter serva●um, Pacem, & Dignitatem Coronae nostrae, integram observandam, & ad judicium Rec●um, & justitiam constanter omnibus modis pro posse suo sine dolo, & sine dilatione fa●endam. Now the Judgement they were to give, and the Justice they were to do by this Law (besides that in their own Courts and Jurisdictions) was principally as they were Jurors or Recognitors upon Assizes, etc. (though some of the greatest of their Milites were often Sheriffs, Hundredaries, and other Under- judges and Ministerial Officers of Justice in their several Counties) as may be seen in Glan●ille every where, but especially Lib. 2. c. 10, 11. lib. 9 c. 7. c. 17. & lib. 13. throughout. This of being Suitors to the County and Hundred Courts, etc. being a Service incident to their Tenors; and before them many times anciently in the County and Hundred Courts, and not privately in a Chamber, were Executed Deeds, Grants and Donations of Lands contained in very small pieces of Parchment, witnessed by Thomas of such a Town, john of another, Richard of a third, etc. which were Knights, and Liberi Tenentes in Military Service in those Towns of considerable Estates, and not the lower sort of people: And this Execution of Sales and Assurances in open Courts, was as public and notorious, and as secure, as if at that time there had been a public Register for them.  F. 
Before I answer your Conclusion from King William's Laws, I must tell you, I am not at all satisfied neither with the Account you give, how the Common● of England could come in to be a part of the Parliament, without any noise or notice taken of it, either by our Acts of Parliament, or Historians; since it is not only improbable, but also quite contrary to Matter of Fact, and History itself; as I shall, I hope, make good, when we come to treat of that Subject. Nor is your Argument of any weight, since it doth not follow, that because William the Conqueror so subjected the Lands of Bishops and Abbots to Tenure by Knight's Service; that therefore this was done by his sole Power, without any Law for it, made by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom. Since I observe in the first Law of King William, which you have now cited, that the very Services which (you say) were reserved upon the Lands he had bestowed, are said to be so appointed or settled, by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom; and therefore certainly the Services of the Bishops and Abbots must be so likewise; And therefore I must confess myself to be of Mr. Selden's Opinion in this Matter, who presumes there was a Law for it, though now lost; and cannot believe that this King (how powerful soever) should attempt to introduce so great a yoke upon all the Bishops, and so many of the Abbots and Prior's of England, without their consents expressly given to a Law, and made in the Great Council concerning it, though that Law (as many others of this King) is not now to be found.  
But to come to the main Design of your present Discourse, which is to show that none but Tenants by Military Service in capite were in the first times after the Conquest properly the only true Freemen or Freeholders of the whole Kingdom. I shall show you that first the Notion is quite new, and never heard of, till the Dr. (from whom you have borrowed it) first broached it; neither Mr. Lambard, Mr. Somne●, nor Sir Henry Spelman, nor any of our English Antiquaries or Lawyers ever discovered any such thing, before your Dr. arose to disperse these Clouds; every man of the Kingdom, who was no Villain, being looked upon as a Freeman, and every Owner of Lands of Inheritance, though of never so small a proportion reckoned a Freeholder, and his Estate called his Franc Tenement, or Freehold, as well in our Ancient, as Modern Laws; and that Freehold was not restrained only to Military Service, within a hundred years after the Conquest, appears by King John's Magna Charta; In which it is expressly recited, that Nullus distri●●tur ad faciendum majus servitium de Feodo Militis, nec de alio Libero Tenemento qu●● inde debetur; and that Socage Tenants, though by Villain Services, were as much Freemen as your Tenants in capite, see Spelman's Glossary, Tit. Socman, where he says thus, Socmannus in natura brevinan (brevi de Recto) propriè talis est, qui Li●e est, & tenet de Rege, seu de alio Domino in antiquo dominico terras suas seu Tenement● in Villenagio. Libro Sancti Albani Tit. Honcton, Chap I. Rege Angliae manerium de H●●cton tenuerunt in dominico; omnes Tenentes Liberi, scil. & custumarii per sokam defendebant tenementa. sua, etc. ex quo patet sokmans liberos 〈◊〉 significare.  
But since you seem to make a distinction between Freemen and Freeholders, properly, or improperly so called; since King William's Laws you have now cited, do not warrant any such Distinction; I must beg your excuse if I am not of your Opinion; for the First Law you have quoted warrants no such thing; it only says, That all Freemen in general, shall take an Oath of Fealty to the King, to maintain him, his Lands and Honours, against 〈◊〉 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 same Oath in the Folkmote, as they were after your Conquest to do according to this Law, either in the County Courts, or Sheriffs Turn. Nor will the next Law do the business any more than this; for the Words are, That all Freemen of our said Kingdom may have and hold their Lands and Possessions free from all ●njust Taillage Exactions, etc. Which Word Possessions extends not only, to Lands of Inheritance, (much less to Lands held by Knight's Service) but also to Estates for Life, and all other Chattels or Possessions, as well real, as personal: Nor doth the Words Servitium Liberum, extend only to those Services which were reserved upon Lands held by Knight's Service in capite, but also to those Common Services (called Trinoda necessitas) which I have formerly mentioned, ●iz. The building and repairing of Castles and Bridges, and Expedition against Foreign Enemies, which all the Lands in England were liable to, as well after, as before your Conquest: Nor will the 58 th' Law make more for you; for though it ●●ly says that all Earls, Barons, Knights, and their Servitors or Esquires, and all Freemen of the Kingdom shall always be fitted with Horses and Arms as they ●●ought to be, and which they ought to do according to, and by reason of their ●ees and Tenors. Now it is plain that this Law cannot extend to the Less 〈◊〉 Capite only, since they, according to your own sense, are comprehended ●●eder the Word Milites, and their Servientes, which seems to mean their Feudata●y Tenants, are as much tied by this Law to find Horses and Arms, as the T●●ants in capite themselves. So that whereas the Law says expressly, Uni●●rsi Liberi ●●mines totius Regni, it should have been, to make good your sense, Universe Libe●● Homines qui de Rege Tenant in capite; And as for the other Freemen who were ●f lesser Estates than to find Horses, they were to be ready with such Arms as be●●ed their Condition, as we see it explained by the Assize of Arms of Henry II. which I have now cited; so that this Law of King William is not to be taken in 〈◊〉 sense you put upon it, That all the true Freemen of the Kingdom were obliged to be ready with Horses and Arms, as if none were Freemen that did not; but referring the Words Horses and Arms to those who were to ●ind both; and the Word Arms to those Freemen who were only obliged to keep Arms ●it for Footman, which sense the words will very well bear, though expressed generally and concisely according to the Mode of those times, which abhorred more Words than ●eeds: And if these Laws will not prove what you bring them for, much less till the last you have cited; For if the Words Omne● Liber● Homines totius Monar●●, in the First Law, who were to take an Oath of Fidelity to the King must ●●tend to all the Freemen of England, (as certainly it did) all Freemen being a●●e obliged to be sworn in the Court Leer, and County Court; so must this too, 〈◊〉 Title being, that Omnes subditi, all the Subjects should endeavour to maintain the King's Rights with all their Power; And though I grant that Subditi here are the same with Liberi Homines in the first Law; yet since by that Law all Freemen were to take the Oath of Fidelity to the King, these must be also the very same Freemen, who were to be sworn Brothers to defend the Kingdom, according to their Power and Estates. So that all that you have said to prove your Tenants by Knight's Service in capite, to be the only Freemen that served o● Juries, etc. being built upon a false Interpretation of these Laws of King William, are but the mere Fancies and Imaginations of the Author from whom you borrowed them.  
But taking the Words Liberi Homines in the strictest sense, and as they are is the Magna Charta of King john, and H. III. Chap. 14. where it is ordained, that Liber Homo non amercietur pro parvo delicto, nisi secundum modum illius delicti, salv●●h contenemento suo, & mercatar eodem modo, salva marchandiza, & villanus salv● W●nagio; Upon which Words Sir Edward Coke in his 2 d. Inst. observes, that 〈◊〉 Homo is here meant such a one as enjoys a Franc Tenement, that is, any sort of Free●● hold.  
But pray go on to prove by some plainer Authorities, that the Arch-bishops Bishops and Abbots, etc. together with the Earls, Barons, and other Tenants in capita, were the only Council of the Kingdom, for the assessing of Taxes, and making Laws in the Times immediately succeeding the Reign of King William the First.  M. 
I shall perform your Desires, and will begin with the Great Council 〈◊〉 Parliament held at Clarendon, of which Matt. Paris tells us, 〈◊〉 Dom. 1164. 10 th' of King H. II. 
B. A. P. Pag. 32. Fol. 100 ●20.  In presentia Regis Henri●s 〈…〉 rendon 8 Calend. Febr. etc. de mandato ipsius Regis, presentibus 〈◊〉 Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Comitibus, 〈◊〉 & Proceribus Regni, facta est Recognitio; and which Quadrilogus, and GErvas● 〈◊〉 Canterbury, comprise under the General Terms of Brasules, & Pr●ceres Regni▪ the Bishops and Great Men of the King●dom. 
Lib. 1. c. 26. X. Script. ●oll● 1385. n. 60. A. D. 1164.   
What can be more clear by this Enumeration of the Constit●●ent Parts of this full Parliament (as Mr. S●lden and other Author agree it to be) than that the Commons were then none of the● and that the Clerus and Populus in Hoveden, were only the 〈◊〉 and Lay Nobility.  
So likewise when these Constitutions were again renewed by this King at bathampton, the same Author tells us, (though by a Mistake it is writt●● Nottingham) That Rex Pater ibi celebravit Magnum Consilium de 〈◊〉 'tis Regni, 
Hoved. Fol. 313. a. n. 50.  & coram Rege Filio Suo, & coram Archiepiscopis, Episcop●● Comitibus & Baronibus Regni sui; which Council is more particularly recited by Benedictus Abbas in his Manuscript History (〈◊〉 in the Cottonian Library) Anno. 1176. (which was the 25 th' H. 〈◊〉 Circa Festum Conversionis Sancti Pauli, 
Sub Effigio julii.  venit Dominus Rex usque ●●●thampton, & Magnum ibi celebravit Concilium de Statutis Regni sui 〈◊〉 Episcopis, & Comitibus, & Baronibus Terrae suae; & coram eye per 〈◊〉 Regis Henrici Filii sui, & per Concilium Comitum, & Baronum & Nilit●●, Hominum suorum hanc subscriptam assisam ●ecit etc.  
And Ralph de Diceto, Dean of St. Paul's (A. D. 1210.) a diligent Searcher into the Histories and Transactions of his own and former times, 
Imag. Histor. Coll. 588. n. 40.  doth yet more fully declare the meaning of Abbot Benedict, in the Account he gives of this Great Council, thus; Rex juxta Consilium Filii sui Regis, coram Episcopis Comitibus, Baronibus, Militibus & aliis Hominibus suis in hoc consentientibus, etc. Hoc autem factum est apud Northamptonam, ●ino Kal Febr. From all which Authorities we may collect, that this Council at Northampton, as well as that at Clarendon, was a Great or Common Council of the whole Kingdom; to which were summoned of the Laity, only the Earls and Barons of his, (viz. the King's) Land, to which is also added for the better explaining, who were understood under these Titles of Baronum, Militum, & Hominum suorum; that is, such Tenants in capite as were Knights, and such as were his Men or Tenants, that is Military Tenants as were not Knighted, and who held Lands either of the King, or his Son, to whom the King might assign divers of these Barons and Tenants in capite to atturn Tenants to him, 
B. A. I. Pag. 204.  and to maintain his Court and Kingship; And the King's Comites, and Barones terrae suae, were the Earls and Barons of his Kingdom that held immediately of him, or were his immediate Tenants in capite; and that Homo suus & homines sui, doth for the most part signify the King's, or any other Lord's immediate Tenants by Knight's Service; for you may consult Spelman's Glossary, and Du Fresue's Lexicon, under these Titles.  
But farther to confirm, who were then the Constituent Members of our Great Councils, pray see the Title to the Assize of Forests, under King Richard the I. which Hoveden recites in these Words; Haec est Assiza Dom. Regis, 
Hoved. Fol. 445. b. n. 40.  & haec▪ sunt praecepta de Forestis suis in Angliae facta, per assensum & Consilium Archiepiscoporum Episcoporum, & Abbatum, Comitum, & Baronum, & Militum totius Regni. Where by Militum is to be understood not only those Tenants in capite that were Knighted, but also all other Tenants in capite; and if the Word ever signifies any other persons. 
B A. I. Pag. 201. Pag. 61.  they were not ordinary Freeholders, but Liberè Tenentes in servitio Militari, Freeholders in Military Service, as you may find in the Dr.'s Glossary, Tit. Probi Homines, Milites, etc. But pray remember also what Sir H. Spelman tells us in his Glossary, Tit. Miles, that these Milites (when put alone) were properly the Liberi Tenentes, or Tenants in capite; Qui non à Militari Cingulo, sed a Frodo nomen sumpserunt. So that I think no ingenious man but will confess that all these Councils were General Councils or Parliaments of the whole Kingdom, consisting of no other persons than Tenants in capite.  F. 
To return an Answer to all your Authorities together, I must now repeat what I often said, that there are no firm Arguments to be drawn from the doubtful Words, and general Expressions of our Ancient Historians; and I doubt not but to show you, that all the whole strength of your Reasons consists in this alone.  
But since I have already spoken so much of the various signification of the Word Barones Regis & Regni, I shall omit that, and now proceed to the rest of the Words, which you think make so plain for you, and shall only observe at present, that these Words Barones and Milites, are always stretched or contracted, according as the Gentlemen of your Opinion find it best to suit with their Hypothesis.  
As for Example. If the Word Barones is put alone, than it must signify none but Great Barons, and Tenants in capite; if it be joined with Milites, then by Barones must be only meant the Great Barons or Peers; and by Milites, those Tenants in capite who were not Lords. If any other words follow Milites, than this Word must signify only such Tenants in capite as were Knighted. So likewise you deal with all other Words, though of never so comprehensive a Signification.  
But why may not I with as much Reason affirm, That by Barones mentioned in these Authorities, is to be understood the Barones properly so called; and by the Milites, the Knights of Shires, whether they were Tenants in capite, or Feudatories to others; For Radulphus de Diceto in Anno 1040. in the Laws of Malcolm the Second, King of Scots, mentions Milites Vavasores, qui tenent de Baronibus tetras suas; and that not only Tenants in capite, but all others of whomsoever they held, who were able to maintain themselves like Knights, might be then forced to receive Knighthood, appears by two Writs of 24 th' and 26 th' H. III. as they are found in the Close Rolls, 
Rot Claus. 24th H. III. m. 8. dorso Rot. Claus. 26 th' H. III. ps. 1. m. 6. dorso.  under this Title, Forma de Molitibus faciendis; and I desire you would read the Writ itself.  
Rex Vicecomiti Northampton, Salutem Praecipimus tibi quod per totam Ballivam tuam in Singulis bonis Villis, & similiter in pleno Comitatu tuo clamari facias, quod omnes illi de Comitatu tuo qui tenent Feodum Militis integrum, vel etiam minus quam Feodum integrum, dum tamen de Tenemento Suo tam Militari quam Socagio p●ssint sustentari, & Milites non sunt, Sicut Tenementa sua deligunt, citra festum omnium Sanctorum Anno Regni Nostri 25. Arma capiant & se Milites fieri faciant. Et si qui fuerint tales qui citra Terminum illum se Milites fieri non fecerint, Omnia Nomina eorum Statim à Termino illo, & quantitatem, & Valorem tenementorum suorum nobit scire facias Teste Rege, apud Lewes 25 die julii.  
Similiter Scribitur omnibus Vicecomitibus.  
And as for the Words Homines Sui, which you will have only to mean the King's Tenants in capite, those Words have so equivocal a Signification, that there is no Argument to be drawn from them; for they may as well signify all the King's Subjects sworn to him by Fealty and Allegiance, as Tenants by Homage, or Knight's Service only, as Sir H. Spelman in his Glossary observes upon the Word Homo, dicitur de quovis Praediorum Tenente, sive Socmanno, sive Militari; And for this he citys the Book of Ramsey, and if Suus be added to Homo, it doth much alter the Case, as appears by the words following, in the same place, Dicitur Praeterca de Quovis Ministro, & Subdito, & saepe occurrit hoc modo in Antiquis Privilegiis, non Solum Vassalos, & Tenentes, sed Famulos, & Subditos quoslibet Significans; and for this he gives us several Authorities.  
So that you see these Words do not only signify Tenants in capite, but also any other Subjects, and so might take in the Knights of Shires▪ with the Citizens and Burgesses likewise, at least the Representatives of such Cities and Burroughs as held of the King in capite, by your own Sense of these Words.  
But I shall however say something of the rest of the Words you insist upon, out of Abbot Benedict. viz. Barones terrae suae, which means no more than Regni sui before mentioned, and then it will signify no more, than that all the Barons of his Kingdom were summoned to this Assembly; which Word, Tenants in capite, I can give Mr. Selden's Authority for, who in his First Edition, 
P. 276, 277.  2 d Part, hath his remarkable Passage, speaking of the several kinds of Barons, he says, That besides the Barones Regis, there were Barons of Subjects holding, not of the King, but by Mesnalty, who made a third Rank of such as were Lords of Manors, etc. Out of this may be understood why, and in what sense Baronagium Angliae, Rex & Baronagium suum, & sine Assensu Baronagii sui, so often occur in our old Stories, taken as well for the King, and the whole State sometimes, as for the Greater Nobility. But if your Dr. had been pleased to have compared the Authors he quotes with others, nay with the Title to the very Constitutions of Clarend●n themselves, 
Pag. 41.  as he hath given them, as in his Appendix to his History out of Quadrilogus, this Objection would have been needless; 
Col. 1395.  for if you consult Gervase of Canterbury, he styles the Parties to this Council Praesules, and Proceres Anglicani Regni. And as for Matt. Paris, 
Fol. 100  pray observe that after the word Cl●rus (which there) coming immediately after the Bishops, Abbots, and Priors must needs signify the Inferior Clergy), he expresses the Lay Orders thus; Cum Comitibus Baronibus ac Proceribus cunctis, where we may observe the word Proceres here put distinct from Barones, which may very well signify not the Less Tenants in capite, but the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, as I have already proved the word Proceres does often signify, both in our Historians and Records; but Quadrilogus gives us the Title of these Constitutions more exactly in these words, Facta est ista Recognitio, coram Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, & Clero, & Comitibus, & Proceribus Regni; and in the next Line he says, That those Customs were thus recognized, per Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Comites, Barones & per Nobiliores, & Antiquiores Regni; where he likewise distinguishes between the Bishops and Inferior Clergy; and those who in the first place he calls Proceres Regni, In the next he calls Nibilores & Antiquiores Regni, by which he might mean the Knights of Shires, Citizens and Burgesses, who were called in the Saxon Times Seniores & Sapientes, as I have already proved; now if the Inferior Clergy appeared by their Representatives at this Council (since they could not then all come thither in person any more than now); to imagine that the Commons of England should not be likewise there by their Representatives of their own order, is to deprive the Commons of that Right, which you cannot but allow to the Inferior Clergy.  
To conclude; You yourself confess, that your Less Tenants in capite, sometimes called Barones minores were only nominally, and nor properly Barons of the Kingdom, in the sense that word is now taken; and if so, pray give me any satisfactory Reason, why other Commoners as well as they, viz. the Knights of Shires, Citizens and Burgesses, might not then likewise have had Places in our Great Councils or Parliaments.  M. 
I see you use your utmost endeavour from the various and equivocal sense of the words in question between us, to prove that the Commons in the sense they are now taken might be comprehended under the words Barones, Mii●a, & Homines sai, which it is very certain could not be, according to the Constitution of the Government at that time. And therefore I shall give you a very plain Answer to your Question, why other Commonrss as well as the lesser Tenants in Capite could not be present, or have places in those Great Councils, because it was contrary to the received Custom and Law of the Kingdom at that time, appears by those Clauses of King John's Charter, which Dr. B. hath made use of with so good success against Mr. P. and the Author of janus Anglorum, etc. And therefore I desire you would read them along with me 〈◊〉 they stand here in the Appendix to the Dr's Complete History of England; 
P. 131.  and as he hath transcribed them from an Ancient Manuscript in Bennet College, and divided them into so many distinct Articles or Chapters; but those we chiefly insist upon are these.  
Article 14. Nullum Scutagium vel Auxilium ponam in Regno nostro nisi per Commune Consilium Regni nostri, nisi ad Corpus nostrum redimendum, & ad Primogen●● 〈◊〉 filium nostrum Militem faciendum, & ad Primogenitam filiam nostram semel N●●tandam, & ad hoc non siet nisi rationabile Auxilium.  
15. Simili modo fiat de Auxiliis de Civitate Londinensi, & Civitas Londinens● habeat omnes antiquas Libertates & Liberas Consuetudines suas, tam per terras qu●● per aquas.  
16. Praeterea Volumus, & concedimus quod omnes aliae Civitates, & Burgi, & Villae, & Barones de quinque Portibus, & omnes Portus habeant omnes Libertàtes, & omnes Liberas consuetudines suas; & ad habendum Commune Conclium Regni de A●●liis assidendis, aliter quam in tribus casibus praedictis.  
17. Et de Scutagiis assidendis submoneri faciemus Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Abbates, Comites, & Majores Barones Regni singillatin. per Literas nostras.  
18. Et praterea faciemus submoneri in generali per Vice Comites, & Ballivos nostr● omnes alios qui in Capite tenent de nobis, ad certum diem scilicet ad terminum quadra ginta dierum ad minus, & ad certum locum, & in omnibus literis submonitionis ca● same submonitionis illius exponemus.  
19 Et sic facta submonitione negotium procedat ad Diem assignatum secund●● Consilium eorum qui praesentes fu●rint, quamvis non omnes submoniti venerint.  
From which Ancient Monument we may draw these Conclusions.  
1. That the King exercised a Royal Prerogative before this Charter, of Assessing Aids, and Scutages upon all sorts and degrees of Men, without the Assent o● the Great or Common Council, (since called the Parliament) from doing which for the Future, the King by this Charter tied up his own I●●and, unless i● the Three Cases here particularly reserved.  
2. That there is no mention of any other Members to be summoned to th●● Council, but the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, and Greater Barons b● particular Writs, and all the other Lesser Tenants in Capite by one general Summons by the Sheriff. So that it is apparent that the Grea● Councils before this time only consisted of such Earls Grea● Barons and Tenants in Capite, 
I. E. M. G. P. 211.  as the King by special Writ wa● pleased to summon; and this new way brought in a greate● number of the Tenants in Capite than ever had appeared before; so that if i● should be true, which you assert, that this Charter was no new Grant to the People of England, but a Confirmation of their Ancient Rights and Liberties, it mu●● then necessarily follow, that Great Lords and Tenants in Capite, called sometimes Barones Minores, were then the only Representatives of the Commons.  
And that the Inferior Tenants consent was included in t●● Assent of his immediate Superior Lord, 
B. A. P.  whose presence was r●●quired in those Great Councils or Parliaments, need not, think, be doubted, and I can give you, if need be, several Authorities to prove it. But pray observe further, that here is no mention at all in this Charter of any Citizens or Burgesses to be summoned to the Great Council, unless you will have them included under the general Title of all others who hold in Capite, and then none but such Cities and Towns who held in Capite could pretend to send any Members; much less is there any mention of any Knights to be chosen for Counties, which certainly would have been particularly provided for by this Charter, had they then had any place in this Assembly. So that, I think, it is very plain, that the Commons were not otherwise represented than by these Tenants in Capite for the rest of King John's, and most part of King Henry III. Reign, for aught I can yet discern: For though this Charter was Confirmed in the second and ninth year of that King last mentioned, per Commune Consilium 〈◊〉 Regni; yet there is likewise no mention made of any Knights and Citizens 〈◊〉 Burgesses.  F. 
Before I answer this main Argument of yours, (which I freely grant carrieth the greatest show of probability of any you have yet brought) give me ●●●ve to take notice, that I think you are very much out in your first Conclusion; that before this Charter, the King exercised a Royal Prerogative of Imposing Taxes without the Assent of Parliament; for if you mean that this Exaction was exercised de facto, and from thence you would make it a Prerogative of the Crown, I grant this was true, not only before, but after this Charter, before the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo was made; but if you mean de jure, I affirm that our Kings were as much tied up by the 55th Law of William the First, (which you have already Cited) from Levying any unjust Taxes, or Exactions, 〈◊〉 Communi Consilio totius Regni, as they could be afterwards by any other subsequent Law that could be made.  
But I shall proceed to answer the Authority you have now brought from this Clause in King John's Charter to prove, That none but Tenants in capite had any place in our Great Councils, or Parliaments. But though I confess the Charters of Henry III. and Confirmation of Edward I. are the same with this in the most material parts, yet there are several Clauses (of which this Clause in question is one) which are in King John's Charter, and yet are totally omitted out of both those of Henry III. as I shall show you hereafter. So that let ●●e sense of this place be what it will, I defy you to show me any Great Council of the Kingdom, that was ever summoned according to this Imaginary Model of yours; and that I do not speak without Book, that Parliament or Council of 9 Henry the Third, when but 11 years after King John's Charter was Con●●●med; M●t. Paris (as I have already observed) tells us, it consisted of Cle●●, & Populus cum Magnatibus Regionis.  
But give me leave to read this Clause, according as your Dr. himself hath Printed, and Transcribed it, and as yourself have now read it; and I doubt not, but it will appear plain enough, that the Clause you insist on in this Char●●r, doth not at all concern the Great Council of the Kingdom; and for the proof of this, I desire you only to observe, that by the 15th and 16th Clauses of this Charter you have now read, both the City of London, and all other Cities. Bar●●ghs and Towns, had a Right to have a Great Council of the Kingdom for the assessment of Aids, (otherwise than in the Three Cases there expected.) And ●ay take the Dr's Paraphrase to this Clause along with you in his Appendix to his complete History of England, viz. That they, viz. the Citizens, Burgesses, 
Pag. 131. ●.  and Cinque Ports shall send their Representatives or Commissioners to the Common Council of the Kingdom, for the Assessment of Aids; So that according to his Concession, there must have been Citizens and Burgesses in the Great Council, in the Reign of King john; and if so, I desire you to tell me whether those Gentlemen were Commoners or not?  
But I will not insist too much upon his Concessions, for I think it is very plain from the Words themselves, which point out a distinction between the Common Council of the Kingdom, mentioned in the first Clause which was to meet, to grant, or assess Aids or Subsidies; and that other (though not Common) Council or Assembly, consisting of all the Tenants in capite, which by the 17 th'. and 18 th'. Clauses of that Charter, are to meet to assess Escuage, and to do such other Business as was expressed in their Summons. So that nothing seems plainer to me, than that this Assembly mentioned in this Charter, for assessing Escuage, was a distinct Council from the Great Council of the Kingdom, which was appointed for the granting of other Taxes, called Auxilia, and for the making of Laws.  M. 
I confess this Gloss of yours seems at first sight very plausible, and agreeable enough to the way of Reading and Pointing, with which the Dr. himself published this Charter; but for all that, I much doubt whether you are in the right, or not, therefore pray give me leave to put off this Debate till our n●●t Meeting, since it now grows late; and in the mean while I will take time to consider the Arguments and Authorities you have now made use of.  F. 
Pray take your own time, but do not defer it above a day or two; for I have a great mind to have this Question dispatched off our hands: I am your Servant.  M. 
Good night Sir.  
FINIS.   

Books Printed for Richard Baldwin, near the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane.  

A Brief Disquisition of the Law of Nature, according to the Principles and Method laid down in the Reverend Dr. Cumberland's (now Lord Bishop of Peterborough's) Latin Treatise on that Subject. As also his Confutation of Mr. Hobb's Principles put into another Method. With the Right Reverend Author's Approbation.  
The Gentleman's journal: Or the Monthly Miscellany. By way of Letter to a Gentleman in the Country, Consisting of News, History, Philosophy, Poetry, Music, Translations, etc. Complete for the Year 1692. Printed for Rich. Parker; and are to be sold by Richard Baldwin, near the Oxford-Arms in Warwick Lane. Where are to be had the Single journals for each Month; or Complete Sets bound.  
The Tragedies of the Last Age, considered and examined by the Practice of the Ancients, and by the Common sense of all Ages; in a Letter to Fleetwood Shepherd, Edq  
A Short View of Tragedy; its Original, Excellency, and Corruption: With some Reflections on Shakespeare and other Practitioners for the Stage. Both by Mr. Rymer, Servant to their Majesties.    

Bibliotheca Politica: OR, A DISCOURSE By Way of DIALOGUE, WHETHER The Commons of England represented by Knights, Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament, were One of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I.  
The Second Part.  
Collected out of the most Approved Authors, both Ancient and Modern.  
Dialogue the Seventh.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, near the Oxford-Arms; where also may be had the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Dialogues. 1693.   

Authors made use of, and how denoted.  

1. Mr. Petut's Ancient Right of the Commons of England Asserted P. R. C.  
2. Dr. Brady's Answer thereunto. Edit. in Folio, B. A. P.  
3. The said Doctor 's Glossary at the end of it. B. G.  
4. Animadversions upon Mr. Atwood's Treatise, Entitled, jani Anglorum faces nova. B. A. I.  
5. Mr. Atwood his Confutatin of the said Doctor, Entitled, Ius. Anglorum ab Antiquo. I. A. A.  
6. Dr. Brady's Preface to his History. B. P. H.  
7. Dr. Iohnston's Excellency of Monarchical Government. I. E. M. G.    

THE Seventh Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian, AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman.  F. 
YOU are welcome Sir, but I did not expect to see you again so soon.  M. 
I beg your pardon if I come unseasonably, but the truth is, I have so great a desire to conclude what we began upon, that important Subject we last discoursed of, that I could not be at ease till I had done my endeavour to give you Satisfaction therein, if it be possible.  
But to come to the matter that we now meet about, I must now tell you again, that tho' this your gloss upon King John's Charter, seems plausible at first sight, nay, is agreeable to the Dr's own way of dividing and reading the several Articles of this Charter; yet upon better consideration, I can see no good reason for making a full, or at least, a half stop in the 16 th' Article, after these words, omnes liberas consuetudines suas; adding the rest that follows, & ad habendum Commune Concilium, etc. to the following Clause, & de seutagiis assidendis, etc. much lest for supposing as you do, without any ground, that there were two sorts of Common Councils, one for Assessing Escuage, and the other for Granting all other Aids and Taxes; and then, if read otherwise, it will plainly appear that it was one and the same Council of the Kingdom that did then both grant Aids to the Crown, and Assess Escuage ratione tenurae, which I am the more inclined to believe from the fourteenth Clause here cited, which says. That no Scutage, or Aids shall be imposed, unless by the common Council of the Kingdom. Now to what purpose is this so-expressed, if there was to be one Council for the granting of Aids, and another for the Assessing of Escuage: So that if this Common Council of the Tenants in Capite might grant Aids, and Assess Escuage upon the Subjects (unless in the case before excepted) I see no reason why they should not be the only Council, for the giving their Assent to Laws also; and consequently of concluding not only their own Tenants, but the King's Tenants in Petty Sergeanty and Socage, nay, the Tenants of any other Persons whatsoever.  
And though I have seriously considered Mr. P's Appendix to the Rights of the Commons asserted, and Dr. b's Answer to it, as also his Animadversions upon jani Anglorum. etc. Yet can I not see any colour of an Argument for making any distinction 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 the same. It would be tedious to me, as well as you, to run over all the particular Authorities and Examples which have been urged pro and con in this Question. But I desire you, or your Friend Mr. P. to show me that there was any Bishops, Earls, Barons, or other Members of Parliament in the times we now treat of, that had any place, or Vote therein, but according to their Tenure, and the ancient Custom of all Feudal Tenants, who by the German▪ Gothic and Lombard Feudal Laws (which in substance were the same with ours) were always summoned to the Court of the King their Supreme Lord.  
But farther to prove that this Council for Assessing Escuage, was no other than the great Council or Parliament of those Tenants in Capite, appears from Li●tleton's tenors, where in his second Book, Sect. 97. he tells us, That after an Expedition Royal into Scotland, Escuage shall be Assessed in Parliament upon all those who failed to do their Service in that Expedition: so that if the Parliament did then Assess Escuage, I desire to know why they might not do it in the Reign of King john? i● this great Council of the Arch bishops, Bishops, great Lords and Tenants in Capite, were not the Common Council of the whole Kingdom in those Times? yet that Escuage was not always Assessed in Parliament after this Charter of King john, but that the King by his own Prerogative did often grant his Tenants in Capite a Power to take Scutage of their Tenants without any Assent in Parliament, 
B. A. P. p. 117.  the Dr. hath given you above a dozen Examples in the Reigns of Hen. III. and King john.  
Thus it was for Aids and Scutage Service, but if it was for Scutage imposed in Parliament as a Tax upon Land by the Common Council of the Nation, than the Tenants in Capite were not only the sole Grantors, but the Collectors of that Scutage too, from their Mesne Tenants: And the Writs to the Sheriff was different from these in Scutage Service, 
Ib. p. 121.  though the same in Substance; as likewise appears by those Records the Dr. hath there given us.  F. 
I doubt not but I shall make good my Assertion, and shall be able to defend what Mr. P. hath in his Learned Treatise asserted concerning this matter. In the first place, I must stick to that way of reading and pointing of this Clause in dispute, since it is not only agreeable to the Dr's Manuscript Copy, but also to the old French Copy, published by Father D'achery in his Spicilegium, vol. 13. which is written in the French of tha● time: but to answer your Objection against this Interpretation, you yourself have in great part helped me to do it, by that true distinction you have now made between a Scutage as an Aid, or Tax, and as a Service, the latter of which you assert might be granted to the King, to be raised by his Tenants in Capite 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 imposed by the Common Council of the Kingdom only, and not by the Tenants in Capite alone, before the Expedition was undertaken. Whereas Scutage Service (considered as a payment of so much Money) was never due or payable, till the Expedition was ended; and then only upon such as had failed to serve in Person, or by sufficient Deputies; and was then to be Assessed by the Tenants in Capite alone.  
And though I grant it may seem to have been a Prerogative as you call it, exercised by some of our Kings, sometimes to grant his Tenants in Capite a Licence to take Scutage of their Tenants, without the Assent of the Great Council of the Kingdom; yet such Payments or Assessments were either according to Law, 
B. A. P. p. 117.  and the express Grant of this Charter itself; as is that Writ of King john to the Sheriff of Glocestershire for the Assessing of an Aid or Scutage Service of three Marks on each Scute upon the Tenants of Saber, Earl of Winchester, for making his Eldest Son a Knight, and which the said Earl, might have claimed of his Tenants by the Common Law, as also by the 20 th' Article of that Charter; but for Scutage Tax Littleton tells us, Lib. 2. Sect. 101. That because such Tenements came at first from the Lords, it is Reason they should have Escuage of their Tenants, and the Lords in such case might destrain for the Escuage so Assessed by Parliament; or in some Cases they may have the King's Writ directed to the Sheriffs of the same County, etc. to L●vy such Escuages for them, as appears by the Register.  
But if either King john, or King Hen. III. granted Writs to levy Escuage upon the under-Tenants of the great Lords, and Tenants in Capite, without their own Consent in Parliament this aught to be no more cited as a Precedent, than any other illegal Acts committed by those Kings; since, as our Records and Histories tell us, it was such illegal Proceedings which were the cause of the Baron's Wars. And it is expressly against the words of this Charter of King john, which you have now quoted, viz. nullum Se●●agium vel Auxilium p●nam in Regno nostro, nisi per Commune Consilium Regni nostri.  
So that notwithstanding all you have yet said, it doth not appear to me, how Scutage, when given as a Tax upon Knights ●ees alone, and to be levied not only from the Tenants in Capite themselves, but their under-Tenants as also from the Tenants of them, who though they held in Capite; yet held not by Knight's Service; such as were the Tenants in Pe●●y Serjeanty, and those who held of the King in Chief, as of several Honours, and not of hi● Crown, as in Capite, could ever charge such Tenants without their Consent given either by themselves, or their lawful Representatives; much less could your Tenants in Capite Tax or Charge such as did not hold in Capite themselves, viz. Those Abbots and Priors who held Lands in Right of their Monasteries in Franc Alm●igne, and who together with their Tenants made at least two third parts of all the Abby-Lands in England; as also Taxed those, who not holding by Knight's Service at all, but by Tenure in Socage, or Fee Farm, did not hold their Lands, as Knights Fees, and therefore could never be Taxed by your Tenants in Capite for so many Knight's Fees, or parts thereof. And Braecton (who lived at this very time) has distinguished to no purpose between those Common Services which all Tenants owe their Lords, and the general Taxes, or Charges imposed by the Common Consent of the whole Kingdom. 
Bract. lib. 2. c. 16. p. 37.  The words are very remarkable, pray read them. Sunt quaedam Commun●s praestationes quae serv●cis non di●u●i●●, nec de consu●tudine ven●um nisi cum necessita● intervenerit, vel cum 
* i e. When the King comes to Parliament.  Rex venorit, sicut sunt Hidagia. Corraag●●, Carvagia, & alia plura de necessitate & ex consensu Communi torius Regni introducta & quae ad Dominum fe●di non pertinent. And therefore I cannot see any Reason why the great Lords, and Tenants in Capite should ever have Power to lay a general Tax upon the whole Kingdom, not the tenth part of which did then hold of them by Knight's Service. So that nothing seems plainer to me, than that there was (us our ancient Historians tell us) a distinct Court, which was held anciently three times every year, viz. at Easter, Whitsuntide and Christmas; and then the King was attended by all the Bishops, great Lords, 
P. R. C. p. 131.  and other Tenants in Capite, and this was called Curis, or Concilium Regis; and if any difference of Right did arise 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 u●ted and done, in relation to the King's Barons, or Tenants in Capite only.  
But under Favour, this was not the Commune Consillum Regni, or Parliament (as we now call it) for the King held this Court ex More; or by Custom, without any Summons, as Simon of Durham, and Florence of Worcester, and divers other Writers of the Lives of our first Norman King's do show us. But when they take notice of the meeting of the Commune Consilium totius Regni, 
p. 680.  their Expressions after, and then they say, that, Rex ascivi, as it is in Ordericus Vitalis. Ex praecepro Regn convenerunt: or as E●●merus— Rex Sanctione sua adunavit. And Mat. Westminster of later times takes notice of this Union, or Meeting of this C●ria, or Assembly of Tenants in Capit, together with the Great Council or Parliament, in his History of Hen. III. Where relating how the King again confirmed the Great Charter in a Parliament, Anno Domini, 1252. being the 37 th' of his Reign, He hath these words, In quindene Paschae (Adunato Magno Parliamento, etc.) So that it seems plain to me, that this uniting of the great or whole Parliament, must be understood the Conjunction of both Councils together; and therefore, when this Council of Tenants in Capite, that thus met ex more took upon them assess Escuage, and transact other matters of consequence, without the consent of the major part of the Tenants in Capite, who often failed to appear at these Courts, or Assemblies held ex more, it was then and not before expressly provided by this Charter of King john, that Escuage should not be assessed for the future, without Summons, or Notice given of it to all the Tenants in Capite, who had right to be there.  M. 
I see you would fain prove that there was a Council or Assembly of great Lords and Tenants in Capite, distinct from the Parliament, and which met ex more, and that these were the Persons who were by this Charter to Assemble for the Assessing of Escuage, which is a mere precarious Hypothesis, nor can you, or those, from whom you borrow this Notion, make it out from any good Authority; for I have already proved, that the Barones Regis & Regni, were the same Persons, and that usually the Barons or Tenants in Capite of what Quality soever, did repair to the King's Court, at Christmas, Easter, 
B. A. P. pag. 113.  and Whitsunday, doth appear to have been the Custom of those times, from the Testimonies of our ancient Historians.  
But to prove by examples, out of the Authors you yourself have made use of, that the Bishops, great Barons, and Tenants in Capite, were then alone the great Council of the Kingdom, 
Fol. 67. N. 20.  pray read Eadmerus speaking thus. Celebratum est Concilium in Ecclesiâ Beati Peiri in occidentali par●e juxta L●n●inum sita Communi Consens●● Episcoporum Abbatum, & Principum totius Regni, & bui● Conventui assuerunt Primates Regni utriu●que ondinis. And at this Meeting were present, the Prime Men of the whole Kingdom of both Orders, in this Council, the Bishops and Barons are called the Principal or Chief Men of the Kingdom, yet these were all the King's Barons, they all held of him in Capite, and so did all the Chief Men of the Kingdom. So likewise in another Meeting under this King Hen. ●, when Archbishop Anselm was to give his Answer to the King, according ●o the Advice of the Bishops, and chief Men of the Kingdom: The same Author tells us of Anselm, 
Fol. 69.  that in Pascha. ad Curiam venit, Communis Concilii vocem unam accepit, etc. Now pray tell me what Common Council was this? Of the Bishops and chief Men of the Kingdom, that Anselm referred himself to? Was it not ex more by Custom? You cannot find in Eadmer any Summons to it, neither Rex as●ivit., nor praecep●o Regis convenerunt, nor Rex sanctione suâ adunavit. In short, not to multiply Examples, look where you will in Eadmerus, or any other of the ancient Historians you have cited; and you will still find, that the Persons who met ex more, and without any Summons, were the same who Assembled by the King's Summons at other times, that is the Principes and Episco●i Regni, or Terrae, or called more generally, Pri●ates utriusque ordinis, or the Barones, or Majores Regni, who did at these great ●easts pro more, go to Court, and hold a solemn Curia, or great Council there; And that these made up the University, or whole Body of the Kingdom; pray see what Matt. Paris says. 
Fol. 658. N. 40.  In die Pentecostes Dominus Rex Anglorum Lo●dini Festum tenens Magnum, & serenissimum, ●unc compositâ per Regni Vniversitatem Eleganti Epistolâ, etc. This was about the Pope's Exactions as hath been before delivered: And Hen. III. in his Letter to the Pope, calls the same Persons Magnates Angliae, which in his Letter to the Cardinals, about the same matter, he calls Magnates Nostri, as you may see in the former Citations of them.  F. 
But pray give me leave to ask you this question, might not our first Norman King's often Summon the Common Council of the Kingdom at one of the said usual Feasts, since it was so much for the conveniency of the Bishops, great Lords and Tenants in Capite (who I grant, were then all Members of the Great Council,) to meet all the rest of the Kingdom, or Representatives of the Commons at the same time: Though the Writers you have quoted may not mention their being Summoned at all. And as for the Writs of Summons, those of much later Parliaments being lost, how can it be expected we should now prove their being Summoned so many Year before?  M. 
I confess it might be so, that upon extraordinary business, 
B.A.P. pag. 115.  and when the occasion was great, and the King desired a great and full appearance, they might also receive an express Summons at those times. But then I must desire you to show us any mention of a Summons to any of these Common Councils, which when called at other times, are most constantly mentioned in this Author. And I desire to know of you what you will say to those words pro more convenit, which is spoken of the most general Councils, when the Community of the Kingdom met at the King's Court? You cannot deny, but that the Tenants in Capite, were the Kings Barones, Milites, Magnates, etc. Upon this we will join issue; And I affirm (without bringing Proofs which are infinite in this Case) that all the Bishops, Earls and Barons of England, did hold their Lands, Earldoms, and Baronies of the Crown, or (which is all one,) of the King, as of his Person, and that was in Capite.  
William the Conqueror, as I said before, divided most of the Lands in England amongst his great followers, to hold of him; he made Earls and Barons, such as he pleased: They and their Descendants held upon the same Terms with the first grantors, which was, to find so many Horse and Arms, and do such and such Services; both Titles and Lands were Forfeitable, for Treason or Felony to the King, did Homage for them, and every Bishop, Earl and Baron of England was in those circumstances, and held of the King after this manner.  
Other Lands were given to other Persons for meaner Services; as to his woodward's, forester's, Huntsmen, Falconers, Cooks, Chamberlains, Gouldsinlibs, Bailiffs of Manors, in his own hands, and many other Officers, which in Doomsday-Book, are called, Terrae Thanorum Regis, and sometimes servientium Regis; And I doubt not, whatever the Notion of Petyt Sergeanty now is, but that originally, this holding of Lands was the true Tenure; not but presenting the Lord with a Bow, an Arrow, a pair of Spurs every Year, etc. might also be called Petyt Serjeanty, though not so properly as the other.  F. 
Not to multiply words to no purpose, I think your Reply is far from being Satisfactory; for in the first place, it is very unreasonable to demand, that we should now show the express Summons to these common Councils which were not held the more; since you know that all ancient Records of that kind are destroyed and lost; for if we could produce them at this day, the difference between us, and those of your Opinion, would quickly be at an end, as appears by those great Councils, which are said expressly, by the Historians I have cited, to have been summoned, and yet no such Writs of Summons are to be found; nor is it any good Argument, that because our ancient Historians mention no distinct Summons to the great Councils, when met at the usual times of the meeting of the Tenants in Capite, that therefore there were none such, since we find they often pass by much more material Matters than this.  
And though I grant that the Tenants in Capite were then part of the great Council of the Barones, Milites & Magnates Regni; yet does it not follow for all this, that none but the King's Barons, and Tenants in Capite were Members of this great Council, since there might be in those times other Barons, or great Freeholders, who (though they held their Lands of the Tenants in Capite, yet) might be there as Knights of Shires, or else appear in Person at those Assemblies as well as the other; and besides, there were others, who, though they did not hold of the King in Capite, but of some great Honour or Castle, or else of some Abbot or Prior; yet were Men of very great Estates, and very numerous, all which must otherwise have had their Estates taxed, and Laws made for them, without, nay, against, the consent of themselves, or any to represent them: Nor is your Assertion at all true, That William the Conqueror divided most of the Lands in England to be held of him in Capite. For besides those Servants and Officers you last mentioned, above two third parts of the Lands of the Abbeys and Priories in England were not held, as also much other Lands in Kent, and other Countries, per Baroniam, or Knight's Service, but in libera Elecmosina only, or Socage, as I have already proved; and consequently neither they nor their Tenants could, according to your Hypothesis, have any Representatives in Parliament.  
And farther, you yourself grant, that those Lands you mention which were given out by your Conqueror, to his woodward's, forester's, etc. did not capacitate them to appear in Parliament, since their Tenure was only by Petyt Serjeanty, and not by Knight's Service: Nor could they become the King's Tenants in ancient Demesne, because such Tenants held wholly by Socage Tenure; whereas it appears plainly by Littleton, that Tenants in Petyt Serjeanty were subject to Wardship, Marriage and Relief: So that whoever will but consider, that near half the Lands in England were held by Bishops, Abbots, Priors, etc. and of whom not a third part held by Knight's Service of the Crown; and will then likewise consider what a vast number of Tenants those Abbots, Priors, Deans and Chapters (who were not Tenants in Capite at all) must have had; and who either held Estates in Fee, or else for Life, under them in Socage, as well as by Knight's Service; as also all the other sorts of Tenors I have already mentioned, which either held of the King as of some Honour or Castle, or else of other Mesne Lords by other Tenors than Knight's Service, must certainly conclude, that not above one half of the Lands of the whole Kingdom was held either immediately of the King, or else of other Mesne Lords by that Tenure: So that if all these Persons which were far the greater Number of the Freeholders' in England, should have been thus excluded from having any thing to do in our Great Councils, I doubt not but we should have found sufficient Clamour in our Histories against so unjust a Constitution; and when the whole Body of the Kingdom was in Arms against King john at Running-Mead, they would likewise have inserted a Clause for themselves, if they had not had their Suffrages there before, either by themselves in their own Persons, or by their lawful Representatives. And therefore upon the whole matter, I durst leave it to the Consideration of any unprejudiced Man, whether it is not much more probable, that the Constitution of Knights of Shires, Citizens and Burgesses appearing in Parliament, should be much more ancient than the time you assign, than that so small a Body of Men as the Bishops, Lords and Tenants in Capite should represent all the Freeholders and People of England, who never held of them by Knight's Service at all. Nor have you yet answered the Quotation I have brought out of Bracton in my last Discourse to the contrary. And whoever will but consult that Author in his Chapter of Tenors, will find, that the Tenants in Capite were so far from having a Power of charging all the Mesne Tenants at their Pleasure, that in his Chapter de Tenuris, it appears, that a Mesne Tenant in Capite having purchased an Estate for a valuable Consideration, was liable to no other Services and Conditions, than what his Tenure expressed; which once performed, the Lord had no more to say to him: and if so be he laid any further Burdens upon him, he might have had a Writ of acquital out of the King's Court against him directed to the Sheriffs; several Forms of which you may see in Glanville, and in the old Register.  M. 
We are not to rest upon mere Probabilities, for some things that now appear to us unreasonable at this instant of time, might then be very just; for if the Feudatary Tenants of the Bishops, Barons and other Tenants in Capite were well enough contented with the Constitution of the Kingdom, as it then was; and that it plainly appears by matter of fact, that there was but one Common Council for the whole Kingdom; and that of the Bishops, Abbots, Great Lords and less Tenants in Capite only, it is in vain to argue of any unreasonableness in, or Inconveniencies that might arise from, such a Constitution, though perhaps a great part of the Kingdom did not hold in Capite, nor yet by Knight's Service; and therefore though the Feudatary Tenants of the Tenants in Capite, were upon the performance of their Services acquitted of all other Charges; yet this was still to be understood only of such ordinary Services as those Tenants were to perform by virtue of their Tenors, such as was Scutage Service, or the attending upon their Lords when they went out to War along with the King; but did not extend to such Scutages as were granted in Parliament, or as a Tax upon Land by the common consent of the Nation; for then the Tenants in Capite were not only the Grantors, but the Collectors too, of such Scutage Tax, from their Military Tenants; and the Writs to the Sheriffs were different from those for Scutage Service; and for proof of this, I desire you would peru●e that Writ which the Dr. Quotes of the 19th of Hen. III. which is still to be seen in the close Roll of that Year. 
Cl. 19 H. 3. m. 8. dorso.  Rex Vice Comiti Sussex salutem. Scias quod Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Abbates, Pri●re●, Comites, Barones & omnes alii de Regno nostro Angliae, qui de nobis tenent in Capite, spontanea volu●●●te su●, & sine Con●uetudine, concesserunt nobis Efficax Auxilium ad magna Negotia nostra Expedienda, unde provisum 〈◊〉 de Consil●o illorum, quod habeamus de feodis Militum & Wardis, quae de nobis Tenent in Gapite du●s Marcas ad predictum Auxilium faciendum, & unde provi●erint reddere nobis unam medietatem ante Festum sancti Mic●aelis, Anno Regni 19 & aliam Medictatem ad Pasche, Anno Regni ●osir●, 20. Ideo tibi precipimus quod 
* This Mandate was not given him as Chancellor, but as a Tenant in Capite.  ad Mandatum venerabilis Patris R. Cicestren. Episcopi Cancellarii nostri, sine dilatione Distringas omnes Milites & liberos Tenentes, qui de eo Tenent per Servitium Militare in Balliva tua, ad redlendum ei de singulis feotis militum, & Wardis duas Marcas, ad predictum Auxilium nobis per manum suam Reddendum in Terminis predictis.  
Sic scribitur pro aliis Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus & Magnatibus.  
Now I desire 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 Clause of King John's Charter, I have now cited: Wherein it is first especially provided, that no Aid, or Scutage shall be imposed upon the Kingdom, unless by the Common Council thereof; and yet you see by this Writ, that the Archbishops, etc. with the Barons there mentioned, together with the other Tenants in Capite alone, granted an Aid or Scutage Tax of two Marks for every Knight's Fee which they held of the King; and that by virtue thereof not only those Knight's Fees they held in their hands, but also all those Subseudatary Tenants called here Freeholders, who held of them by Knight's Service, were likewise charged for every Knight's Fee, so held, the like Sum of two Marks. Now I think nothing can be more plain from this Record, than that this was a Common Council of the whole Kingdom, and yet consisted of Tenants in Capite only; and therefore I desire you to show me some better Proofs than you yet have done, that these Tenants in Capite ever made a distinct Council different, from the Common Council of the whole Kingdom.  F. 
I grant this seems at first sight to be a good Authority for you; but I doubt not for all that, to prove, that it makes wholly against you; and will, together with those Proofs I shall urge, make out this difference between the two sorts of Councils, I have already asserted; and therefore I must tell you, that there is no necessity of understanding the words de Consilio illorum (mentioned in this Record) to refer to the Common Council of the whole Kingdom, It not being here said to be granted per Commune Concilium Regni, and then there can no more be proved from this Record, than that a Common Council of the Tenants in Capite, took upon themselves an unusual Power, sine consuetudine as the Writ here mentions in those times, to charge not only themselves, but their Under-tenants also, and that even this was an encroachment appears by the Statute, De ●●lagio non con●edendo, made 25th. of Ed. 1. whereby it is expressly forbid that any Talliage or subsidy should be laid upon the Kingdom sine volun●a●e & ●ssen●● Archiepiscorum, Episcoporum, Comitum, Baronum, Militum, Burgensium & aliorum liberorum hominum de Regno nostro. Now pray read my Lord Cooks Reason in his 2d. 
Pag. 532.  Inst. why this Statute was made, The 2d. 'Cause (says he) was that the King the Year before, had taken a Talliage of all Cities and Burroughs, without assent of Parliament, whereupon arose a great Murmuring and discontent among the Commons, for pacifying which discord between the King and his Nobles, and for the quieting of the Commons, and for a perpetual and constant Law for ever after, both in this and other-like Cases, this Act was made, etc. being no other (than as the same Author tells us in the Conclusion of this comment on this Statute;) then a restitution general to the Subjects of all their Laws, Liberties, and free Customs as freely and wholly as at any time before, in better and fuller manner than they used to have the same. But yet, that this was no general Scutage or Tax upon the whole Kingdom, but only upon the Tenants in Capite, and their Tenants by Knight's service, appears by the Writ itself. So that not only all the Persons I have already mentioned, who being Tenants to Monasteries and Priories, did not hold by Knight's service, and all Tenants in Petys' Sergeanty, and all Cities and Burroughs, who did not hold in Capite (who if they had not then Representatives in the great Council, were wholly Free from this Tax) and not only these, but all Tenants in Fee Socage, whether holding of the King, or of other Mesne Lords were wholly exempt from this Scutage▪ So that nothing seems plainer to me, than that this Assembly that gave the King this Tax for themselves and their Tenants, was a Common Council only of Tenants in Capite, charging themselves and their Tenants only, and not the whole Kingdom; and that done in a Case of great necessity, sine consuetudine: For if it had included all the rest of the Kingdom, there would certainly have been some mention made, how all the rest of the Kingdom (which did not hold by Knight's service) should be Taxed.  
And that this was a Council consisting of the Tenants in Capite only may appear by a Record of the 42d. of this King, which I pray read. Rex Bar. etc. Quia per Commune Concilium Com. Baronum & aliorum Magnatum nobiscum in Walliâ nuper existentium provisum est; 
Inter Communia de Term. Sancti. Mich. Anno. 42. H. 3. Rot. 4. the Scut. Levand.  quod nos & ipsi qui servitium nobis fecerunt, ibidem habeamus Scutagium nostrum, viz. De Scuto 40 Sol. pro Exercitu nostro Wall. Anno Regni 41. Vobis mandamus quod de omnibus feodis Militum quae tenentur de Nobis in Capite vel de Wardia in manu nostra existentibus (exceptis Feod. illorum qui brevia nostra habuerunt de Scutag. suo babendo) l●vari fac. Scutag. nostrum. From which Record, 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 Welsh Expedition, and concerned none else but such Tenants by Knight's Service and their Tenants who had failed to do their Service; and is just such a Tax as is expressly reserved by the last Clause of King John's Charter, which you have before cited: whereby Scutage is to be assessed by all the Tenants in Capite.  
And that not only the Spiritual and Temporal Barons, and Tenants in Capite did thus meet, and hold distinct Councils, or Assemblies for the granting of Scutage, but also that the Spiritual Barons and Tenants in Capite, did also sometimes hold separate Assemblies, appears by the Patent Roll of the 15. of this King, thus. Cum peteremus à Praelatis Angliae quod nobis Auxilium facerent, 
Rot. Pat. 15. H. 3. N. 3.  pro Magnâ necessitate nostrâ de quâ cis conflabat, viz. Epis. Abbatibus, Abbatissis, Prioribus & Priorissi qui de nobis Tenent in Capite ipsi Nobis liberaliter concesserunt Auxilium tale, viz. De singulis Feodis Militum suorum 40●. de tos Feodis, de quot ipsi tenentur nobis respondere quando nobis faciunt Servitium Militare. Where you see not only the Bishops, and Abbots, but the Abbesses, and Prioresses granted a Scutage of 40 ●. upon every Knight's Fee (not which was held of them) but for which they were answerable to the King before, and though I do not suppose that these Women left their Nunneries, and appeared in Person at such Meetings, yet they might very well do it, by their Oeconomy or Stewards, as their Lawful Proxies for Assemblies of that Nature.  
But when a general Tax or Subsidy was granted by the whole Kingdom, the Style of these Councils runs much otherwise, as appears by the Close Roll, of the 4th. of this King, where it is recited in the Record; that, Omnes Mag●ates, & Fideles totius Regni nostri, granted de qualibet carucatâ duos solidas. 
Rot. Claus. 4. H. 3. M. 5.  Now it hence appears that this was a grant of Caruage, which not being a Scutage service, nor yet a Tax by way of Scutage: and was therefore to be granted by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom, assessed, not only upon Tenants in Capite and their Feudatory Tenants, but upon each Ploughland of the whole Kingdom, must have been granted (as I have already proved out of Bracton, speaking of this Caruage,) de consensu & Communi consilio totiut Regni; for otherwise these Tenants in Capite could never have charged all the Lands of England; of which, not half was held by Knight's service. And to make it yet plainer by other Records, pray see another of the 16th. of this King, in these words. Rex Vicecomiti Devon. salutem sciatis quod Archiepiscopi Episc. Abbates, 
Rot. Claus. 16. Hen. 3. M. 2. Dorso.  Priores & Clerici t●ras habent●s, quae ad Ecclesias suas non pertinent, Comites, Barones, Milites, Liberi homines, & Villani de Regno Nostro, concesserunt nobis in auxilium quadragessmam pariem omnium m●bilium suorum: So that it is plain here who made the Commune Concilium Regni, and gave this aid of a 40th. part of their Goods, viz. The Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Inferior Landed Clergymen, the Earls, Barons, Knights, Freemen, etc. it being a Subsidy granted upon Goods, and not laid upon Land, and that it may fully express all the Parties to the Grant, the Record tells us, there were also the Villani, the Inhabitants of every Village or Burrough Town. And to let you see that our Ancient Manuscript Chronicles of this Age, give the same sense to the expressions of this Record, and that in the same Terms. Pray Read this Quotation which a Friend of mine took out of an Ancient Manuscript, called, Chronica Monasterii de Hageny, 
Sub Essigie Vespasiani B. 11. fol. 20.  in the Cottonian ● Library, as Ancient as the times are we are now treating on: the words are these, Anno 17. Henrici Regis 4 ti. where note that the year is mistaken for 16. but the King is the same:) Henry the Third being often in that Age called the Fourth, in respect to King Henry, Son to Henry the Second, Idem Rex accepit ab Archiepis. Epis. Abbatibus, Prioribus, Clerici● terras habentibus, quae ad Eccles. sua non pertinent, & ab Comitibus, Baronibus, Militibus, Liberis hominibus, & villanis de Regno Angliae in Auxilium quadragesimam partem omnium mobilium suorum. And to let you see that this Author makes a plain distinction between the Tenants in Capite and the rest of the Kingdom, pray observe what immediately follows in the same place [ut] Anno. viz. 8vo. A quo communi Assensu, & voluntate Magnatum suorum, quam aliorum laicorum totius Regni quintam decimam Catalorum suorum universaliter accepit. Where note by accepit is still to be understood he received it, after the People's grant of it, as before in the Record of the 16. and that by Magnatum suorum is meant the great Lords and Tenants in Capite; and by aliorum Laicorum (put here as distinct from them) all other Orders or Degrees of men. Now pray, how could these Taxes upon the Goods of the whole Kingdom have ever been given, but by the general Representatives thereof (since all could not be there in Person) unless you can show me, that men in those days, held their Goods and Chatels by Tenure in Capite.  M. 
I think you and I may so far agree, that this Council I instanced in, consisted of Tenants in Capite only, and likewise that they imposed 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 Kingdom, or might not have Taxed all others, though they were not their immediate Tenants as well as they did those that were: And therefore I am not convinced, but that these Persons mentioned in the Records you have cited (which you grant constituted a Common Council of the Kingdom) were no other, than the same Tenants in Capite already mentioned, for as for the Fideles mentioned in the Record of 4 th'. Hen. 3. I think the Dr. hath very well proved, both in his answer to Mr. P. as also in his Glossary, that they were no other than the King's Tenants in Capite, and for this, pray consider the Authorities he there gives us. For though I agree with you, that the word Fideles doth sometimes signify generally, all those who are under the Power or Subjection of their Prince; 
B. G. pag. 45. Hottoman in verbis Feud. Col. 924. D.  Yet Hottoman also tells us, That, Fideles interdum specialiter dicuntur iidem qui Vassalli▪ Qui Feudo accepto in Patroni Fide, & Clientel● sunt, vicissimque suam ei certi obsequii nomine Fidem astrinxerunt, and in this sense, I suppose, this word is to be taken in most of our Histories and Records. I shall therefore give you one which will sufficiently clear the true signification, 
Speaking of Prince William Son to Henry the 1ft. f. 90. A. N. 30.  not only of the word Fideles, but of Liberi Homines too. It is in William Malm●bury in these words, Willi●mo Filio suo Cum vix 12. Annorum esset omnes Liberi Homines, etc. Cujuscunque ordinis, & Dignitatis, cujuscunque Domini Fideles, Manibus & Sacramento se dedere coacti sunt. By which you may see that by the words Liberi Homines & 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 see here ●hose that the Dr. hath given us in the same place. 
Pat. 15. johan P. 2. M. 2. N. 9  The first is that of the Patent Rolls of the 15. of King john. Rex Baronibus, Militibus & omnibus Fidelibus totius Angliae, Salutem. They were to hear what the Bishop of Winchester was to say to them about the Releasing the Interdict; 
B. G. 45. B. A. P. p. 67, 68  and that these Milites and Fideles were only the King's Tenants in Capite, is clear from the latter part of this Record: Vnicuique vestrum si fieri potest Literas nostras super hoc transmissemus, sed Negotium majori Festi●atione, etc. Teste Meipso apud Rupel. etc.  
The King had writ to them all particularly, but that the business required greater haste. It seems before the granting of Magna Charta, this King sent special Summons, and particular Letters to his Barons, and other Tenants in Capite, to meet upon any occasion. So likewise in these Writs there mentioned to the Tenants in Capite of several Counties, 
B. G. p. 45. Cl. 42. H. 3. m. 10. dorso.  as they are found in the close Roll there cited. Rex omnibus Comitibus, Baronibus, Militibus & aliis fidelibus sui● de Com. Ebor. Northumbr. Cumbr. etc. Vobis mandamus quod Prompti sitis, & Par●ti cum Equis & Armis, etc. These were the Feudataries and Tenants in Military Service.  
But to speak somewhat of the Clerici Terras habentes, etc. as also of the Liberi Homines & Villani, mentioned in the Record of 16 Hen. 3. you have now cited. 1. I cannot allow your Version of those words Clerici Terras habentes, 
B. A. P. p. 220, 221.  qua ad Ecclesias suas non pertinent, by Inferior Landed Clergymen, since 'tis more than you can make out; for I take them to be such Clerks, as had Manors and Free, or Military Fees belonging to their Benefices, and that 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 Mat. Paris, fol. 377. informs us better who they were that gave this Tax, when he speaks concerning this very Council— ad Coloquium coram Rege convenerunt Episcopi, & aliarum Ecclesiarum Praelati, cum Proceribus Regni concessa est Regi quadragesima pars honorum.  
Now what the Liberi Homines were in this Record, you have cited, we may easily guests from the other Records I have made use of in 19 Hen. 3. viz. such of those, Omnes alii qui de nobis Tenent in Capite, which were not Milites in a strict sense, or had not received the Order of Knighthood. And I shall make out this sense of the words, as also of the true meaning of these Villani by another Record, 
Rot. Pat. m. 7. dors.  dated but two years after this of yours. viz. 21 Hen. 3. Rex Vic. Kant. Salut. Sci●s, cum octavis Sancti Hillarii, etc. ad mandatum nostrum convenirent apud Westm' Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Abbates, Priores, Comites & Barones totius Regni nostri ut tractatum haberent nobiscum de statu nostro, & Regni nostri, iidem Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Abbates, Priores & Clerici Terras habentes, quae ad Ecclesias non pertinent, Comites, Barones, Milites & Liberi Homines pro se & suis Villanis nobis concesserunt in Auxilium Tricessimam partem honorum.  
From this Record we may observe, 1. That the King's Writ was only issued to the Archbishops, 
B. A. I. 221.  Bishops, etc. Earls, Barons of the whole Kingdom. 2. That in the recital of this Tax, the Sheriff is told, first, that the Archbishops, Bishops, etc. and the Clergy which had Land not belonging to their Churches (a certain sign that they granted by themselves, and out of nothing else, but that) and then that the Earls, Barons, Knights and Free men for themselves, and their Villains granted a thirtieth part of their moveables.  
And from this Record it is also manifest, these Liberi Homines had Villanos (if not Bondmen) Villagars or Rustics, Colonos, or Husbandmen at least; of whose Estates by public Assent, and for the public benefit, they might in part dispose of; which Liberi Homines according to the Tenor of all our Records and Histories were Tenants in Capite; and that the Villani mentioned in the other Record of 16. Hen. 3. to have given a fortieth part of their Movables, did grant by their Lords; that is, their Lords Paramount, that were Tenants in Capite, did grant for them, though 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 them by public Taxes, hath been shown from divers Records: So that it was frequent in those times to say, such, and such, concesserunt, granted such a Tax, that is, by those who had Power and Authority to do it for them; and without their consent too, when those for whom they granted were not capable of being Members of Parliament themselves. I could give you more Examples of the like Nature, but I will not tyre you.  F. 
I pray Sir give me leave to answer this long speech, and to begin with your Interpretation of this word Fideles, First then, we are so far agreed, that the word Fideles had two, or three, different Significations. First, it signified all the Subjects in general; in the next place, all Vassals, or Feudatary Tenants whatever, whether of the King, or any other Lord, as appears by the Passage you have cited out of William of Malmsbury, as also divers ancient Charters, particularly those of King William I. and Maud the Empress, and King Stephen, which are divers of them directed, Fidelibus suis, Francis & Angl●, which cannot mean Tenants in Capite; since the Doctor and yourself will scarce allow any English Men to have then held Lands in Capite of the Crown. Lastly, I grant this word Fideles may sometimes signify the Tenants in Capite of the King; all which being so, I think you cannot deny, that it is not the bare word, but the sense it bears in the Places where it is used, that must direct us to its true Signification, and that the fideles there mentioned to have granted Caruage in the 4 th' of Hen. 3. could not be the King's Tenants in Capite only, I have given you a sufficient reason which you do not think fit to answer, viz. That Caruage was a general Tax imposed upon all the Lands of the Kingdom, as well what was held by Knight's Service, as what was not; and how your Tenants in Capite could Tax those Lands which were never held by Knight's Service, I desire you would resolve me. And therefore by the Fideles here mentioned in this, and many other Records, are not to be understood the Tenants in Capite only, but all other Subjects who did Fealty; who, though they could not all appear in Person in our great Councils or Parliaments, yet were there by their Representatives the great Freeholders, Lords of Manors, or else by the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses.  
But I must now make some Remarks, upon your Interpretation of ●he Writs of the 16 th' and 21 th' of Hen. 3. wherein you have certainly very much mistaken the sense of all the main Words. For in the first place, as for the Clerici terras habentes non ad Ecclesias pertinentes, which you interpret to have been Clerks having Manors, and Military Fees not belonging to their benefices, but held of the King in Capite, seems to be altogether forced. For whoever heard of Clerks (that is inferior Clergy Men) Parsons, or Vicars of Churches, who held Benefices of the King in Capite, and not in Franc Almoigne? or if they had any such, that therefore those Lands so held should be called, Lands not belonging to their Churches; for at this rate the Lands of Bishops, all Abbots, Priors, etc. which held of the King in Capite, would have been in your sense, Lands not belonging to the Church; but who but you and your Doctor ever gave such an unreasonable Comment on those words?  
Nor will that Passage you cite out of Mat. Paris, at all favour your Interpretation; for either these Bishops and Prelates there mentioned, gave this sortieth part of their Movables in Parliament, with the rest of the Kingdom, or else as Clergy men in Convocation: If the former, than these Clerici could have no Votes there in Person; for I believe it would puzzle you to prove, that at this time any Ecclesiastical Person below the degree of an Abbot or Prior, had any place in Parliament, by reason of his Tenure by Knight's Service in Capite, for those Lands he held in Right of his Church; but if you'll have this Tax to be granted by the whole Clergy in Convocation, than such Clerks as you mention could not be there in Person: First, because they are said to be such as had Lands, qu●e ad Ecclesias suas non pertinent, and so could not have any place there as Clergymen; nor could they be included under the Praelati, since that word takes in none beneath the degree of a Dean. And therefore if these Clerks gave any thing in Parliament, they must do it by their lawful Representatives, the Knights of Shires; or if in Convocation, by their Clerks of the lower House, then called Procuratores Cleri: So that take it which way you will, those Clerks could not be present themselves at these Parliaments, when those Taxes of the 30th and 40th part of their Movables were given to the King; and therefore either as Laymen or Clergymen, must be Taxed by their Representatives; but in deed the words Proceree Regni, which immediately come after Episcopi & Pralati in Matth. Paris, sufficiently shows this grant was made in Parliament, that the word Proceres often includes, not only the Knights of Shires, but Citizens and Burgesses too, I have already proved, when I spoke of the various significations of that word. Nor is your Interpretation of Liberi homines, for Tenants in Capite, who Taxed their Villani, any other than a mere wresting of these words; for, if they were only those who gave for themselves and their Villains, whom you suppose were either their Bondmen, or else their Rustics or Husbandmen, it is absolutely contrary both to Law and Reason; for whoever heard that Villains or Bondmen, who had no property either in Lands or Goods, ever paid Taxes? And if you suppose that these Villani were only the Rustic Tenants in Socage by Villain Service of the Tenants in Capite, than it is plain, that all the Military or Feudatory Tenants of the Tenants in Capite, and all Tenants in Free Socage by certain Rent, were exempt from both these Taxes, since they are not so much as once mentioned in these Writs, neither can be comprehended under these Villani, as yourself must acknowledge: For if these Villani were mere Rustics, pray tell me what reason there was to put them check by Jowl with their Lords, as they are in the Record of the 16th of Hen. 3. as if they had given by themselves as well as the rest of the Freemen of the Kingdom: Or what reason is there why the Lords (as the words are in your Record) gave pro se & suis Villanis, if the Liberi homines there mentioned, had not represented them; which could never have been said with any sense, had they been only so many Freemen, or Masters over their Slaves: where, as it here appears, every one of these orders or degrees of Men here mentioned, had an equal independent Power to give for themselves, and not one for another: or else this word may be meant in a larger sense, as in the Record of the 16th of Hen. 3. where they are put in the Nominative Case (as equal to the rest of the Orders of men there recited) and so could not be Husbandmen, or mere Villagers, but the Inhabitants pof Cities and Burroughs, and which sense Sir Henry spelman allows in his glossary; Villanus est qui i● Villa habitas ut Vrbanus ab Vrbe, etc. Villa autem propria ●●●at Viculum Rusticanum▪ sed a ●e more Gallici idiomatis eraducitur ad insignia oppidu, & ad ipsas urbes: but take it in what sense you please, it is plain, it could never here mean mere Villagers; nor could all your Liberi homines ●e only Tenants in Capite; for then the Record would have concluded thus; & Liberi homines, qui de nobis tenent in Capite; as it is in the Record you have cited of the 10th of Hen. 3. to the Sheriff of suffex, and may be found in many other Records, which respect only Tenants in Capite: And for further proof of this sense of the word Villanus, we need go no farther than these very Records themselves, of the 16th and 21th of Hen. 3. which you and I have now made use of; in both which Writs there are certain Persons appointed to Assess and Collect the Aids in every County, and who, by Virtue of these Writs, did cause to be Elected four of the best and most lawful Men, de singulis Villis of each hundred in the Counties there mentioned; and then the Villani will signify in these Writs, not Villains or mere Rustics who were not then reckoned inter L●galea homines. And though 'tis true you have brought some Precedents to prove, that the Tenants in Capite gave Taxes for their Feudatary Tenants; yet that was only where the Tax was raised upon Knights Fees alone, and not upon all the ●ands of the Kingdom in general, much less upon Goods and Chattels; so that either the Liberi Homines mentioned in these Records, must mean all the Freemen of England, who by their Representatives gave these Taxes of a 40th or 30th pa●t for themselves, and all such of their Tenants, who held Estates of Copyhold Leases, for Years, or at Will, or had Estates in Stock, Money, or other Chattels; nor otherwise could these Taxes ever have been general, not charged upon movable goods of the whole Kingdom.  
I have but one thing more to remark upon your Observations of this Writ, which is, that whereas you take notice that the King's Summons was directed to none of the Laity but the Earls and Barons of the Kingdom; and if so I desire you to prove to me, that your less Tenants in Capite were at all present at those Parliaments; for you have already granted that they were no Barons, and consequently could not be included under that Title; so that if these Liberi Homines who granted this Tax for themselves, and their Tenants, were not only Tenants in Capite, but their under Tenants also by Military Service; (as the Doctor himself grants in his Answer to Argumentum Antinormannicum.) p. 25. as also in his Glossary, p. 51. therefore unless you can prove that your Liberi homines were all Tenants in Capite, you will never make out that none but they, and the less Tenants in Capite had a right under that Title, to appear at our great Councils or Parliaments; and to grant Aids, and join in the making of Laws for themselves, and the rest of he Nation, before the times you allow. To conclude, unless you can also prove that there was a Tenure in Capite of Goods and Chattels, as well as of Lands, it will appear by these Aids granted in Parliament of Personal Estates, that all Freemen or Freeholders were alike Free, and consequently had the same right to appear in Parliament, either by themselves, or their Representatives.  M. 
But pray make out if you can, by some more evident Proofs, that any others besides Tenants in Capite, were admitted into our great Councils; and that these Liberi Homines were not Tenants in Capite.  F. 
I think I need go no further than the first words of the Agreement between King john and the Barons which is still extant on the close Rolls of the 17th of this King, (m. 2. dorso.) beginning thus, Has est conven●io inter Dominum johannem Regem Angliae ex una parte, & Robertum Filii Walteri, Marescalli exerci●us Dei, & sanctae Ecclesia Angliae, & Ric●. Comi●em d● Clare, etc. and here follow the Names of divers of the rest of the Earls and Barons, & allos Comites & Barones, & Liboros Homines totius Angli●e; so that it is clear, this Charter was granted in a great Council of the whole Nation, in which were assembled not only the Bishops, Earls and Barons, with all your less Tenants in Capite, but also all the Clergy, as well the Inferior as Superior, and all the Freemen or considerable Freeholders of the whole Kingdom; or, as Mr. Selden words it in his Titles of Honour, fol. 586, 587. it was made by the King and his Barons, and the Freemen of the Kingdom; which Assembly Matt. Paris expresses more succinctly by these words, tota Nobilitus Angliae in unum collecta, quasi sub numero non cadebit; so that nothing can be plainer than that many other, besides your Tenants in Capite, appeared at this great Council.  M. 
In the first place, before I answer the main of your Argument, give me leave to tell you, That I cannot allow this Assembly at Run 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 I suppose you will not assert that any Representatives had Votes therein; nor can you show me that any Knights, Citizens or Burgesses were summoned to it.  F. 
I grant indeed that that Assembly was not properly a Parliament, I mean such as we have at this day, as not being called by the King's Writs; yet since almost all the Bishops, Earls, Barons, Tenants in Capite, and all the rest of the Kingdom, were then in Arms, it may very well be reckoned a Common Council or Solemn Convention of all the Freemen of the whole Nation, and that after the most ancient manner; since all, or the greatest part of the Freeholders of the Kingdom were there present in Parliament; and that this Council is looked upon as a Parliament in the Eye of the Law, appears by a Writ to the Sheriff of Northamptonshire, which is found in the close Rolls in the 28th of Hen. 3. 
Cl. 28. H. 3. M. 12. dorso.  to this Effect, That he should not permit any one in his Bailiwick to use any Liberties belonging to the Crown, unless they had formerly been used ad Tempus Parliamenti de Run Mead; quod fuit inter Dominum Johannem Regem Patrem nostrum▪ & Barones suos Angliae.  M. 
I see that you are forced to confess, that this Assembly was no Parliament in the sense we now take that word, nor indeed could be any more than a Rebellious Rout there met, whether the King would or no; and therefore the word Parliament is not to be understood in this Record, in the sense we now take it, since that word came not in use here (instead of Magnum Concilium, 
B. A. P. p. 71.  & Commune Concilium & Colloquium a conference) until about the middle of Henry III. Reige, and doth no more point out the constituent Members of it, than that word did at that time: And so the meaning of the word Parliamentum is to be taken in this Record.  F. 
I think I have very good reason, notwithstanding what you have now said to affirm, that this was a great Council or Parliament according to the Mode of those times; And though I grant it was not called by the King's Writs, since it is certain he avoided calling any, because he utterly refused to grant this Charter at all, yet that is not material, since they, being a general and full Assembly, or Convention of all the Estates of the whole Nation, had a just right to meet and vindicate their Liberties then outrageously oppressed, and trodden under foot by the King; and the King himself owned them as a lawful Assembly, 
Vi. Matt. Pa●is  by sending to them, and appointing them to meet in Run Mead between Staines, and Windsor on the 15 th'. of june, which our Historians tell us, they joyfully obeyed, so that he himself admitted them to be a lawful Assembly of Estates, and consequently for his Parliament as appears by the agreement now cited.  M. 
I shall not much trouble myself, 
B.A.G. p. 159.  whither this was properly the great Council or not: But however, I cannot see how Mr. Selden could make out, that this Charter was made by, or to all the Freemen of England; for it seems to me that there was not the least ground for it. For if under the words Liberi Homines, all the Freemen, or Free-Tenants of what condition soever, were comprehended; yet her is nothing in this Record that any way proves that they had any hand in making this Charter, but the Liberi Homines, here were only those whom the King calls Liberi Homines Nostri in his Charter, and immediately grants them several Relaxations of their rigid Feudal Tenors, by which 'tis apparent, these Liberi Homines were the Tenants in Capite, and yet neither was the Charter made by them, as is before intimated; Tho I confess these were the Freemen which made such a Cry for their Liberties (most of which were but an Abatement of the Rigour, 
B. G. pag. 51.  and a Relaxation of the Feudal Tenors, as appears by the Charter itself) the rest were only Followers, and helped to augment the Noise, they were no Lawmakers as you imagine; for 'tis not probable, that those Men that had the force of the Nation in their hands, would permit Men of so small Reputation to share with them in Law-making: Those that had the Power of this, and other Nations de Facto, always did give Laws and Tax the People.  F. 
Supposing this, (as I have already proved it,) to be a Lawful Common Council, or Parliament of the whole Kingdom, I think I may still affirm that this Charter was made, not only by the King, but by the Bishops, Earls, Barons, and all the Freemen of the Kingdom, who certainly gave their Assent to it by drawing it up into Form, and by accepting it from the King, when past under his Seal, as truly as the Magna Charta's of King Hen. III. and Edw. I. are called Statutes for the same reason, as I have already proved to you, or as much as the Petition of Right granted by King Charles I. was a Statute, though past under no other Form.  
Nor were the Liberi Homines totius Regni to whom King john granted this Charter, no other than the Tenants in Capite as you suppose since in the time of Henry II. this King's Father, the word Liberi Homo was taken in a much larger sense, as appears by the Assize of Arms, ordained by this King (as it is recited in Hoveden's History) where after it is appointed, what Corcelets, Helmets and other Arms, every Tenant in Capite should find, it immediately follows thus; Quicuncque liber Laicus habuerit in Catallo vel in redditu ad Valentiam 16. Marcarum habeat Loricam, & Cassidem & Clypeum & Lanceam; Quicunque Liber Laicus habuerit in Catello ad Valentiam 10. Marcarum habeas Habergellum, & Capelet Ferri, & Lanceam: & omnes Burgenses, & tota Communia liberorum hominum habeant Wambais, & Capelet fervi & Lanceam▪ Where you may observe, that every Freeman who was worth in Rent or Goods to the value of 16 Marks, was to find as much Arms for the Defence of the Kingdom as he that possessed a whole Knight's Fee; and the meanest Townsman, and the whole Commonalty of Freemen (for so I translate the Words, 〈◊〉 Libe●orum hominum) were to find a Caplet or Head piece of Iron, besides other Weapons. And the 2d. Article of King John's Charter says expressly, Concessimus etiam & omnibut Liberis Hominibus Nostris Regui Anglia, pro Nobis & Hae●elibus Nostris in perpetuum omnes Liberates subscriptas, ●abe●das & ●enandas eye, & haeredibus ●uit de Nobia & H●rodibus nostris: Which the Dr. himself renders thus. We have also granted to all our Freemen of the Kingdom of England, etc. And sure then this Charter could not be made to none but Tenants in Capite, unless you will suppose that none but they were Freemen, and all the rest Slaves.  
Nor was this Charter only made to relax the severity of the Feudal Tenors as you suppose, since there are divers other Clauses in it which concern all the rest of the Freemen, and Free holder's in England as well as they, for besides the first and second Chapters of this Charter, which grants and confirms to the Church of England, and to all the Freemen of the Nation their Rights, and Liberties; If you please better to consider it, you will find, that there are several other Chapters in this Charter, which all other Freemen, as well as the Tenants in Capite have thereby an Interest in, as you may see by the 10, 11, 12 13. 15, 16. 22, 23, 24, 25. and above 30 other Chapters, or Clauses therein expressed which are granted, not to Tenants in Capite alone, but either to ecclesiastics, or other Lay Freemen of the whole Kingdom. But to prove this a little further, I shall give you but one or two instances out of this Magna Charta; and that too in the Drs. own Translation, Article 48. No Freman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his Free Tenement, or Liberties, or Free Customs, or Outlawed, or Banished, or any ways destroyed, nor will we pass upon him, or commit him to Prison, unless by the Legal Judgement of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land (i. e. by Legal Process.) The other is the 49. Article of this Charter, that we will not sell to any Man, we will not deny any ma●, or delay Right or Justice: Now Judge yourself, whether these two Articles were made to the Tenants in Capite alone, or to all the Freemen of the whole Kingdom.  
And hence it also plainly appears that the same Body of Freemen to whom this Charter was made, were likewise present and gave their Assents to the making of it: Nor were Vavasors, or Fendatary Tenants of the Bishops, Abbots, great Lords and other Tenants in Capite, Persons so inconsiderable as you would make them, that they only should come hither, but as followers, to augment the Noise, since I have already proved from Bracton, that there were divers of them, Men of great Estates, and Power in their Countries, besides the Tenants of those 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, besides Tenants in Pety● Serjeanty, and those that held of great Honours, who could never be represented by the Tenants in Capite at all. And therefore I must (notwithstanding what you affirm to the contrary) look up● on all these Persons, for as good Lawmakers as the greatest Lords or Tenants in Capite of them all; since the main force of the Nation did not lie in them, but in their Feudatary Tenants, who would never have followed their Lords in this Assembly, if they had not looked upon themselves as having as good an interest in the Rights and Liberties they demanded (as appears by this Silvo of all their Liberties) as their Lords themselves; and also as good a Right as they in giving their Assent to them, when they were to be passed into a Law, as they were by this Charter; since these Feudatary Tenants were not at all obliged by their Tenure to obey their Lord's Summons at any other Warlike expeditions, but where the King, or his Lieutenants went out in Person.  M. 
I am very well satisfied, that this could be no Parliament for the reasons already given, and though I grant that these Charters were made to, and in the Presence of the greatest 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 them, 
B. A. l. p. 167.  nor indeed could they, for the great Charters were only the Petitions of the People drawn into the Form of a Charter, and passed under the King's Seal, as his mere voluntary Free Grants and Concessions, without any Votes or Authority from the People: And therefore the great Charters of Henry III. recites them to have been made of his mere Grace and Free Will, as it is in the Preface to it. But pray answer me a few plain Questions concerning King John's Charter; which if you can resolve, I may be inclined to believe there might be some other great Council besides that of Tenants in Capite. The first is, if this Common Council of Tenants in Capite, were for Assessing of Aids and Escuage only (as you suppose it is provided by the last Cl●use of this Charter) why was the Cause of the Meeting to be declared in every Writ of Summons to the great Barons and Tenants in Capite; 
B. A. P. p. 170.  if they were only Summoned about Aids and Escuage, or other ordinary business of Course, sure than the Cause of Summons need not to have been declared as it is here provided. In omnibus Lit●er is Submonitionis causam Submonitionis illius exponemus?  F. 
I will give you an answer to this Question immediately, but before I do it, let me tell you that you are much mistaken, in saying, that the great Charters (because they were the King's Free Concessions) were therefore passed without any Votes, Suffrages, or Authority of the People of England: Since I have already proved in our discourse concerning the legis ●●tive Power, that the matter of those Charters was no more than an affirmative of the Common Law of England long before your Conquest; and that the People's consent, and Suffrage was sufficiently given in their drawing them up; and offering them to the King to be Sealed, and accepting them from him when he had done it: And therefore that the great Charters are always called Statutes in our Ancient Records and A●●s of Parliament. But to answer your Question, I suppose that the King, besides the ordinary business of their Assessing Escuage had often other affairs of great moment to be transacted with, and Communicated to his Bishops, great Lords, and Tenants in Capite, in which the rest of the Kingdom were not at all concerned, such as giving the King their Advice, as a great Council, concerning divers weighty Affairs (as in the business of Sicily, mentioned in the first Record I have cited) as also about undertaking Foreign Wars against France, Scotland, Wales, etc. in which they were bound to follow, and assist him together with their under-Tenants according to their respective Tenors, and therefore it was but reason that they should have timely notice that they might give their advice in it, as also that they might either come, or stay away, according to the greatness or urgency of the occasion, and might also give their Under-Tenants notice to provide themselves with Horses and Arms, and all things necessary in case a War should be agreed on, which I think are sufficient reasons for thus expressing the Causes of their Meeting in the Writs of Summons.  M. 
Admit this were so, (which I shall yet take further time to consider of) pray tell me in the next place, if all your inferior Barons, Vavasors, or Lords of Manors, etc. supposing them either to have appeared in Person, or else as chosen for Knights of Shires, or else as Citizens and Burgesses, who were the Members of the great Council of the Nation; I pray tell me why there should not have been the same care taken, that they might be also Summoned as well as the Tenants in Capite; certainly they came not to them by instinct, nor is it scarce probable that they would leave their Country business to Travel from one remote part of England to another, to these great Councils, which seldom continued above three or four days, if they had had a Right so to do?  F. 
I shall answer you in few words, because it was not at all necessary to express that Clause you mention for them all: Since it was sufficient therein to follow the old Course of Summoning the Common Council of the Kingdom; for doing which it had always been the Custom to give sufficient Notice by Writs of Summons of their Meetings, whereas in this Council of Tenants in Capite, Since there was by this Charter some alteration in the manner of their Summoning, 
B. A. P. p. 68  so there was also for expressing the cause of their Meeting: For whereas before that (as the Dr. himself allows) all the Lesser Tenants in Capite, had particular Letters or Writs of Summons expressing the Cause of their Meeting, they were for the future to be Summoned by general Writs directed to the Sheriffs, and therefore it was but reason, that there should be a particular Clause reserved for their general Summoning, which there was no need of in those Writs that were Issued for the summoning therest of the People, or Commons to the great Council or Parliament, as I doubt not but it would appear, in case we had those Writs to produce, in which likewise there was anciently often expressed the particular cause of their Meeting, as there was, for instance, in those famous Writs to the Lords and Commons of the 49. Hen. III. 
B. A. P. 137.  which the Dr. hath given us in his answer to Mr. P.  M. 
But I have still a greater objection behind than either of the former. You cannot deny, but that by the first clause of King John's Charter (which I have made use of) all Aids, and Escuages, were to be imposed by the Common Council of the Kingdom; and Littleton himself tells us, in the second Book of his Tenors, That Escuage is always to be Assessed by Parliament upon those 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 that the Tenants in Capite alone assessed it in King John's time; how came they to lose that Privilege, and the great Council of the Kingdom, or Parliament to get it, if the former had not been the only great Council at the first?  F. 
I hope to give you as satisfactory an answer to this, as I have to the rest of your Demands. This alteration might have fallen out two ways, either according to Camden's old Manuscript Author, cited in his Introduction to his Britania; 
Pag. 122.  the Sum of which is, that when King Henry III. after his great Wars with Sim. Momford, and the Barons had Ruined many of them, he out of so great a Multitude which was before Seditious and Turbulent, called the best and chiefest of them, only by Writ to Parliament, who after that time became Barons by Writ, and not by Tenure as they were before. And as for the l●sser sort of them, called ●●ones Minores, they might be wholly resolved into the Body of the Commons, or ordinary sort of ●ree-holders, and the King being fearful of any farther increase of Power in these Barons and Tenants in Capite might no more desire their Company at the usual Feasts of the Year, whither before they used to come ex more, and so their Power fell of course to the Council or Parliament, of which, before, they only made a part.  
Or else it might happen from the negligence of the Tenants in Capite themselves, who growing weary of their Attendance might neglect to come to those Councils, because of the great trouble and charge of those Journeys; and the King being as willing to dispense with their Presence, this Court was lost by Non-usage; and so the judicial part of it remained in the House of Peers, and that of Assessing Escuage, and advising and giving Aids in matters of War, fell wholly to the great Council of the Kingdom, of which these Tenants in Capite, by their being capable of being Elected Knights of Shires, soon became the Principal Members.  
But, admit I should take this Council for Assessing Escuages for the Common Council of the Kingdom; pray give me leave to ask you one or two Questions likewise in my turn. Pray tell me therefore, if this Council had been such as you would have it, to what purpose is there a full Stop in all the old Copies, at the end of this Clause, & ad babendum Commune Concilium leg●l de Scutagiis assidendis ali●er quam in tribus Casibus praelictis, and why ●ould the next Clause begin with, & de Scutagiis assidendis submoneri faci●●us, 〈◊〉 if they had been both one and the same Councils. Since it had been easier to put it all under one Clause, If the matters ther● Treated of had been the 〈◊〉?  
In the next place, pray tell me if this were the great Council of the Kingdom or Parliament as it is now called; why are there no other Rights or Privileges reserved to this Council, but this of Assesing Escuage? Were not the Powers of granting other Taxes (which could not be included under the word Escuages▪) and also of giving their Assent to Laws, things of as great (say greater) moment than this of Assessing Escuage?  M. 
I shall give you as short and satisfactory an answer as I can to those Queries. In the first place, I will not deny, but that both the Clauses you mention might have been contracted into one, supposing them to be read without any full stop between them, as Sir H. spelman in his Glossary supposes them to be. But what is this to the purpose? Must these therefore be two distinct Councils, because the Charter itself words them a little more loosely than it needed to have done? And as for your next Query, there was no need of inserting any Clause to this Charter of reserving or conferring any Power to this Common Council, of granting Taxes and giving their Assent to Laws, because they were things which at that time they had no reason to complain of, since we do not read that King john (as Arbitrary as he was) ever took upon him to make any new Laws without their consents; and besides, it was implicitly reserved to them by the last Clause of this Charter, viz. Saving to the Arch-bishops, Bishops, etc. Earls, Barons, Knights, and all others, etc. the Liberties and Free Customs which they had before. So that there was no need of any other Clause than this, because it had been, not only the Custom, but the Law of the Kingdom, for the King to lay Taxes, and Assess Escuage upon the Nation without the Consent, or Assistance of this great Council, which grew now so great a grievance, that they would not be contented, until the King by this Charter had renounced it.  F. 
I shall not now trouble myself or you, to confute this mistake of yours; That the Kings of England could legally raise Taxes upon all their Subjects without consent of their great Council, or that they ever exercised such a Prerogative, unless it were in the violent Reigns of the Two Williams, and then if it was ever done, it was only upon their English, and not their Norman Subjects; the latter being exempt from it by the very Magna Charta of King William I. by your own confession: Nor would they, I believe, have born it at his hands; but I shall speak more particularly of this another time. Only pray give me leave to ask you this one Question? If this Charter of King john had been intended as a constant standing Rule or Form, not only for this, but all succeeding Common Councils or Parliaments, what could be the reason that this Clause you so much insist upon, of Summoning all the Tenants in Capite, should be omitted in the great Charter of Hen. III. granted In the 2d. Year of his Reign, and but Three Years after the 17. of King john, (when these Charters were first granted) as also when it was again confirmed in the 9th. of Hen. III. For can any one of sense imagine, that so material a Clause as this, and so express for the Rights and Privileges of the whole Body of Tenants in Capite, as the sole Representatives of the whole Nation could have been omitted, had they alone in those times constituted the common great Council of the whole Kingdom? How comes it to p●s●, that in all the Records of Hen. III. Reign, wherein this Charter is mentioned; It is always recited Magna Charta Nostra, viz. his own Charter, without taking notice of his Fathers? I should be glad to receive a satisfactory answer to this Question from yourself or any other intelligent Person.  M. 
I hope I may give you a satisfactory answer to this Scruple, which I think may be thus satisfied; I conceive that the first great Charter we have, which is commoly attributed to Henry III. and styled his Charter in our Statute-Books was properly the Charters of Edw. I. or perhaps, rather his Explication or Enlargement of those Charters of King john and Henry III. For we find not the great Charter, either of that or King John's, in any of the Rolls, until the 25th. of Edw. I. and he had a greater Sum of Money for confirming this Charter than Henry III had. Now in this Charter then confirmed, there is no Provision made for any Summons to great Councils or Parliaments, and the reason may well be, because the constitution of great Councils or Parliaments was lately changed, from what it was in the beginning of King John's time, and till the 49. of Henry III. nor perhaps was it so fixed and peremptorily resolved on at this time, what it should exactly be for the future, as to have it made an Article of the Charter, and to this conjecture the frequent variations of Summons to Parliaments in those times do give a probable confirmation.  F. 
I am not at all satisfied with this supposition of yours. For I doubt not but to prove that it is altogether vain, and grounded upon no good Authorities, either from History or Records, but I shall show you before I have done, that the Magna Charta which we have still upon Record, by Inspeximus of Edw. I is the very same, word for word, in all the material parts of it, with that of Hen. III. both of the 2d. and 9th. Year of his Reign, and that there was no alteration at all made as to the manner of it, a Summoning or choosing Members of Parliaments from the beginning of this King's Reign to the very end of it: Nor yet in the time of Edw. I. as you suppose.  M. 
I should not be displeased to see that proved, though I think I am able to show you the contrary. But before we proceed to that, I must needs tell you, I am not yet satisfied, that there ever were anciently two Councils, one of the Tenants in Capite, and the other, of the whole Kingdom; for methinks not only yourself, but Mr. Petyt and Mr. Atwood his second have fallen very short of their proofs they have brought in this point; and there is nothing in the Drs. whole answer to them, in which (in my opinion) he hath obtained a clearer Victory, therefore pray give me some better proofs of this distinction, if you have any.  F. 
I did not imagine I should have needed to have spoken any further upon that head; yet since you now require it, I shall obey your commands: Since therefore you tell me that the times before your Conquest are obscure, and the Authorities uncertain; I will give you a short History of these Councils, beginning with King William I and so going down as low as Henry III. So f●r then we are agreed; that the Council of Tenants in Capite met ex more at the great Feasts of the Year; and that they also granted the King Aids, or Subsidies to be Levied upon themselves alone; as I grant, appears by the Writ of 19th. of Henry III. which you have but now cited, directed to the Sheriff of Sussex.  
But that this Council which was thus held ex more, was also often Summoned to meet at other times when the King's occasions required it, 
Rot. Claus. M. 7. dorso.  it also as certain as appears by this Writ of the 26. of the same King, which I shall read to you, Rex Vicecomiti Northampton, etc. Praecipimus tibi sicut alias praecipimus, quod Summoniri facier Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Comites, Barones, Abbates, Priores, Milites, & liberos homines qui de nobis Tenent in Capite eodem modo scribitur omnibus Vice-comitibus Angliae: Which Writ extending only to those who held in Capite could never be a Summons to the Common Council of the whole Kingdom; for then this restriction had been needless, qui de nobis Tenent in Capite, and it would have been known who had a right to come to this Council, if these words had not been inserted, so that this seems to me to make a plain distinction between these Liberos homines qui de nobis Tenent in Capite, and the rest of the Freemen of the whole Kingdom.  
But when Eadmerus and other ancient Historians mention the great or Common Council of the whole Kingdom (afterwards called the Parliament,) than their expressions are more general and comprehensive; for proof of which, 
Lately Published at Oxford, 1692. in Saxon and Latin. p. 186. in the Printed Copy.  pray consult the Old English Saxon Annals, continued down to the time of Henry I. wherein Anno. Dom. 1085. (being the last Year of William I.) there is a remarkable passage which I shall here give you in English;, At Christmas, the King (viz. William I.) was at Gloucester with his Nobles, and there held his Curia or Court (in Saxon (his Hired) Five days; and immediately after it follows thus:) After this he held a great Council [in Saxon, Mycel Getheat] where he had many great Discourses with the Nobles, etc. Now it seems plain to me, that this Court (here called his Hired) could not be the great Council of the Kingdom; for to what purpose should it meet again so quickly, if it had the great Council of the whole Kingdom? or, why are they here called by different Titles, the one his Hired or Court, and the other the Mycel Gathea●, 
2 Vol. f. 451.  the great Council; which is also called common Concilium totius Regni, in Sir Henry Spellmans Councils in this very Year.  
And to show you more plainly the difference between this great Council of the whole Kingdom, and the lesser Council of the King's Barons and Tenants in Capite: Pray see Eadmerus, who relating what was done in a great Council held at Easter, 
Lib. 3. f. 58.  immediately before the Invasion of Robert Duke of Normandy, in the 2d. Year of Henry I. says, there met tota Angliae Nobilitas, cum Populi numerositate, and then Archbishop Anselm engaged for the King that he should Govern the Kingdom according to the just Laws thereof, where you see, that besides the Noble men and Gentlemen here called, Regni Nobilitas; there was also a great number of the Commons here termed in the Barbarous Latin of that Age, Populi numerositas.  
But when the King held his Curia of the great Lords and Tenants in Capite alone, the expressions are more particular, as may appear by many Charters of our first Norman Kings to several Abbeys of their own Foundation, which are said to be made Consilio, & Assensu Baronum nostrorum tam presulum quam Laicorum, as you will (for example) find it in the Charter of Hen. I. to the Abbey of Abington; as it is exemplifyed in the ancient Manuscript Register of that Abbey now in the Cottonian Library, in which Book you will find more of the like Nature, which plainly make out this difference between this less Council of the King's Barons and Tenants in Capite, and the great Council of the Kingdom.  
And for further proof of this, pay see the Instrument of King John's resignation of his Crown to the Pope, as you will find it at the end of Dr. B's. complete History: which is recited to have been done Communi Concilio Baronum No●tro●um, that is, by the Common Council of the King's Barons and Tenants in Capite, who were all there present in Arms against the Landing of the French King then expected. And yet this was never looked upon to have been done per Commune Concilium Ragni, since this Resignation was declared void by the Bishops, Lords and Commons in full Parliament in the 40th. of Edward III. because done sa●z lour Assent as it is in the Parliament Roll of that Year.  
But when ever the whole great Council, or Parliament was summoned to assemble, than this lesser Council of the Tenants in Capite, must needs meet also, as being a principal part of it. And then the expressions were more comprehensive, as I have already noted; and our ancient Historians do in my Opinion, by their Expressions, plainly signify an Union of both these Councils, to make up the Common-Council of the Kingdom; as appears by the Letters which the Priory of Canterbury wrote to the Pope upon the Election of Ralph, Bishop of Rochester, in the 14th of Hen. 1. to the See of Cantebury, as you will find them in Eadmerus, (Lib. 5. fol. 111.) and which is there said to have been made adunato conventu totius Angliae; that is, in the united Assembly of all England, viz. the Episcopi, Abbates & Principes Regni, & itgens Populi Multitudo. So likewise Hovelen in his History. (fol. 273.) Anu 1121 (being the 18th of Hen. 1.) relates the King's Marriage with the Lady Adeliza, Daughter to the Duke of Louvain, to have been celebrated at Windsor, adunato Concilio totius Regni, i. e. in the united Council of the whole Kingdom.  M. 
I am not yet satisfied with your proofs; and I doubt not but to show you that this distinction of your Friends, Mr. P. and Mr. A. his second, between the Common Council of the Kingdom, and the Council of the great Lords and Tenants in Capite, will prove but a mere Chymra of those Gentlemen, from whom you have borrowed it; for there was indeed but one Common Council of the Kingdom in those times, viz. that of the Bishops, Earls, Barons, and other Tenants in Capite.  
And therefore in answer to your first Authority from the Saxon Chronicle, I shall show you another of the same King's Reign, which will show the different expressions of this great Council by Hired, and Mycel Getheat, to have been the particular Fancy of that Monkish Writer, and it is from Gervas' Do●●bornensis, de Acts Pontisicum Cantuarens. Ecclesiae, where you may see in the Decem Scriptores, 
Col. 1651.  this passage Anno. 4. Regis Wilhelmi I. Anno. Dom. 1070. Lanfrancus Cadomensis Ahlu electus fuit Archi●piscopus Cantuariensis a Senioribus ejusdem Ecclesiae cum Episcopit & Principibus, clero, & populo Angliae in Curia Regis in Assumptione Sanctae Mariae, where you may see that this confirmation of the Archbishop was made in the great Council of the Kingdom which is here called collectively or altogether (and not one part of it only Curia Regis.) As for the words which make up the constituent parts of this Council, we have sufficiently debated them; and therefore I need say nothing more concerning them.  
But though the Dr. has given us more Authorities to prove this, 
Fol. 125.  yet I shall make use of but one more from Badmerus it is in the Reign of Henry I. thus, in subsequenti Nativitate Dom. Christi Regnum Angliae ad Curiam Regis Lundoniae pro more convenit, & magna Solemnitate habita est, etc. This instance is full in all points, here is the whole Kingdom, that is the whole Baronage or University of England (for Bracton tells us the whole Kingdom consisted of Earldoms and Baronies) who met according to Custom at the King's Court; and hence it is manifest that at those times the Common Council of the Kingdom was held, and from this also as from the former instances, that the Barones, Principes & Optimates, & Mayres Regni did at those great Feasts pro more according to the Custom frequent the King's Court, and were the only Persons that constituted that great Assembly.  F. 
But pray give me leave to interrupt you a little; did not I tell you but now, that the King did often convene the Common Council of the whole Kingdom to meet the Bishop's great Lords and Tenants in Capite at one of these Feasts; 
P.R.C. p. 130.  and so it might be an Assembly ex more in respect of them, but extraordinary to all the rest of the Kingdom, and this often happened at other times as well as at these feasts according as the King's occasions required, when all the others were Summoned on purpose.  M. 
I have already answered that Objection; and granting it might be so, it does not prove it was so: But I desire you to tell me what you can say to this expression in the Authority I have now made use of from Eadmerus. Regnum●ombre convenit▪ which is spoken of the most general Council when the Kingdom of England then met at the Kings Court. So that your small Criticism upon the Words adunato Conventu or Concilio, as if they signified this Union or Conjunction of two Councils into one, is but a mere Pancy of your Authors, those words signifying no more than a gathering or meeting together of all the Persons that constituted that Assembly, as appears by these words in Eadmerus, Adlinatis (without either Praecepto or Sanctione Regis) ad Curiam e●us in pascha Terrae Principibus, 
Fol. 90.  i. e. the chief Men of the Nation being at his Court at ●aster.  
But as for your main instance of King John's Resigning his Crown to the ●ope in a Common Council of the great Lords and Tenants in Capite, but not of the Common Council of the Kingdom, I confess it were very considerable if it were true, for though I grant that in all the Charters of this King's resignation, the words you mention, viz. Communi concitio Baronum nostrorum ●re inserted, yet it could not be a great Council; since though I grant that all the Tenants in Capite were at that time Summoned to appear in Arms against the King of France; 
B. A. I.  yet it being a Military Summons for the gathering together of an Army, and not for the meeting oh a great Council, and the five proscribed Bishops being in France, and the Barons that sided with them, fled beyond Sea, and not daring to appear; so that this resignation having been Executed before so small ● number of Barons as appears by the Witnesses to it, viz. but two Bishops, the chief Justidiary, seven Earls, and three Barons without subjoyning, & aliu Episcopis, Comitibus, & Baronibus, or & Communitate, or ●ota Communitate, it does not appear that there were any more present, so that this could not be such a Council as was constituted by King John's Charter, that is, it was not a Parliamentary Council, or general Representative of the whole Nation; and therefore the Parliament in the 40th. of Edw. III might very well say, the resignation was made without their Assent; and so I think this great Argument of yours comes to nothing.  F. 
Pray do not Triumph before the Victory. For I doubt not but to prove, notwithstanding what you have said, that this was a real Common Council of the Barons and Tenants in Capite, in which King john resigned his Crown, 
Vi. Mat●. pag. 234.  though not of the Kingdom; Which I prove thus. First it appears by all our Historians, that King john had just before Summoned all the Earls, Barons, Knights and Freemen of the Kingdom, whoever they were, and of whomsoever they held, to appear in Arms, which made so vast an Army, that after all the ordinary Rabble were sent home; Matt. Parls tells us, that the Knights, Esquires and Freemen that stayed behind, made an Army of 60 Thousand Men, who were Encamped at Barham Down, not far from Dover, where this resignation was Executed: So that this being almost as great a Meeting as that at Run Mead, not long after, the King might very well have Summoned at least a great Council of all his Tenants, in Capite, to countenance this resignation, and that he did do so, the Charter itself says expressly; which had it been otherwise, would have appeared a notorious Lie to the whole World. Nor do your Objections to the contrary prove considerable. First, you say this was only a Military Summons, and not to a Common Council, yet such a one as was constituted by this King's Charter, which sure 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, expressing the cause of their Meeting; and if they could meet ex more, as you grant this Council did at the great Feasts of the Year, without any Summons at all, sure they might as well meet now on such an exigency: The King had, 'tis true, Summoned them at first upon another occasion; but say you, there was so small a number of Barons at this Meeting, that it could not be a Common Council of the Kingdom, neither do I say it was, but the contrary; but how does it appear it was not? Why say you, Five of the Bishops were then fled into France, and a great many of the Barons of their Party. The latter is not true in Fact: few or none of the Barons siding with these Bishops but as for the Bishops, what if Five were absent? Were there not enough left to have made a Common Council of the rest of the Tenants in Capite? Well, but there were but Two Bishops present, and Seven Earls, and Three Barons, as apPears by their Names at the end of this Charter, without any mention of more, or of the whole Communities being there; a special reason, as if no more could be present at this Assembly than whose Names are to it; by this Rule the great Charters of King john, and 9 th'. of Hen. 3. were not made in a great Council of the whole Kingdom; for there are no Witnesses Names expressed at the end of them; it is true at the beginning of these Charters it is said they were done by the Council of certain Bishops, Earls and Barons, which yet were but a very few more of all sorts then there are mentioned at the end of this Charter of King John's Resignation: So that this appearance of the Bishops, Earls, Barons and Tenants in Capite is merely precarious; for if more might very well have been there, it is most certain they were, notwithstanding the paucity of the Witnesses to this Charter, since those were added only for form sake, and were commonly those who were nearest the Throne when the Seal was put to it.  
I confess your first Objection is more material from Eadmerus, of the whole Kingdoms meeting the King at Christmas ex more, without any Summons mentioned▪ to which it may be replied, that there might be a Summons to the whole Kingdom to meet, as well as to the Tenants in Capite; and this happening at Christmas, one of the usual times of their meeting, this Author might apply the Title of this Court to the Council of the whole Kingdom: And that this was so, will appear from an Anonymous Author, who wrote in H. 1. his time, published by Mr. Sylas Taylor, in his History of Gravel-kind, (p. 194,) who relates this Election of Archbishop Lanfranc to have been made Communi Consensu & Consilio omnium Baronum suorum, omniumque Episcoporum, & Abbetum tostusque Populi, which certainly must mean somewhat more than your Council of Tenants in Capite alone.  
And this also is confirmed by Matt. Pari●, who has been so careful, as to mention a Summons to a great Council immediately after the holding of the Curie of Tenants in Capite at Christmas; the words are thus: Anno Dom. 1237, i e. the 21th of Hen. 3. senuts Rex curiam suam ad natale apud Win 〈…〉, autem continuo per omnes fines Angliae Scripta Regalia praecipiens omnibus ad Regnum spectantibus, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Comitibus & Baronibus, ut omnes in octabis Epiphaniae Londentis convenirent. Now pray tell me if this Curia held ex more at Christmas, had been the great Council of the whole Kingdom, consisting of the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earl and Barons, and other Tenants in Capite, to what purpose should the King coptinus (i. e. immediately) issue out his Writs for summoning the very same Persons to meet him at London on the octave of St. Hillary, when they were then all with the King at Winchester, and that he might have communicated what he had pleased to them.  
Or what have you to say to the Curia, or Common Council held before, in the Ninth of this King, but Eleven years after King John's Magna Charta, when the great Charters were confirmed, and an Aid granted by the whole Kingdom, which Matt. Paris, Anno Dom. 1225. relates thus; (which tho' I gave you at our last meeting, it will not be amiss to repeat again:) Rex Henricut ad natale termis ●●●iam suam apud Westmon, praesentibus Clero, & Populo cum Magnatibus Regionis, which words (as I have already urged) must comprehend some other Persons than your Tenants in Capite alone; otherwise the word Populus had been altogether in vain: so that you see the Common Council of the whole Kingdom was often held at the same time with the ordinary Curia, and is by way of Excellency, called by the same name as we at this day call the great Council of the Kingdom, the High Court of Parliament; and Curia and Court differ no more than a Latin Name from an English, which is likewise very well confirmed and explained in the Chronicle of Walter of Civentry (to be found indivers private hands) who lived in the Reigns of King john and Henry 3. and speaking of this 〈◊〉, Council or Parliament (which though it might begin at Christmas with the Curia, yet it seems held on till Candlemass) when the Commons were joined to it. He 〈◊〉 thus; In Purtsicatione beatae Marlie convocaniur apu● Lond●n, Proceres Angliae ibiq; tractatu babito dissustere, cum Claro, & Populo ibi●●m conv●cato, Rex 〈◊〉 Libertates tam Eccles●●e, quam Regni, quam Forest●●, sicut cartie suae sunt ●● confected. Now I leave it to yourself to judge, whether by these words, Tracta● diffusure babino cum Clero. & Populo, etc. (put after the calling of the Proceres, 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 Regui: And that this was so, appears by the date of this great Charter itself: 11 Februaril Anno Regui nono H. 3. But that the whole Council or Parliament, when thus joined, was likewise called Caria Regis. I can prove by several Examples; among which see the Stat. of M●●on in 20 Hen. 3. beginning thus; Provisum est in curia Domini Regis Henrico, etc. coram Will. Cant. Archi piscopo & Episcopis suffragane●s suis, & coram naure parte Comitum & Baronum Auglie ibidem exillentium pro Coronatione qu dem Regis, pro qu● omnes vocati fuerunt, ita provisum fuit, & c●ncessum 〈◊〉 ● predictis Archi●pise. Epise. Commitibus, Baronibus, quam ab ipso Rege, & Aliis. Now who can these Alii mean, coming thus after Barones, but the Commons as now understood?  M. 
I confess these Authorities you have now brought carry some colour of in Argument, but if they are looked into, will signify little: to begin with your first quotation from Matt. Pari●, suppose I grant that there was a Curia 〈◊〉 more held at Westminster, at which there then appeared at Court only a small number of the Bishops, Lords, and great Tenants in Capite; but the King not finding them enough for the great Affairs he had then to communicate to them, immediately issued out his Royal Writs to all the Orders of men there mentioned to appear at London on the octave of St. Hillary; but how can you affirm there were any Commons then summoned in the sense in which they are now taken, the Barons being the lowest Order here expressly mentioned: but if you would but have read the words that immediately follow in its place you have now cited, you would easily see that your Knights of 〈◊〉, and Burgesses could not then be there; the words are these, venti i●i●● Sancti Hi●●arii Londoni●s insini●um N●bilium multitulo; how could these representatives of the Commons have been elected and returned in so short a time as between Christmas, and eight days after Twelfth-ti●●; so that there could have been scarce three Weeks time from the date of the Writs presently after Chistmass-day▪ to the meeting of the Parliament; but the truth is, by this infinita Nobilium multitudo, who are here said to have come to London, is to be understood the great number of the smaller Tenants in Capite, who all appeared at this Council according to King John's Charter: Whereas your Knights of Shires, Citizens and Burgesses, if they had all come at that time, could not be called infinita Nobilium multitudo, as not consisting at this day of 600 Persons; and sure would have been fewer then. But as for your other Authorities, if this be true I have now laid down, they will be as easily answered, since by the word Populus put before, and distinct from the Magnates in the passage you have now quoted from Mat. Paria; these smaller Tenants in Capite are to be understood; and by Magnates the Bishops and great Lords; and this also explains the like Phrase you now cite from Walter of Coventry; where by Proceres & Populus are to be understood the same orders of Men as by Magnates & Populus in Mat. Paris; so that it was with the smaller Tenants in Capite, and the inferior Clergy, with whom the King had this larger or more diffusive Treaty, as this Author words it.  F. 
I confess you have now put a very fair gloss upon these Places I have now made use of; but 'tis an hundred pities that such a fine Hypothesis should have no better proofs than your bare Surmises to support it; for that is all the Authority that I can see you bring for your sense of this word Populus for the smaller Tenants in Capite, and not for the rest of the People; but I see no good Authority as yet brought by you to prove it, except that clause in King John's Charter, which if as I have lately showed you, it will beat a quite different Interpretation, all that you have said upon that head will signify nothing; therefore as for the main Argument you raise from the words infinita multitudo nobi●ium in Mat. Paris, that they could not be the Knights of Shires, together with the Citizens and Burgesses, because they could not be such an infinite Multitude as this Author here mentions to have me; at London; as also because of the shortness of the time of the Summons: If these are material Objections against our Opinion, so it will be likewise against yours; for how could this be a great Council according to King John's Charter, which expressly provides for Forty days Summons for the Tenants in Capite to come to this Assembly; and if so be, this usage was broken at this time upon some urgent occasion in respect of them, it might be so also as to all the rest of the Kingdom, for the Knights of Shires might be chosen at the next Country-court, and their Names returned immediately before, or together with their meeting at London; and as to the Citizens and Burgesses, it was yet more easy for them to be chosen and returned in three Weeks time, since every body knows the Cities might have called Common Councils; and the Towns and Burroughs by the notice of their proper Officers to whom the Writs were delivered, might have assembled at their common Halls or Town-houses, immediately upon the receipt of the Writs; and these, together with the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses join with the great Lords and Tenants in Capite, made up the infinita Nobilium multitudo, mentioned by Mat. Paria.  
But your main Objection I confess is behind, how these Representatives of the Commons here called infinita Nobilium multitudo, could be the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, whose number could not be at that time above 500 Persons: As for this, pray consider if the difficulty will not bear as hard upon you; for if your Tenants in Capite made such a vaft multitude, all those difficulties will arise that you press me with upon my Hypothesis of the meeting of all the chief Freeholders' or Lords of Manors in England in Parliament, before Knights of Shires were introduced in the room of them, viz. How it was possible for so great a multitude to debate, vote, or do any business; and what Room or Church was able to hold so many, and the like; so that granting all your smaller Tenants in Capite (who had but one Knights Fee apiece) to have met there, these might have made a body of 5 or 5000 Men; which how they could have been managed any better than 20000 or 30000, which would have more then taken in all their Feudatary Tenants too, I desire you would resolve me if you can; so that at last upon your own Hypothesis, this Populus consisting of the Tenants in Capite were as much Commoners as the Knight's o● Shires at this day; for, as for the word Nobilium, I have already proved (and you must needs here grant it) that it takes in the inferior Nobility or Gentry, under the degree of Lords, as well as the Superior; and if so, why not all the considerable measu Tenants of those Tenants; so that you have hitherto brought no proof but your bare Assertion, that under this infinita multitudo Nobilium & Populus, must be understood only the great Lords and Tenants in Capite, since either this Author speaks Hyperbolically, or else all the chief Gentry of England, of whatsoever Tenure; might have appeared at this great and extraordinary Assembly.  
So that you are under this Dilemma; either this Curia (which you confess met ex more) was the great Council of the Kingdom, or it was not; if it was not, then there was some other greater Council besides that; but if it was, than it will plainly follow (though you do all you can to mince the matter) that this great Council of the Kingdom or Parliament met of course by ancient custom three times in the year without any Summons at all from the King; which if I should have affirmed, you would have called it a Commonwealth Notion, since nothing can be a greater proof, that this Assembly of the whole Nation in Parliament did not upon your Hypothesis immediately depend on the King's Writs of Summons for their Assembling and Acting when met.  M. 
Well, since you can bring no direct proof that these were any other besides the Tenants in Capite, who met at this great Council, I have still more reason to suppose them to have been so, than you can do for the conorary Opinion; therefore pray give me if you can, some clearer and later proofs for this difference between the two Councils.  F. 
I shall comply with your desires, and in order to it, shall conclude with two or three of those very Authorities the Doctor has given us in his Answer to Mr. P. where he gives us this passage out of Mat. Paris, in the 2●●th of Hen. 3. (which plainly proves the Tenants in Capite not to have been the common University, 
Fob. 639. A. D. 1244▪  or sole Rep. esentative of the whole Kingdom; ● pray read it: E●●● in Anno convenerunt regis summonitione convocati Londinum Magnates totius Regni Arci●pis●ori, Episcopi, Abbates, Priores, Comites & Barones, in quo Concilio portis Rex o●e proprio in presentia magnatum (i. e. of all the parties above mentioned) in Refectorio Westmonasteriensi Axilium sieri pecuniare, cui fuit responsum qu●d super ●oc tractarent ●recedentesque Magnates de R●fectorio convenerunt Archiepiscopi ●● Episcopi, Abbates & Priores seorsim per se superque hoc diligenter tractaturi, ●and●m requisiti fuerunt ex parte eorum Comites & Barones, si vellent illis unanimiter con●entire in responsione & previsione super hi● facienda, qui responderunt (sc●licet Comites & Barones) quod sine communi universitate nihil facerent, ture de communi diss●nsu electi fuerunt ex parie cleri, Electus Cant. etc.  
Now I think here is as manifest a distinction as need to be between the Lords and Commons, 
I. A. A. p. 207, 208.  as Members of the great Council and the common University of the whole Kingdom; for it is obvious that when all the Lay Lords, Earls and Barons (to whom you may also add your Tenants in Capite if you please) being met together, were asked by the Bishops, Abbots and Priors then present, whether they would agree with them or not? the Earls and Barons answered for themselves, that they would do nothing without the Common University, which could not possibly be only the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Tenants in Capite, since it is plain they were now all here, and referred themselves to another distinct order of Men, different from themselves (who were not there present.) as also from the Bishops, Abbots and Priors, who demanded there. Consents to what they had agreed upon. Now if the Temporal Lords and Tenants in Capite had concurred, here had been the consent of the Common University of Lords and Tenants in Capite; but besides the consent of all these, there was, notwithstanding, it seems, required the Consent of another body of Men, called here the Communis Vniversitas, by which must be meant the Commons, or no body, since otherwise they might have all agreed together without any more ado.  M. 
I confess this Story out of Mat. Paris looks somewhat plausible at the first on your side, but I doubt not if it be better considered, it will do you little Service; for what if by this Common University is to be understood the whole body of lesser Tenants in Capite, who not ●itting with the Lords at that time, they would do nothing without their Consents, till it was proposes to them; but that they did afterwards all agree, pray read the rest of this Narration, and it will make it clear enough, that this Common University of Tenants in Capite did also agree with the Lords, Bishops and Abbots, the words immediately following in Mat. Paris, are these; Tunc de communi assensu electi fuerunt ex parte cleri Blectus Cantuariensis, Wintoniensis, Lincolniensis, & Wigoriensis Episcopi ex parte Laicorum, Richardus Comes Frater Domini Reg●●, Comes Bigod, Comes Legr. S. de Monteforti, & Comes Mares●ballus ex parte vero Baronum Richardus de Montfi●hes & johannes de Balliol, & de Sancto Edmundo, & Rameseit Abbates; ut quod isli duodecim provider●nt in communi recitaretur, nec aliqua forma Domino Regi ostenderetur Authoritate duodecim nisi omnium communis assensus interveniret; from which last passage it appears plain to me, that in this Parliament the several Orders of men that were the constituent parts of it, were only the Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls and Barons; and that all these put together were termed the Common University, which is more comprehensive than University simply taken; now if the Commons, as at this day represented, had been there, we must have had some mention of them one way or other, as well as of the Committees of the other Orders which made up the general Committee of Twelve; so that it is plain beyond doubt, that the Commons were not part of the Common University.  F. 
Then pray tell me who they were, for the Historian tells that when all these Bishops, Abbots, Priors, had now met together with the Earls and Barons, yet these last ●ell them that without the Common University they could do nothing; which had been nonsense, if, as your Doctor supposes, the whole University, or Community of the Kingdom had been all present.  M. 
I must confess, this is a material Objection, but what if to help him out, I should tell you that by the Common University here mentioned, is to be understood the body of the inferior Tenants in Capite under the degree of Barons; and this Common University of Tenants in Capite might not have been present and sat with the Earls and Barons at that time when the Bishops and Abbots made this Proposal; therefore the Lords might very well answer, that till they had consulted the Common Universty, or Body of Tenants in Capite, they could do nothing; and though this Body of Tenants in Capite did not then actually sit with the Earls and Barons, yet doth it not follow, that they made a distinct Estate by themselves, different from that of the Lords or greater Tenants in Capite; for then the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, etc. (who are here expressly said to have consulted by themselves,) must have done so likewise; therefore though our Author is not so particular as he might have been, yet certainly this Common University were thereupon consulted, and gave their Assents to the choice of this Committee of Twelve, who were to draw up their answer to the King, for the words are, tunc ex communi assensu electi fuerunt; which seem to refer to the Common University or Body of Tenants in Capite, or else the Lords Excuse, as well as the Election of these Persons by the Bishops, Earls, etc. had been very insignificant.  F. 
This seems to me to be a precarious assertion, and without any due proof, for though the words are Tunc ex Communi Assensu, yet I very much doubt, whether these words do refer to the Common University of the whole Kingdom, or not; for yourself confess, that Mat. Paris is short in this point; and that it was not so, seems most likely to me by this material circumstance, that not one Person of the Twelve, but was either a Bishop, Earl, or great Baron. (For that Richard de Mon●sichet, and john de Baliot were so; Sir William Dugdale hath proved in his Baronage of England▪ 
Tom. 1. ) Whereas, if the University or Body of the Tenants in Capite had joined in this Election, it is not likely, but they would have chosen some of their own Body to represent them in this Committee, who were not Earls or Barons: Since yourself must confess that they then were a great Body of Men, who were not Lords, nor did at this time Sat, or Act Jointly with the Lords, or greater Barons in this Assembly; and likewise it farther seems highly probable, that this Common University of Tenants in Capite (take it in your sense) did not give any Resolution in this matter, since we do not find any Money given in answer to the King's Request, but only Complaints of, and orders about, Redressing of Grievances which was in those days often done in a great Council of the Bishops, Lords and Tenants in Capite.  
But I shall show you now by some other Records which the Dr. himself hath made use of, 
B. A. P. p. 197.  that there often was a distinct Assembly or Council of the Lords, and Tenants in Capite different from that of the Commons or Commonalty of the whole Kingdom: 
M. 10.  The first Record is to be found among the Patent Rolls of the 42. Hen. III. beginning thus. Rex omnibus, etc. cum negotiis nostris arduis, nos & R●gnum nostrum contingentibus, Proceres, & Fideles Regni nostri ad nos London. in Quindena Paschae proximae praeterita faceremus convocari, & cum de Nego●iis supra dictis, & maxim de prosecutione Negotii Sicili●e diligenter cum iisdem tractaremus, ac ipsi nobis responderum quod si statum Regni nostri, per Concilium Fidelium Nostrorum ratificandum duxerimus, & Dominus Papa Conditiones cirea factum Siciliae appositas melioraverit, per quod Nige●ium illud prosequi poss●mus cum effectu, ipsi diligentiam fideliter apponent erga Communitatem Regni nostri, quod nobis Commune Auxilium ad hoc praestetur, etc. The rest I shall not trouble you with, because it is not to our present purpose.  
But you may here see, that taking the Words Proceres and Fideles in your own sense, the former for the Bishops and Lords, etc. and the latter for the Tenants in Capite, who were called to consult about the business of Sicily (which Kingdom the King had before too rashly accepted of from the Pope.) Yet though they were all met, they could do nothing but give him advice, and could give him no Commune Auxilium, i. e. common Aids, or Subsidies, without the consent of the Commonalty of the Kingdom. Now what can this Community signify but the Commons, for your Lords and Tenants in Capite were all met already, and if they alone made up the Common University or Body of the Kingdom (as you suppose,) why could they not have immediately granted the King the Assistance he desired (if they had a sufficient Power so to do) without putting him off with a Promise, that they would use their endeavour with the Community of the Kingdom, as a distinct order or Body of Men: That this Aid or Subsidy should be given him; and upon this condition it is, that at the end of this Record, the King Promises them, that before Christmas, He would mend the State of the Kingdom, per Consilium Proborum & Fidelium Hominum nostrorum, which can mean nothing less than a Parliament; which the next Record in the same Roll recites, was to meet at Oxford after the Feast of Pen●icost, which Record since it not only recites the King's Oath, whereby he had bound himself to observe the Direction of a Committee of 24● Fideles. i e. Faithful or Loyal Man, 12 of which were to be chosen out of the King's Council, and the other 12. by the Procore● or Magnates Regni which as I have already proved may take in the Commons as well as the Lords; but whether by these word● were meant the Lords or Commons: The conclusion of this Record sufficiently confirms my Argument from the precedent Record, that the Lords and Tenants in Capite, could not then Tax the whole Kingdom at their Pleasure, without the consent of the Commons; or else to what purpose are these words in the conclusion of this last Record: Promiserun● etiam nobis Comites, & Barones Memora●i, quod expleris Negotiis superius tactic, bon● fide labora●unt ad hoc quod Auxilium nobis Commun● praest●●ur à Communitate Regni nostri in cujus rei, etc. Dat 2. die Maeii: And it appears by the Date, as also by the entry on the Roll, that both these Records were perfected at once, and concerning the same business, and further to prove that the Parties appointed in the Record to be chosen ex part● Procerum, 
M. 6.  were not chosen by the great Lords or Peers only, may be seen from a Patent Roll of the same 42. Hen. III. whereby Henry de Wengham Dean of St. Martin le Grand, and then Keeper of the Great Seal, and john Manse●, Provost of Beverlay, were two of the said Commissioners, though they were neither Barons nor Tenants in Capite (as I know of) hue only Eminent Lawyers, 
Fol. 391.  and Men of great Abilities (and so mere Commoners.) Yet Mat. Westminster calls these Men, Proceres, as you may see by this Passage, speaking of this whole Committee, Videntes ergo Proceres antedicti viginti quatuor, ad Regis & Regni regimen 〈◊〉 Electi, etc.  
I shall only now conclude with a French Record, 
Ibid. 199.  which the Dr. himself hath also given us at large and which refers to the said Committee of 24. above mentioned; it begins thus. Henry par la Grace de Dieu Roy d' Engleterre, etc. a touse ceus, etc. Sachiez ce pur le profit de nostre Re●ume é a la Requeste de nos ●auz Homes é Prodes Homes, é du Commun de nostre R●aume, Otreyames es vinc quatre Homes eus●ent p●●r, perq● tous ce quill ordencirent del Estate de nostre Reaume fust serm, é Stable, the rest being very long, you may read at your leisure, only I shall take notice of the date of this Letter, to which the King also put to his Seal: The conclusion being thus: Coste choose feu feite a Lundre landemaigne prochein apros la Gaule bau●●l'an de nostre corronement quarente secundo, 
Ibid.  and though the Dr. ca● make nothing of the words Gaul baut, this happened I suppose either from the bad Writing of the Record, or from the Ignorance or Mistake of the Transcriber; for it should be Gaeule d' Aut, 
Vi. Spell. Glos. Tit. Gula Augusti.  that is, the Gula of August; which is a great Holy Day in the Church of Rome upon the First of August, (called also St. Petri ad Vincula) in the Memory of St. Peter's Chains, curing of a Roman Virgin by her Kissing them.  
I shall only observe from this Record that the Hauz or Prodes Homes mentioned in this Record, being taken in the Dr●. own sense, for High and Wise Men; that is, the Earls and Barons, yet the words è du Commune that immediately follow them, must needs signify some Body of Men, different from the former, or else it had been a notorious piece of Nonsense; since if the former words had taken in all the Lords and Tenants in Capite, that is (in your sense) the whole Community of the Kingdom, to what purpose are these words è du Commune, that are immediately subjoined since the hauz & Prodes Homes would have served to express all the Lords and Tenants in Capite, whether taken as Great or as Wise Men.  M. 
I confess what you have now said, would carry some, weight with it, were I not very well satisfied, that you impose upon yourself, by taking (as I told you at our last Meeting) these words Communitas, le Commune, & Communalti in a wrong sense; for the Commons as they are now, when indeed these words before the 49th. of Hen. III. nay the 18th. of Edw. I. (as the Learned Dr. shows us in his 2d. Edition against Mr. P.) are always to be understood, either of the whole Representative Body of the Kingdom in general consisting of the Bishops, Abbots, Earls and Barons, together with all the Tenants in Capite, called by Mat. Paris and other Historians Communitas Baronagii, or else for the Community of the Tenants in Capite alone, Styled Communitas Regni in our ancient Records. And this I think I can prove to you, by undoubted Testimonies; but since you are now upon the proving part, pray show me that these words I now mentioned, did ever signify the Commons of England in the sense they are now taken before the times we insist on, and I have the more reason to desire this from you; because it is chiefly from the mistaken Application of these Words, that the Gentlemen of your opinion have imposed their false notions upon the World.  F. 
I shall undertake what you desire; and I hope if I cannot satisfy you, the fault will not lie in my Authorities, but you prejudices against them. In the first place therefore let me mind you, how far you and I agreed at our last Meeting, when I granted you that these words now in dispute were very equivocal, and were often taken in different senses, as sometimes you say true, for the whole Representative Body of the Kingdom, sometimes for the Community of the Barons, and sometimes for the Community of the Bishops and Clergy; but never as I know of for the Community of the Bishops, Lords and Tenants in Capite, much less for the Body of Tenants in Capite alone, nor were you then able to prove to me, that these words must necessarily be understood in your sense for the Community of the Tenants in Capite: And though you should prove them sometime to be taken in that sense, yet would it rather make against, then for your Opinion, since they must then signify a different Body of Men from your great Lords, and consequently as mere Commoners as your Knights of Shires at this day, which is against your first general assertion, that by these words are always understood the Community of the Baronage only.  
But to come to my proofs (which I shall divide in two parts;) first I will prove that these words Communitas, le Commune, and Communality, when coming immediately after Comites & Barones, or Counts and Barons or Proceres in our old Statutes and Records, do always signify the Commons in the same sense in which they are now taken: And for proof of this, I will begin with the Reign of Hen. III▪ when these words came first to be generally in use, and so descend to his Successors as low as Rich. II. and if I can show you, that these words (so put) always signify the Commons, as well before, as after that time: I think you have reason to be satisfied, that these was never once upon a time such a strange alteration in the constituent parts of our great Councils as you supposed, yet none of our ancient Historians or Statutes should ever take any notice of it, till these modern Antiquaries took upon them to disperse these Clouds.  
To begin first with the words le Commune, 
P. R. C. Rot. Pat. 48 H. 3. M. 16.  pray remember the Patent Roll of the 48th. of Henry III. which I mentioned at our last Meeting▪ viz. the ●or● of the Pea●e between this King, 
●. A. P.  the Prince his Son, and the whole Body of the Kingdom Assembled in Parliament; the Title of which is thus. Haec est Forma pacis à Dom. R●ge, & Dom. Edw. Filio suo, Praelatis, Proceribus omnibus cum Communitate ●ota R●gni Angliae communiter, & concorditer approbata. Now pray what can these words Communitate ●ota here signify, but another Body of Men distinct from the Earls and Barons, or else it would be a gross Tautology.  
And pray compare this Form of the Peace now mentioned, with the Writs of Summons of the 49th. of this King (when your Dr. grants the Commons were Summoned to Parliament after the same manner as they are now) and see if there be any change in the Terms; and for proof of this, we need go no further than the very Writ of Expenses (for the Wages of the Knights of Shires, which the Dr. himself has given us at large in his answer to Mr. ●.) it is the 49th. of Hen. III. to the Sheriff of Yorkshire, 
Rot. Cl. 49. H. 3. M. 10. d●rs●.  wherein, after other recitals, it follows thus, Cumque communitates Comitatuum dictorum vari●s hoc Ann●. ●●cerin● prastationes ad defensi n●m Regni nostri, etc. He therefore commands the said Sheriff, quod danbus militibus qui pro Communitate dicti Comita●●s praefa●o Parliamento interfuerunt, etc. should be paid their reasonable Expenses. De Communitate Comitatus praedicti: For going to, and staying at, and returning from the said Parliament, etc. from whence it appears, that the words Communitas and Communitates in this Writ, cannot signify the Community of Tenants in Capite alone, but the Commons of the County in general; unless you can prove to me that none but Tenants in Capite had performed these varias praes●a●iones in the Writ, and that none but they then contributed to these Expenses of the Knights of Shires; otherwise these words must plainly signify the Commons in general, as they did in the like Writ of the 28th of King Edward I. which I shall give you by and by; but I shall first show you a few other Records of this King's Reign, 
R. R. C. Rot. Pat. 51 H. 3. M. 16.  concerning the word la C●mmun● (which Mr. P. has given us) they are in the Patent Roll of the 51st. of this King, wherein He by the Council and Assent of the King of the Romans, & des Coun●s, & des Barons, & la Commune, de la Terre, Pardons the Earl of Gloucester and all his Company: So likewise in the same Roll, the King by the Council, and Assent of the said Counts, & Barons, & de la Commune de la Terre, Pardons the City of London, all manner of Rancour and ill Will.  
Now pray tell me a reason, why should not the word la Commune in these Acts of Pardon, signify the same thing as the word Communitas in the form of the Peace▪ and in the Writ of Expenses of the 49th now cited: Since they come immediately after the Counts & Barons, and so must needs signify a Body of men, distinct from them; for there is the same reason, why the words la Commune de la Terre, should here signify the Comm●ns of the Land; as that the word Communitates Comitatus should signify the Community or Commons of the whole County.  M. 
Will you give me leave to answer this Question presently, because I confess it is very material, before you proceed farther? There may (in my opinion) very good reasons be given. 1. Why the words Communitas & la Commune, may signify the Community of the Tenants in Capite in the Form of the peace, and Acts of Pardon; and yet signify the Commons of the County in general, in the Writ for Expenses you have now mentioned: As first, because the subject matter is different in the Form of the Peace, and Acts of Pardon, from that in the Writs of Expenses; the one being the Communitas Regni, and the other Communitas Comitatus only, called also in the Plural Number, Communitates Comitatuum, and then I grant when thus used, it always signifies the Commons in general; and there may be likewise a sufficient reason given, why this great change might have been made in the constituent parts of our great Councils, and yet no change of Phrases or Expressions might be made in our Records and Statutes, nor any notice taken of it by our Historians; which is, because the first Knights of Shires, being chosen out of, and by, the Tenants in Capite only; the change was imperceivable at first, there being still Men of the same order, appearing in Parliament, for the whole Body of those Tenants, the difference being only in the Number, viz. Two, for a whole County; whereas before all the chief Tenants in Capite came in Person, and I am the more inclined to be of this opinion, because in this Writ of Expenses of the 49th. of Henry III (which you have now cited) there is no such Clause as is in the following Writs of like Nature, prout in casu consimili fieri con●uevit, which shows it to have been a new thing for the Knights of Shires to have their Expenses allowed them, that being the first time of their Meeting in Parliament.  F. 
I confess what you say is very plausible, were there any Colour of a proof brought by you for it, but I shall show you further, that your distinction between the Communitas Regni, and the Communitas Comitatus signifies nothing, unless you can prove that this Communitas Regni was not the Representative of the Communitates Comitatuum mentioned in this Writ, and did not consist of Persons of the same degree or order; for the Writ of Summons of 49th. Hen. III. says no more than that these Knights should be de legalioribus & peritioribus militibus comitatus, without limiting them to Tenants in Capite. But as for your Reason, why these great alterations might be made in our great Councils or Parliaments, without any notice taken of it, it is altogether false and precarious, for you have not yet, nor can, I believe, give me any sufficient Authority (beside the Drs. bare assertion) that ever none, but Tenants in Capite, were capable of being Elected Knights of Shires, or that none but such Tenants by Military Service were the Electors.  
And I think I have sufficiently confuted the Vanity of that Assertion at our last Meeting, 
Vi. Dict. 6th. Pag. 425.  when I showed you the false interpretations you gave of those Statutes of 7th. of Hen. IU. and 10th. of Hen. VI whereby you would have proved, that there was some alteration thereby made, as to the Electors of the Knights of Shires at the County Court: Whereas, indeed before those Statutes, all Persons of whatsoever Tenure, and of howsoever small an Estate of freehold, who owed Suit and Service to the County Court, were capable of being Electors; and consequently of choosing whom they pleased as well Tenants in Capite as others, to be Knights of the Shire; and that those who were not such Tenants were frequently chosen; in the Reigns of Edward the Third, and Richard the Second; I could bring sufficient proofs, were it worth while to insist upon a thing so certain.  
But I shall go on to prove that the same words, viz. Communitas le Commune, or la Communalie, were used in many of our Statutes and Records, to signify the Commons. I come therefore to the Reign of Edward the First, and I pray, in the first place, remember, what I took notice of at our last meeting concerning the Statute of Westminster the first, made in the third year of this King, 
See the Old Fr. Statutes in Tottle.  beginning thus in French, per L'assentement des Archesques, Evesques, Abbes, Priors, Counts, Barons & tout la Communalty de la Terre, Illonques Summones.  
Now every one knows that Communality is but French, for the Latin Communitas, as appears by the first Writs we have left us (except that of the 49 th'. of Henry the Third, now mentioned) de expensis Militum, being of the 28 th'. of this King directed to the Sheriff of Somersetshire to levy the expenses of the Knights for that County (who had served in the last Parliament) le Communitate Comitatus praedicti; 
Rot. Cla●. 28 th'. of Ed. 1. m. 12. dorso.  i. e. of the Commons of the said County in general, the same Clause is also in the Writs which were then issued for the expenses of the Citizens and Burgesses who served in this Parliament; which were also to be levied de Communitate civitatis vel Burgi, 
Viz. 4 th'. part of Mr. Pryn 's Parliament. Register, p. 9  which sure must mean the Commonalty, or Commons of all those Cities and Burroughs there mentioned, for the Record is, Eodem modo scribitur Majoribus, & Ballivis pro Burgensibus Subscriptis: And which is also more remarkable, these Writs contain this Clause, that the said Knights and Burgesses should have their expenses allowed, pro veniendo, manendo, & redeundo a Parliamento praedicto prout alias in casu consimili sieri consuevit; which words relating to a former Custom, not then newly began (as this word consuevit in a legal sense still imports) must needs relate to some time much more ancient than the 49 th'. of Henry the Third; or the 18 th'. of this King, the former of which was but 26 years, and the latter but 10 years before this 28 th'. of Edw. the First, in which time there were not above thirty Parliaments called, if so many.  
And further, that the Word Commonalty signified the Body of the Commons, and not Tenants in Capite in the Reign of this King, appears by the Statute or Ordinance (the year is uncertain) entitled, Consuetudines Can●iae, which you may see in French in Tottles Collection; the Title of them is thus, Ceux son● les usages les queax la Communalty de Kent Clayment avoir en Tenements de Gavel-Kind. Now every body who knows any thing of Geval-Kind, know also it was generally a Socage Tenure, there being but little of it held by Knight's Service, and consequently the owners of such Lands who were then the greatest part of that County, are here called lafoy Communality de Kent.  
So likewise in the Reign of Edward the Second the same words are used in the same sense; as in the Statute of Pardon for the death of Pierce Gaveston made in the Seventh of this King; 
See Tottle 's Collection.  which is granted per nous, (i. e. the King himself) per Archievesques, Ev●sques, Abbes, Priors, Counts, Barons, & la Commonal●● de nostre Rolaume illonques assembles.  
So also in the Latin Records, as appears by an Act of Pardon granted in Parliament, 
Rot. Parl. 12. El. 2. m. 17.  in the 12 th'. year of this King: Consentientibus Praelatis, & Pr●ceribus, & Communitate Regni. So likewise the Statute of York of the same year, writ in French, 
Tottle 's Stat. p. 96.  is recited to have been made per Assent des Pre●us, Counts, Barons, & la Commune du Royalme illonques assemblez. Where you see that the Latin word Communitas, and the French le Commune signify the same Order of men.  
In the Reign of Edward the Third, I can give you these remarkable examples of the same words, in the Parliament Roll in the first of this King, 
M. 8.  Andrew de Ha●iford, a Principal Citizen of London, was the Assensu Praelatorum, Comitum & totius Communitatis Regni▪ pardoned all Homicides. 
M. 29.  The very like words are also used in the same Roll in the Act of Pardon granted to the City of London.  
I shall trouble you but with one more in this King's Reign (but it is so remarkable I cannot omit it) of the 34 th'. of this King and is to be found in the old Edition of Statutes Printed in French; the Title begins thus, Ceux sont les choses, queux nostre Seigneur le Roy, Prelates, Signior & la Commune ount ordains & establé●s.  
To conclude with the Reign of Richard the Second, the like expression is found in the Parliament Roll of 5 th'. of Richard the Second, where the Statutes begins thus: 
M. 21.  Pur Commune prosit du R●yalm● d' Angleterre cient fai●es per nostre Seigneur le Roy Prelates, Signior & la Commune de le Royalme esteantes en cest Parliament; from the Titles to which two last Statutes, I pray observe that the word le Commune, is not only used for the Commons in the same sense as it was in the f●rmer Kings Reigns; but also that these Statutes were made by the joint Assents of the King, Lords and Commons: So likewise in the same Roll are recited, Concordiae, sive Ordinationes factae de Communi Ass●●su Regis Procerum, & Magnatum, & Communitatis Regni Angliae; which I give you, to show that the words Communitas & le Commune, always signify the same thing in our Statutes and Records, viz. the Commons as now understood different from your great Lords and Tenants; and if they are to be taken in this sense after the 18 th'. of Edward the First, I would be glad if you could show me any sufficient reason, why they should not be so understood a● along before that time, as well as in the 49 th'. of Henry the Third only.  M. 
Tho I grant that these words you mention are to be understood for the Commons, as now taken in many Records and Acts of Parliament after the 18 th' of Edward the First (and therefore you need not to have taken the pa●ns to have gone beyond that time) yet notwithstanding I think I can prove to you by very good Authorities, that the word Communitas (which I grant is the same thing with le Commune in French) though put after the words, Comites & Barones, does not signify the Commons of England in general, but the Community of the Tenant; in Capite alone, or at least the Community of all Tenants by Military Service; and that as low as the Reign of Edward the Third; but for proof of thi●, I pray peru●e this Writ, which the Doctor hath given us in his Answer to Mr. P. Rex Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, 
B. G. p. 32 33. Rot. Pat. 30. Ed. I. m. 1.  Abbatibus, Priotibus, Comitibus, Baronibus, Militibus, & omnibus ali●s de Comitatu Cantiae Salutem. Sciatis qu●d cum p●●mo die Junii Anno Regni nostri Decimo octavo, Praelati, Comites, Barones' & caeteri Magn●tes de Regno nostro concorditer p●o se, & pro tota Communitate ejusdem Regni in pleno Parliamento nostro nobis concesse▪ unt Quadraginta solidos de singulis Feodis Militum in dicto Regno in Auxilium, ad Primogenitam Filiam nostram Mari●andam, etc. Cujus quidem auxilii levationi faciendae pro Dictae Communitatis aisimento hucusque supersedimus gratio●è, etc. By this Record it is clear, that such as p●id Scutage, that is Forty Shillings for a Knight's Fee, were then the tota Regni Communitas, and no others, and of these the Tenants in Capite granted, and paid it first for themselves and Tenants, and then their Tenants in Military Service, by virtue of the King's Precept paid it to them again for so many Fees as they held of them, so that this Tax being raised wholly upon Knights Fees, must be granted only by those that held by Knight's Service.  
But further, that the Communalte de Royaume, the Community of the Kingdom, as represented by the Tenants in Capite, did still so continue as above mentioned, till almost the middle of King Edward the Third's Reign is as clearly proved by this Record of that King: Rex dilectis & fidelibus ●uis Vicecomiti Wygorniae ●homae B●tt●ler de Upton supe●●abrinam, 
Rot. ●in. 20. Ed. 3. M. 7. See it at large B. C. p. 37.  Militi & Thomae Cassy de Wych salutem; ●●●atis quod cum in pleno Parliamento nostro apud Westmonasterium ad Diem Lunae proximo post Vestum Nativitatis Beatae Mariae Virginis proximo praeteritum tento, Praelati, Comites, Barones' & Magnates de Regno nostro Angliae etc. p●o se, & to a Communita e eja●dem Regni nobis concesse●unt quadraginta solidos de singul●s ●eodi● Militum in Di●●● Regno Angliae, etc. so that the whole Community of England in this Record were Military Men, such as held Knights Fees, or parts of Knights Fees, and such as paid Scutage, and they were neither the ordinary Freemen, or Freeholders', nor the Multitude, nor Rabble.  F. 
I pray Sir give me leave to answer your Arguments from these Records as you ●ut them, lest I forget what you have said, in the first place as to this Record of the 30th. of Edw. I. which relates to a Tax given in the 18th. Year of his Reign, and recites an Aid of 40 s. upon every Knight's Fee through the whole Kingdom to have been given by the Bishops, Earls, Barons and other Magnates, or great Men of the Kingdom in full Parliament, for themselves and the whole Community thereof to Marry the King's Daughter; and which Subsidy he had deferred to Levy till now, and therefore because this was a Tax granted only upon Knights Fees, that those only who paid this Scutage, were then the Communitas or whole Body of the Kingdom, which is no Argument at all, since from this we may plainly collect the clean contrary; for if none had been to pay to this Tax but those that held by Knight's Service in Capite, than the King would have had no need to have had it granted in Parliament; since by the 14th. Article of King John's Charter, he might have Taxed his Tenants in Capite for the Knighting of his Eldest Son, and the Marriage of his Eldest Daughter without the Assent of the Common Council of the Kingdom, and according to your Hypothesis, and the Authorities you have brought to prove it, these Tenants in Capite might also, by the like reason have made their Tenants by Knight's Service, have Contributed to this Tax, which yet you see they could not do without the consent of Parliament, and therefore this Aid or Subsidy being granted in Parliament, must needs extend to all the Lands in the whole Kingdom, as well those that held by Knight's Service, as well as those that did not, for it is not here said as in the Writ to the Sheriff of Sussex, qui de nobis Tenent in Capite, and then the words pro se, & ●ota Communitate Regni cannot mean (as you would have them,) viz. That the Lords and Tenants in Capite had granted it for themselves and the Community of their Tenants by Military Service only, who (say you) represented the whole Community of the Kingdom, for then (as I have already observed) this needed not to have been granted in Parliament at all; but at this rate no Tenants of those Abbeys and Monasteries (which were a great many) who did not hold in Capite, would have paid any thing to this Tax, nor yet the King's Tenants, who did not hold in Capite, but of some Castle or Honour: Nor last, any Tenants in Socage, who were very numerous in Kent, as well as in other Counties (as Mr. Taylour proves in his History of Gav●l-K●nd,) so that if your Tenants in Capite and other under Tenants by Military Service had been then the Community of the whole Kingdom. This Community had not consisted of above one half, or at most a third part of the Kingdom.  
But in my sense of this word Communitas, here will be no difficulty at all, for these Magnates mentioned in this Record, being taken as (I have prove●) they often are, for Knights of Shires, than these words are thus to be understood▪ viz. that all the Parties mentioned in this Record, gave for themselves and the whole Community of the Kingdom, consisting of all the Free holder's of England, who all contributed to the Marriage of the King's Daughter according to their respective Estates; and though the sense of this word had been otherwise in this place, yet it would not have contradicted my sense of the word Communitas, which I do not aver always to signify the Commons, but when it comes immediately after the words Comites & Barones, as it does not in this Record you have now cited.  M. 
But pray tell me how this could be, since the Record says expressly, that this Aid was to be Raised by 40 s. upon every Knight's Fee, which could only extend to Tenants by Knight's Service, nor could this word Communitas here signify the Commons as now understood; since the Citizens and Burgesses are not at all mentioned, who you know do at this day make up the greatest part of the Representatives of the Commons of England.  F. 
This proceeds from your not knowing, or else not considering the ancient manner of reckoning Estates; and consequently of Taxing by Knights Fees, not only Lands held by Military, but Socage Tenure also, 
24. H. 3. M. 8. dorso. 26. H. 3. Par. 1. M. 6. dorso. Tit. de Militibus faciendis.  as appears by those Writs of the 24th. and 26th. of Hen. III. as they are still upon the close Rolls, being (both almost the same, word for word,) which I gave you at our last Meeting, yet since you may have forgot them, pray read them again, Rex Vicecomiti Northampton salu●em, praecipimus tibi quod per totam ballivam etiam in singulis bonis villis, & similiter in pleno Comitatu tuo clamari fa●ies, quod omnes illi de Comitatu tuo, qui tenent Feodum Militis integrum, vel etiam minus, quam Feodum integrum dum tamen de Tenemento suo tam Militari quam Socagio possint sistentari, & Milites non sunt, si●ut Tenementa sus diligunt citra festum omnium Sanctorum, Anno. Regni Nostr. XXV. Arma capiant & se Milites ●i●ri faciant.  
Where you may Note, that all Men who held the value of a Knight's Fee, either by Military or Socage Tenure were liable to be made Knights, provided they could maintain themselves of their Estates; which could never have been, had not the Custom of Reckoning and Taxing Estates of all sorts, as well by Knight's Service as otherwise, according to the value of so many Knight's Fees (that is, at 20● per An.) been then commonly used: But as for your next Objection, that the Citizens and Burgesses are not mentioned in this Record, and so could not be comprehended under the words Communitas Regni, this proves no more than that which will easily be granted you, that this word Communitas used in your Record, is there to be understood restrictively, and according to the subject matter, viz. the Community of Freeholders', or Land-holders' of the whose Kingdom only; since this Tax being wholly upon Lands, the Commons of Cities and Burroughs then called Communitates Civitatum, & Bu●gorum, whose Estates lay in Money or Goods, could not be Taxed by Knights Fees; nor do I doubt but that if we had the Records of that Parliament of the 18th. of Edw. I. now left us (which are lost) it would appear, that they also contributed to this Tax according to their Estates as they did in the 34th Year of this King to make the King's Eldest Son a Knight: As for your Record of the 20th. of Edw. III. it is but the same in effect with this of the 30th. of Edw. I. and the same answer will serve for both, only I cannot but observe, that whereas you have often asserted that this word Communitas, did only signify the Community of Tenants in Capite, now you fall a Peg lower, and it must at last take in the whole Community of Tenants by Knight's Service, whether in Capite or not.  M. 
Well then you g●ant that this word Communitas does not always signify all the Commons of England as you supposed; but farther, that it must mean the Community of the Tenants in Military Service only: P●ay see this very Record of the 34th. of Edw. I. which Mr. P. has given us at large in his Appendix, 
Pag. 172, 173.  which being long, I sha●l trouble you with no more than what makes to our present purpose, viz. that the King intending to make his Son, Prince Edward a Knight, Summoned the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons and other great Men of the whole Kingdom to appoint what Aid they would grant the King towards it; and than it follows thus, that the Prelates, Earls, Barons and others, as also the Knights of Shires being mere, treating together with deliberation upon this Matter, considering that an Aid was due to make his Son a Knight, besides the burden that lay upon they King, by reason of the Scotch War, at length they unanimously Domino Regni conc●ss●runt, p●o s● & ●●tâ Communitate R●gni ●ricesimam partem omnium Bun●●um suorum ●●mporalium mobilium, for making his Son a Knight, and toward his Expenses of his War in Scotland. A●d then the Cives & ●u genses Civit ●●um, ac Burgorum, ●c caeteri de Domini●s R●gis Congregati, treating about the Premises, and considering the burdens lying upon the King (not mentioning any Aid for making his ●on Knight, as not holding of the King by Knights-Fee, o● Service, and therefore none of the Community of the Kingdom, nor liable to it) D●mino R●g● un inimitie ob cau●as supra dictas conc●sserunt Vic. sim●m pariem bono 〈…〉 mobilium. Here the Prelate's, Earls, Barons, and great Men, with the Knights of Shires, consulted together, and gave for themselves, and the Community of the Kingdom, a Thirtieth part of their Goods, and the Citizens, Burgesses and Tenants of the King's Demeas●s (which we●e likewise none of the Community of the Kingdom) gave a Twentieth part; for if they had been of the Community, they had ●aid a Thirtieth part as well as the rest; and therefore 〈◊〉 most certain that even at this time, viz. the 34th. of Edw. I. they we●e not taken to be part of the Community of the Kingdom, and that the Tenant in C●pite, Serjeanty, or at least the Military Men, and Tenants in Military Service were only such.  F. 
As to this last Record you have cited, I need give you no other answer to it, than a like Writ of the 35 th'. of this King, which the ●●ctor himself hath also given us in his glossary; which I shall here read you at large, 
Pag. 37.  together with his Learned Comment upon it; it is for the Collecting of this twentieth and thirtieth part granted in the thirty fourth you have now mentioned▪ t●e Writ runs this, Militibus, libe●is hominibus, & ●oti Communitati Comitatus Middlesex tum in●ra Liberta●●s, quam ●xtra s●lutem: cum Archi●pi●co●i, Epis●●pi, Abbates, Priores, Comites, Bar●nes, Milites, Lab●ri Homines, ac Communit●t●s, Co●itatuum, Regni nostri Tricesim●m ●m ●um Bo●orum suorum t●mpor●lium m●bilium, Civ●sque & Burgen●●s, ac Communita●●s omnium Civit●●●m & Burgorum ejusd●m Reg●i, 〈◊〉 Tenentes de Dominion nos●●is Vicesim●m Bonorum suorum mobilium, curi●liter concess●runt, & gratantur, etc. And lest we should happen to mistake the meaning of these words, th● Doctor himself has furnished us with this Learned Comment upon them as follows in the same place. It is said in this Record that the Archbishops, 
B. G. p. 34.  Bishops, Earls, Barons, Abbots, Priors, Knights and Freemen, and Communities of Counties, gave a Thirtieth part of their Goods, as if they had been all Members, and sat in this Parliament: And so it is said of the Cities and burgh's, that the Citizens, Burgesses and the Communities of the Cities and burgh's gave a Twentieth part of their Movables, as if they had been all there. But these words signify no more, than that the Knights and Freemen gave by their Representatives, and that the Communities of Counties, and the Citizens and Burgesses▪ and Communities of Cities and burgh's gave by their Representatives, 
Claus. 34. E●. 1.  as is most clear from the Writ of Expenses for the Knights of Lincolnshire, and so consequently for the rest. Now I desire you would tell me whether there can be a plainer Record against the Doctor's opinion than this; for in the first place who were these Knights, Freemen and Commons who granted this 26 th'. and 30 th'. part of their Movables in the 34 th'. year of this King; but the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, the Lawful Representatives of the whole Kingdom in General, as well those who held in Capite, or else by inferior Military Service, as those that held by any other Tenure; or who were these Representatives, but men chosen out of all sorts, a● well those that held by Knight's Service, as those that did not; unless you can prove (as you have not done hitherto) that all the Cities and Buroughs in England held of the King in Capite; and that none but Tenants in Capite, or Military Service at least, were chosen either for Counties or Cities, and though I find your Doctor has an utter aversion to the word Commons, and therefore will needs translate the word Communitates, by Communities, and not Commons, yet if you were to render those words, the Commons of the Counties, Cities and Buroughs, into our Law-Latin: I desire to know what other words you could make use of but these in this Record, viz. Communita●es 〈◊〉, Civi●atum & Burg●rum? So that to conclude, if in the 28▪ 34 and 35 th'. of Edward the First▪ a●l the Commons gave by the same Repres●ntat●ves as they do now, I can see no reason why they might not do so too, thirty or forty years before that time; and pray take notice also that here the Tenants in Ancient Deme●n gave likewise by themselves; and could not be charged by the Knights of Shires. And therefore as Mr. L●mbard in his Arche●on very well observes, this Prescription of not being chargeable with the rest of the County must be very ancient, si●ce the●e was no Land at that time reckoned as Ancient Demesne, which had not belonged to the ●rown before the making of Doomsday Book.  M. 
I must confess what you have now said concerning the constant use of the words Communit●s, and 〈◊〉 Common (coming after Comi●es and Barones) to express the Commons in Parliament in our Statutes and Records, would weigh much with me had I not good reason to believe there were no such thing as Commons in Parliament in the sense now taken before the 49 th'. of Henry the Third; and from which time I suppose it was discontinued ●till the 18 th'. of Edward the First; for which, I can give you very good proofs, when it comes to my turn; but in the mean time pray show me by any Record, or Statute, that there were any Knights, Citizens and Burgesses Summoned to Parliament till the times I allow; for in the first place, you cannot show me any mention of Commons in the Plural Number; in any old Statute before Edward the First's time, and as for the words Communitas and le Commune, which I grant were of●en used to express the Commons after that time, yourself own they are equivocal; and therefore when put after the Earls and Barons in the Instances you have given, may signify the Community of the smaller Tenants in Capite, which were the only Representatives of the Commons that appeared in Parliament in those days; and I am the more incline● to be of this opinion, because I have searched the old Statutes very exactly; and cannot find any mention of the word Commons in the Plural▪ much less of Knights, Citizens, or Burgesses, till the Statute of 34 th'. of Edward the First, 〈◊〉 Tallagio n●n conced●●do (made in the 34 th'. of Edward the First) wherein I grant they are expressly mentioned; and as for Writs of Summons you can produce none till the 23 d. of this King, to Summon them to Parliament; though I shall show one by and by that the Doctor has found out of the 18 th'. of Edward the First, whereby he proves they were then Summoned after about twenty-six years' discontinuance; therefore pray show me if you can by any sufficient proof that they were there in Henry the Third's Reign except once, or in Edward the 1 sts till the 18 th'.  F. 
I confess your Doctor has not only escape all other men but himself too in this rare discovery, for whereas in his first Edition of his Answer to Mr. Pety●'s Book, he was content to follow Sir William Dugdale, and make the Commons to have been first Summoned to Parliament in the 49 th'. of Henry the Third, and to have commenced by M●●ford's Rebellion, and so to have still continued on; now the Doctor upon second thoughts, in ●is Edition in Folio, will have them never to be Summoned any more than that once, because forsooth he cannot find them mentioned in such express words as that he cannot evade them, by saying the sense is equivocal; and if the Commons not being expressly mentioned in our Statutes were a sufficient reason to prove them not to have been there; were the Writs of Summons lost as well after as they are before the 23● of Edward the First, you might as well have faced us down, that there were none in all that time till the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo, you now mentioned. And for proof of this pray see the Statute called Articuli super Char●●s, made in the 28 th'. of this King, which is said to be made and granted by the King at the Request of the Prelates, Earls and Barons, who are only mentioned in this Statute, and yet certainly the Commons were then at this Parliament, as appears by the Writs of Summons and Expenses I but now mentioned, and sure their assents were given to it, as well as the Bishops and Lords, I could show you the like in many other Statutes of this King, nor are the words Communit●s, or Commonalty, ever mentioned above twice in all the Statutes of this King's Reign, viz. in that of Westminster the first, and that against Bearing of Arms; neither is the word Commons to be found above once or twice in all the Statutes of Edward the Second; in the Statutes made at Lincoln, in the 9 th'. of this King, 'tis said to be done by the King, the Counts, Barons and other Grands of the Kingdom; now if these general words did comprehend the Commons in those times, you grant they were constantly Summoned to Parliament, I desire you would give me any good reason why the same words may not as well comprehend them long before? and if the bare omission of the distinct Orders or States of Men that gave their assents to the making of any Statute, and the different penning of Acts of Parliament were a sufficient reason to prove they had no hand in it; I doubt two parts in three of the old Statutes of Henry the Third, and Edward the First, would have been made without the Consents either of the Bishops or Lords; since in most of them there is no mention made of either; and that what I say is true, pray at your leisure peruse these Statutes following, viz. de Distriction●, Scacarti of the 51 of Henry the Third, with other Statutes made in the latter end of that King's Reign, as also that of Acto● Burnel made in the 11 th'. of Edward I. that of Winchester made in the 13 th'. of this King; that of Merchants in the same year; as also those of Circumspect agatis, and Quo Warranto, and see if you can find any mention either of the Lords or Commons in them.  
But to come to direct proofs, though I grant the words Knights, Citizens and Burgesses was not expressly mentioned in our old Statutes; yet I shall prove to you by other words of a much more comprehensive signification, that they appeared in Parliament in the very beginning of Henry the Third's Reign▪ for this we need go no farther than the old Manuscripts, as well as Printed Copies of Magna Charta; which was first Granted in the second year, and again confirmed in the 9 th'. of Henry the Third, both which conclude thus, Pro hac autem Donatione & Concessione, Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Abbates, Priores, Comites, Barones, Milites, libere Tenentes & omnes de Regno nostro ded●iun● quint●m decimam pa●tem omnium mobilium suorum. Now can any thing be more express than this Clause, viz. That the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, for themselves and the inferior Orders, viz. the Knights and Freeholders, and all others of the Kingdom by their Lawful Representatives, gave this 15 th'. of their Movables, at both those Parliaments, in which this Charter was first made, and afterwards confirmed.  M. 
I confess this Authority looks very plausible at first, but if it be strictly looked into; I believe it will prove nothing at all: for as to your interpretation of these words, I do not allow it for reasons I shall show you by and by; but in the first place give me leave to dispute the Antiquity of this Charter, which I do not take to be so ancient as you make it, for though I grant there was such a Charter made in the 2d. and again confirmed in the 9th. of Hen. III. yet you have already had my thoughts of this Charter which you suppose to be Henry the Thirds, viz. that this which we now have is not properly his, but his Son Edw. I. since it concludes this: His testibus Bonifacio-Cantuari●n●is Archi●pi●copo, E. Londinensi Episcopo, etc. Anno. Regninostri (Scil. Henrici 3.) nono; whereas this Bonifac here mentioned, was not Archbishop of Canterbury before the 27. Hen. III. nor was there any one whose name began with E. Bishop of London, during the time that Boniface held the See of Cant●rbu●y.  F. 
I am very glad you have made these Objections against the Validity of this Charter; for if I can prove to you, that what you have now urged from your friend the Dr. is a mere Evasion against the Charter itself, I think you have reason to be my Convert. In the first place, pray give me leave to confirm the Validity of the Charter itself; I therefore freely grant that the Original of this Charter is not to be found among the Statute Rolls in the T●ner, where there is nothing left of it on Record, except this confirmation of it by a Charter of Impeximus of Edw. I. (the Conclusion of which is as you have now given) and I think there cannot be a greater P●oof of the careless keeping or voluntary im●ezlement of the ancient Statutes and Records of the Kingdom, than the loss of this great Charter, which certainly must have been enrolled at the time when it was made, as well as every common Grant made by the King to ordinary Persons of Markets and Pairs, since we find Copies of it still Extant in the ancient Annals of divers Monasteries, where they were formerly kept▪ 
Annals Burt. pag. 271. & dein●.  as in particular in the Annals of the Abbey of Barton, Published in the first Volume of ancient English Writers, lately Printed at Oxford, which fully answers your Objection, for instead of Boniface it is there Witnessed by S. Archibis. Cant. i e. Stephen Langton who was then Archbishop of Canterbury, near 20 Years before Boniface; there is also an &c. after the name of this Archbishop: And the same Charter is likewise recited, word for word with the former, and hath the same Conclusion concerning the granting of this 15th. by all the Parties above mentioned in the Chronicle of Walter Hemingford Published by the Learned Dr. G●●e in his 2d. Volume of English Historians, 
Printed at Oxon 1687.  only it hath no, Witnesses Names at the end but the King himself Te●●e meipso, and farther both agree in all things material, with four ancient Manuscript Copies of this Charter of the 2d. of Hen. III. when he was in Minority, one of which is in the Cuttonian Library; a 2d. was lately in possession of Sam Baldwin Sergeant at Law; a third is in the Hands of john Cook Esq chief Prothonotary of the Court of Common-Pleas, and a 4th. is at this present with Mr. Peryt of the Inner-Temple, which I myself have seen.  
But to put this out of all doubt, there is still Extant a fair Original of this Charter of confirmation of the 9th. of Hen. III. (when he was of full Age) under the great Seal of this King (which is supposed to have belonged to B●●●ail Abbey) and is now to be seen in the hands of Sir Nathaniel Powel Benches of the Inner-Temple, who is so civil as to Communicate it to all, who have the Curiosity to see so great a Rarity, so that though it is not to be denied, but that the Charter Published by Sir Edward Coke in his 2d. Institutes, is properly the Charter of confirmation of Edw. I. since Boniface was at that time Archbishop of Canterbury, and ●ulk Bishop of London (E. being by mistake put for F. yet I think no man has any cause to doubt whether that Clause we dispute about be not in all the Copies of this Charter, as well as in this of Edward 1  M. 
Well, admitting this Charter to be as ancient as you please, yet let me tell you▪ if your sense be, that the words at the end of this Charter, viz. omnes. de R●gon, those who gave, or granted this Subsidy, were Members of that Parliament; if you wi●● understand it so, and according to the literal meaning of the words than om●es de R●gn●, 
B. A. P. P. 125, 126.  as well those th●t had Estates in Land, as those that had not, all Copy holder's, all Tradesmen, all Bondmen and Villains (of which there were great store in those days) and all Servants were Members of Parliament. And so then I would willingly understand where ●ll these People should meet, how their Council shoul● be managed, and how it is possible in such Meetings (i any such there can be) to prevent the greatest confusion imaginable. The meaning then of the words, must be, that the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbot, ●ar●, Barons, Knights, Free-Tenants, and all of the Kingdom, or all the King's Subjects' Dederunt, that is paid a Fifteenth part of their Movables to the King, for his granting these Charters, not that they themselves gave, or granted this Subsidy; and 'tis reasonable to conclude, that all the King's Subjects paid the Fifteenth part▪ because one way or other, little or much they enjoyed the benefit of them. I take this to be the Genuine sense of the words, but Mat. Paris, whom you now quoted, makes it very apparent, who were the constituent ●orts of this Parliament, for if you please to observe, the Men to whom the chief Justice Proposed this Fifteenth, and those who consulted about the King's Demands, and those that returned an answer to them; and also granted the Fifteenth part of the Movables, as well of the ecclesiastics, as Lai●s o● the whole Kingdom, were only the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Abbots, Priors; and therefore they were the only constituent parts of this Parliament, as they were also of the Parliament, or great Council held at Mer●on in the 20th. Year of this King's Reign: whither says M●t. Paris, Consummato cum gaudio Nuptiali convivio Rex recedens a Londoni●s venis Merero●●m, ut ibi revocati Magnaies unà●um Rege de Regni Negotiis e●ntractarent.  F. 
I think I can as easily answer this small Objection against on meaning of these words at the end of this Charter. Pray do, I affirm that these words are to be taken literally or the contrary? Therefore you do ill to put a sense upon me which I do not allow of, but pray tell who ever was so mad as to believe that these words are to be understood literally; or that all those Persons who you here give us a Beadroll of, could all appear in Parliament, in Person, or had all Votes at the Elections of Parliament Men; and yet for all that, this Clause is true in a legal, though not in a literal sense, that all the Freemen of the Kingdom granted this 15th. viz. that the Prelates and Temporal Lords in their proper Persons, and all the rest of the Kingdom by their respective Representatives granted this Fifteenth; I 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 sufficient Proxy or Representative is said to perform it by himself; and in this sense, all the Men in the Kingdom gave, or granted, a Fifteenth for the confirmation of this Charter; and so at this day, it may be said in a legal sense, that all the Men of the Kingdom do join in granting the King a Tax by themselves, or their Representatives in Parliament, though none but such as are Freeholders' of 40 ●. a Year, can have Votes at the Election 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 Buroughs, who have any Votes at the Election of Citizens, or Burgesses.  
And that your Dr. himself, though he hath misled you in the sense of this word Dederunt, yet can grant this to be a reasonable Interpretation of this Clause, when he is in a good humour: Pray remember his Comment upon the Record of the 34th. of Edw. I. which I gave you but now; wherein, after the Barones' it follows, that milites Liberi homines & Communitates Comitatuum granted a 30th. part of their Movables, and the Communitates Civitatum & Burgorum a 20th. whereupon he tells you these words are so expressed as if they had been all there in Person; but these words signify no more, then that the Knights and Freemen gave by their Representatives and that the Communities of Counties, and these Citizens and Burroughs gave by their Representatives. and why these Milites Liberi homines & Omnes de Regno might not do it as well in the same sense? When this Charter was granted and confirmed, I should be glad if you could give me a sufficient reason, so that I shall refer it to your own Ingenuity, to consider when the Charter says expressly, that all the Persons therein mentioned, gave a Fifteenth, whether it be not a manifest wresting of the Grammatical signification of this word, Dederunt to render it they paid; for at this rate a Man may make words signify just what he pleases. But our ancient English Historians are the best Judges in this case, for the ancient Annals of Waverly-Abby Published in the same Volume I last mentioned, under the Year 1225. having given us a short account of the granting th●se Charters, 9 Hen. III. recite the conclusion of the great Charter in the same words as they are in the Charter itself, only before Dederunt there is also added the word Concesserunt, which shows that the Author of this part of those Annals, who might very well write at the same time, or presently after the Charter was granted, by his Paraphrase of Concesserunt, seemed to intend to prevent any such mistake in the the signification of the word Dederunt. And that this was the constant opinion of all Historians and Antiquaries to this day; I will show you from Henry de Knighton, who lived within 100 Years after this Charter was granted, 
Vid. Christi. scrip oars Cot. 24.29.  in his History hath this passage in this Yera, viz. 9 of Hen. III. Post haec Rex Henricus concessit Magnatibus terrae duas Chartos unam de Foresta, & aliam de Libertatibus ob quam causam Communes Regni concesserunt 15. partem mobilium, & in mobilium: From whence it appears plainly that at the time when this Author writ, it was generally believed that the Commons (called Milites & Libri Tenentes in this Charter granted this 15th. of all their Goods.  
I shall conclude with a modern Authority of a Person, who you will own to be a Man of great Judgement and Learning, viz. Sir Henry Spelman, who in his Discourse of Magna Charta, inserted in his Glossary, hath this remarkable passage, Demum Anno. 9 Regis Henrici concedente Clero, 
Pag. 376.  & Populo cum Magnatibus Q●intodeceimam partem omnium rerummobilium totius Regni Angliae; renovantur Chartae Lib rtatum, prout sub Rege Iohanne prius erunt conditae, where it is plain, that by Populus he meant the Commons as distinct from the Lords and Clergy. As for what you say further, whereby you would set up the Authority of Mat. Paris against the express ●ords of the Charter itself: I suppose you or the Dr. from whom you borrowed this N●tion, are the first who interpret ancient Statutes and Records, according to the general Words of Historians: Whereas I always thought till now, that the sense of Historians ought to have been understood by Records, and not vice versa, since the former differ one from another in their manner of expression of the constituent parts of our great Councils or Parliaments, and for brevity sake, express themselves in as few words as they can.  
But notwithstanding the Conciseness of those expressions which we find in Mat. Paris, and other ancient Authors; yet I think even in this place now cited, there are words enough to prove there were other Lay Persons at this Council, besides Earls and Barons there mentioned, or else, what is the meaning of these words Aliis U●iversis immediately after Baronibus, to whom Hubert de burgh proposed the King's Demands, and who also gave their answer to them? And if these Gentlemen were not Barons, as certainly they were not (or else to what purpose was this distinction made) than they were meet Commoners, and so we find that there were Commons in Parliament from the Authority of Mat. Paris before the 49. Hen. III. which is likewise proved by the Statute of Merto● (which I have lately cited) in the conclusion of its Preface runs thus, Ita provijum fui●, & conc●ssum t●m à predictis Archi-piscopis, Episcopis Comi●ibus, Baronibus, quam ab ipso Rege, & Aliis. Now pray tell me who these & Alii were if not the Commons, for you did not answer this Question when I last mentioned this Statute.  M. 
I shall tell you my thoughts of these Alii by and by, when I come to these words omnes de Regno; but in the mean time, give me leave to give you the Drs. Interpretation of this word Milites put here after Barones, which Milites were not Knights of Shires (as you suppose) but Tenants in Capi●e by Military Service, as appears by the Assize or Statute of Richard the I. quoted by R. Hovelen in his History, 
Fol. 445.  which is said to have been made, per Assensum & Consilium Archiepiscoporum, & Episcoporum, Abbarum, C●miutum & Baronum, & Militum. Now these Milites were often styled Barons, and the Barons, Milites. Nam Miles (saith Sir Henry Spellma●) quem Baronem vocibant non à Militari Cingulo (quo Equite crebantur) sed a Militari ●edo quo alias possessor & liberè Teneus', num upatus est, nomen sumpsit, that is, such as had Lands given them for, or such as held Lands by, Military Service and did Homage and Fealty to those of whom they held their Lands, and in this sense, Mat. Paris calls all the Temporal Nobility Milites, when in the Parliament 37. of Hen. III. he says a Militibus Concessum est Scutagium illo Anno. ad Scutum tres Marc●t.  F. 
I think your Interpretation of the word Milites i● forced, and quite contrary to the true meaning of this Charter; now pray show me the consequence, that because the Barons were anciently styled Milites; that therefore your Tenants in Capi●e were then styled Barones too; which is not true, and quite contrary to this Charter itself, where these Milites (whoever they were) are put after the Barones, as a distinct Order of Men from them, whereas if the terms had been then reciprocal the words Baron's, or Milites (chu●e which you please) would have comprehended both; but indeed this Title of Miles was then of a much larger signification, and took in all Knights of whatsoever Tenancy, whether by Military Service or Socage, as appears by those Writs of the 25 th'. and 26 th'. of Henry the Third, which I have already cited, whereby those that held Estates sufficient to maintain themselves the Tenemento, ●o tam militari, quam Soc●gi, were a like Summoned in to take the Order of Knighthood, and when Knighted were certainly as good Milites as the best of your Tenants in Capit●, and so might very well be reckoned amongst the Milites in this Charter: But pray tell me what say you to these following words, Liberi Tenent●s & omn●s de Regno?  M. 
These likewise bear a like Interpretation, for by these libere Tenentes, that immediately follow in this Cha●ter after Milites I suppose were mea●t no other than the lesser Tenants in Capi●e, who having scanty Knights Fees, 
B. G. p. 64.  or part of Knights Fees, desired not Knighthood, or had compounded, or fined for it, that they might not be made Knights, and who not being actual Knights, are here called Free Tenants or Freeholders, as I have already told you at our last meeting.  F. 
Pray give me leave to answer this Interpretation of the word liberi Tenentes, before we proceed farther. You may remember that I have answered all your Authorities, whereby you would prove that the Tenants in Capi●e were at this time the only proper Freeholders of the Kingdom; which is false, since I then proved to you from Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary, that any Freeman having an Estate of Inheritance, was as much Libere Tenens, a Freeholder as the best Tenant in Capite in England. Indeed if the words had been Milites & libere T●n●ntes, qui de Rege tenuerunt in Capite, you had said somewhat, but otherwise it is all mere supposition, without any ground. But pray go on to the last wo●ds in this Charter, & omnes de Regno nostro; what can they mean ●ut that all the Freemen of the Kingdom gave this Fifteenth by their Lawful Representative.  M. 
If you do not like our sense of these words, Milites and Libere Terentes: I cannot help it, nor shall I dispute them longer with you; but as for this last Clause in the Charter, 
Ibid. pag. 65.  & omnes de Regno, it only means, all these who were Tenants in Capite in general in the same sense, as when our ancient Historians mention Regnum, & S●cerdotium; by Regnum is to be understood both the Temporal and Spiritual Barons, great and small; the King's Justices, or any other that exercited any share or Ministerial part of the Government; as perhaps all those di● one way or other by coming to our great Councils or Parliaments, etc. all which is evident from the words of the Quadri parti●e History, concerning Thom●s Becket, thus, Rex apud Clarendun. Regnum convo a● universum. Quò come venis● ut Prasules, & Proceres, etc. i. e. the whole Baronage called together by the King's Writ, or a full meeting of the Spiritual and Temporal Barons, both great and small. I pray also remember that passage you yourself made use of but now, out of Mat. Paris, whereby you would prove that the Common Council of the whole Kingdom was distinct from that of the Tenants in Capite; because that after the Curia held at Christmas, the King immediately issued out his Writs, commanding omnibus ad Regnum spectantibus, to appear at London; and yet you see there are no more mentioned to be Summoned than the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls and Barons. 
B. G. p. 65.  So that we may hence learn the true meaning of these words, omnes de Regno, at the end of this Charter; for these omnes de Regno, were the same with the omnes ad Regnum spectantes, in Mat. Paris, the Regnum, or Government, the Communitas Regni, the totalis Regni universitas, the insluita nobilium multitudo; and also gives us the meaning of those words omnes alii de Regno, in the close Roll of the 19 th'. Henry the Third, 
M. 6. Dor.  to the Sheriff of Somersershie, Scias quod Comites & Barones, & omnes alii de toto Regno nostro, etc. Concesserunt, etc. Which are further explained by a Writ in the same Roll about the same business, directed to the Sheriff of Sussex (which you have likewise cited) beginning thus, 
ibid. M. 8.  Sciatis quod Arohiepiscopi, Episcopi, Abbates, Priores, Comites, Barones & omnes alii de Regno nostro Angliae, qui de nobis tenent in Capire nobis concesserunt, etc. Here the omnes alii de Regno, were the omnes qui de nobis t●nent in Capite; which were then all the Regnum, or Communitas Regni. So likewise it may be farther proved from a Record of the 48 th'. of Henry the Third, 
Rot. Pat. N. 5.  Rex omnibus, etc. cum venerabiles Patres G. E. Eborum Archiepiscopus, etc. & alii Praelati, Magnates, Milites, libere Tenentes & omnes alii de Regno nobis nuper in Articulo necessitati● servitium fecerunt, & sulisidium, etc. And I may also put you in mind of the Writ I cited but now directed, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, etc. Comitibus, Baronibus, Militibus & omnibus aliis de Comi●aru Kanciae, etc. for the Lewing of forty Shillings upon every Knights he in that Country. Now this Writ could not be directed to all the Men in Kent, but to all such as paid Scutage, for not a fortieth part of them were Tenants in Capite, or Military Service: So that these omnes alii de Regno, and Omnes alii Comitatus, were the same one with the other, and otherwise it could not be: for by Omnes de Regno, or Omnes alii de Regno, the Inhabitants in general could not be understood, for they never were Summoned, no not the Hundred part of them to meet in Great Councils; for 'twas impossible they should, and perhaps not above a fourth part of the Kingdom paid to this Fifteenth, if we consider how many Servants, Villain●, Bondmen, and many such People there were than in the Nation that paid nothing.  F. 
You have taken a great deal of pains to perplex and darken words in themselves very clear and perspicuous; for methinks it is a strange piece of confidence in your Doctor, when the Charter says expresily, That Omnes d● Regno; all the Freemen of the Kingdom gave this 15th, to restrain this Act only to the Tenants in Capite, who were but a few in comparison to the whole Kingdom; this is indeed to make words signify any thing he fancies.  
But to answer your Authorities, which are founded all upon false suppositions, without any proof. As to your Authority from the Quadrilogus History of Thomas B●ecket; it is true, that the Praesules and Pr●ceres are there called Regnum, the Kingdom; but I have already proved at our last Meeting; that this word Proceres was of so comprehensive signification, that it took in all the Principal Men of the Kingdom, as well those that were Lords, as those that were not; so that the chief Citizens and Magistrates of our Cities and great Towns, are often styled Proceres & Magnates Civitatum, in our ancient Historians and Records, and certainly the great Freeholders', or Knights of Shires did much more justly deserve that Title.  
As for the other passage out of Mat. Paris, where the Bishops, Abbots, Earls and Barons, are called omnes ad Regnum spectantes; this is but a general way of expression in this Author, and proves nothing: For either the word Barones, takes in all the smaller Tenants in Capite, or it does not, if the latter, than this Author does not exactly recite all the Orders of Men, whom yourself must acknowledge to have appeared there; since the great Barons alone could never make this infinita Nobilium multitudo mentioned in this Author; if the former, than it is plain, that he thereby comprehended more than those who were really Barons. Since it is certain that the smaller Tenants in Capite were not so, nor are so much as called so in King John's Charter; and then make the most of this word Barones, it may in a large and common acceptation, take in all the chief Freeholders', or Lords of Manors, which (as I have already proved) were often called Barons in our ancient Historians, and Laws of the first Norman Kings; and Mr. Cambden tells us that under the word Baronagium, omnes Regni ordines continarentur: This I say, supposing that by this infinita Nobilium multitudo, is to be understood, all the chief Gentry, or Freeholders' of England, called often Nobilitas Angliae, as I have already made out, and which may also take in the Representatives of Cities and Towns; but if we should suppose, that by the Barones here mentioned, are to be understood only the Tenants in Capite; yet, since they, together with the great Lords, made the chiefest Figure in the Government; it was easy for him to over-flip the particular mention of others, it being enough to comprehend them with the Representatives of the rest of the Kingdom, under the general Phrase of Infinita Nobilium multitudo, as I have already said, but I always thought that the Conciseness of Historians, was to be explained by our Statutes and Records, and not that their express words should be interpreted by the concise Phrases and Expressions of Historians; and if by omnes de Regno are to be understood all the Tenants in Capite in general; how could this be without a notorious Tautology, since if it be as you say, that the Bishops, Abbots, Earls and Barons comprehended all the greater Nobility, and the Milites & libere Tenentes, all the lesser, or Tenants in Capite, (who made then the whole Kingdom) if so, what can these words omnes de Regno here signify, but so many idle words without any sense or meaning?  
But it will be now more easy to answer your false Interpretation of these words, omnes alii de Regno, which you will needs have to signify only the Tenants in Capite; and it will be no hard matter to show you the Drs. Prevarications on these words; for as to the first Writ directed to the Sheriff of Somerset-shire, though I confess these words at the beginning of the Writ, are omnes alii de toto Regno nostro; yet the Dr. has in his Glossary concealed the words that follow, which plainly restrain them, to Tenants in Capite, and their under Tenants by Military Service; but if you please but to turn to the Writ which he has given us at large in his Appendix, Numb. 14. you will find first, that this Writ recites, that the Earls, Barons and omnes alii de Regno, had granted the King an Aid to two Marks on every Knights-Fee, quae de nobis Tenent in Capite: Secondly, that at the Command of the Earls, Barons and all others that held in Capite, the Sheriff should distrain omnes milites & libere tenentes qui de eye tenent per s●rvitium militare, who were likewise to pay the King the like Sum of two Marks for every Knight's Fee, so that you may here plainly see that this could be no general Tax granted by the whole Kingdom, since none but Tenants in Capite and their under Tenants by Knight's Service were chargeable with it, which, if given with their consents, must have been done in full parliament, and in which they had Representatives of their own choosing, and if without their consents, was directly contrary to Law.  
But you need go no farther than this Writ you have now cited, to prove that the Milites & libere tenentes, were not at this time only Tenants in Capite, as you suppose but their Feudatory Tenants also, as appears by the express words of this Writ, which order the Sheriff to distrain omnes Milites. & libere tenetes qui de ci tenent p●rservitium Militare; but as for the other Writ to the Sheriff of Suss●x, which (as you say truly) relates to the former, to the Sheriff of Somerset-shire; it sufficiently interprets those general words, omnes alii de R●gno, and expressly restrains them to omnes alii qui de nobis tenent in Capite, who in a Council of themselves alone, granted this Tax for themselves only, as I have already proved, which, whether it was according to Law or not, we shall inquire by and by.  
But in the mean time, give me leave to answer to your next Record of the 4●th. of Hen. III. which recites an extraordinary Service and Aid done by the Prelati, Magnates, lib re Tenentes, & omnes alii de Regno: Now that this was not a Service performed, or an Aid given by the Tenants in Capite only for the whole Kingdom; the word Subsidium may teach you, which was never granted otherwise, then by the whole Kingdom in Parliament. But let us first consider the substance of this Record, which is indeed but the King's Declaration or a right to all his Subjects in general, or the Freemen of the whole Kingdom, that what they had lately performed in Articulo nec●ssitatis praedictae non sibi cedat in prajulicium, n●c ad posterum tra●atur in consuerudimen, vel consequentiam nec ad bujus modi servi●ium compellentur; which being the effect of this Record, now see the cause why it was granted, which you may find in another Record of the same Year, 
M. 9 dorso.  and on the Roll, and to which this Rcord you cited relates, which is a general Summons directed, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus, Comitibus, Baronibus, Vicecomitibus, Militibus, liberis Hominibus, & Vniversae Communitati Comitatus Lincolniae, commanding them all, even the Citizens and Townsmen immediately to appear with such Arms as are there expressed (and were proper for each Man's Estate and Condition) for the common Defence of the Kingdom, against strangers then ready to invade it, and this Record also says, eodem modo scribitur caeteris Vice-comitibus Angliae. Now since it appears by this Writ of Summons by which this Service and Aid was performed, that not only the Tenants in Capite, but all the Subjects of the whole Kingdom were engaged in the performance of it; can any body, but one who will take things by halves, suppose that by these omnes alii de Regno there mentioned (and who must certainly be the same Parties intended in the Drs. own Record, viz. all the Freemen of the Kingdom) could be meant no more than the Lesser Tenants in Capite, taken altogether, when they had been (according to our sense) all particularly named before?  
But that by these omnes de Regno cannot be here meant only the Tenants in Capite, 
Rot. Cl. 2. Mem. dorso.  but all the Freemen of the whole Kingdom, I shall prove by another Record of the 16th. of Hen. III. and is the very Writ I gave you before, wherein it is recited, that the Villani together with the rest of the Liberi Homines had given a 30th. of their Movables, in consideration of which, this Writ concludes thus, Concessimus etiam Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Comitibus, Baronibus, & vobis omnibus aliis de Regno nostro, quod tam Charta nostra, de Foresla, quam alia Charta nostra de Libertatibus, quas eyes, & vobis fieri fecimus de caetero in omnibus teneantur; so that it plainly appears, that by these words in this Record omnibus Aliis de Regno, must be understood all the Freemen of the Kingdom in general, unless you will allow none to have had any share in these Charters, or to have received any benefit by them, but the Drs. Tenants in Capite alone, which sure you will not affirm.  
But lest I tyre you as well as myself, in dwelling so long upon things so plain and obvious, were not they by too much industry, rendered obscure, I come at last to the conclusion of your discourse, which is no more than a repetition of what you had said at first; that because all the Kingdom could not be Summoned to appear in Parliament, and that Villains and Servants etc. never paid to this Tax; that therefore the words omnes de Regno are not to be understood literally; (a doughty discovery) and therefore you have found an expedient to help this contradiction by your Tenants in Capite, and Thy Knights, Citizens and Burgesses for the Laity, and by the Procuratores Cleri for the Inferior Clergy; whose Interpretation is most agreeable to truth, I durst leave to any indifferent Judge; for I must needs tell you once again, I cannot see any manner of reason, either from Authorities, or from the Nature of the thing, that your Tenants in Capite could be the omnes de Regno in a legal sense, and as such did represent all the Freemen of Estates in the whole Kingdom; therefore if you can prove this, it may go far to convince me, otherwise not.  M. 
Since you will not rest satisfied with those Authorities I have already produced to prove it; 
B. A. P. 117. E●d●in. Ibid. 121.  pray let me discourse with you a little more particularly of the nature of Tenors by Knight's Service. I therefore suppose that the Dr. hath very well prove by several Records, as also the two Writs of 19th. Hen. III. to the Sheriffs of Somerset and Sussex, that the King anciently by his Prerogative, and his original Power and Right, reserved upon Knight's Fee, did Tax the Military Tenants, of his Tenants in Capite, and their other ordinary Free Tenants, and by his Writs caused them to pay both scutage Tax and Scutage Service, and other reasonable Aids, as often as necessity required.  F. 
I grant indeed, the matter of fact to have been sometimes as you say, since there is no averring against express Records; but I say likewise, that as for those Writs the Dr. has given us concerning the Kings Ordering the Sheriffs to distrain the Mesne Tenants of the Tenants in Capite for Scutage Service, as to Marry their Daughters, or for the finding of Men in any Warlike Expedition, it was no more than those Mesne Tenants were bound to do by the Tenors of their Estates; if they had failed to serve their Lords in Person, or by sufficient Deputies; and therefore the King might legally grant them Scutage upon such Tenants, and perhaps might also change their Service in Person into a pecuniary Aid, as appears by some of those Writs the Dr. has given us; and this not by his Prerogative, but by Law; so likewise, though your Tenants in Capite could Tax themselves in their distinct Council, or else in the Common Council of the whole Kingdom at what rate they pleased, for the Knight's Fees they held of the King; and though the King might sometimes undertake by this pretence, to I evy a Scutage of two Marks on their Under-Tenants also; yet does it not appear by either of those Records you have now cited, that they gave for more than themselves alone, the words in the Writs being only, that they had given the King Esse●ax Auxilium of two Marks upon every Knight's Fee (as well Wards as others) who held of him in Capite, without any mention of their Mesne Tenants; so that if the Sheriff was afterwards ordered to distrain these Mesne Tenants also, for two Marks for each Knight's Fee they held of their Lords; this was straining a point of Prerogative, and was expressly against Law; for at this rate the King might by the l●ke Prerogative have Taxed all the Bishops, Abbots, great Lords and all other Tenants in Capite without their consents, as well as their Mesne Tenants, though it was contrary to the express words of the Charters of King William I. and King john, which you yourself cited at our former Meeting, so that granting the matter of fact to have been practised sometimes as your Records make out, this is no proof that this was a constant Law, or settled Custom, much less that the King had a right so to do.  M. 
I do not doubt, 
B. ●. A. pag. 179, 180.  but that I can prove to you, that what this King then did in charging these mesne Tenants was according to his ancient Prerogative, and what himself and his Predecessors had frequently done both before and after the Clause in King John's Charter of Nullum Scut●gium, vel Auxilium ponam in Regno meo, & ●. was granted, nay after it was granted Hen. 3. and Edw. 1. taxed their Demeasns through England, 
Rot. 11. Hen. 3. m. 19  though not the whole Kingdom by the advice of their Privy Council until the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo was made in 34 E●w. 1. and both Rich. 1. and K. john had taxed the whole Kingdom without common assent before the Grant of Magna Charta; as also in the Reign of Rich. 1. as you may find in Hoveden, 
Fol. 442.  who lived at that time, the passage is long, and therefore I shall only give you the beginning of it, viz. that this King Anno 1198 (Regno 9) accepit de unaquaque Carucata terrae totius Angliae V. solidos de Auxilio, etc. and then goes on to show us the manner how it was raised and collected; and 'tis observable, that he uses these words Auxilium and Tallagium for the same Tax, so we find in Mat. Paris, that King john took a seventh part of all Movables without common Assent, 
F. 209. A. D. 1203.1207.  and another time a Thirtieth, the great Men and Clergy grumbling at it. K. Hen. 3. also taxed all his Demeasn in the 33 d year of his Reign, 
M. 1.  as appears by a Writ in the close Roll of this year, whereby he also commands the Sheriff of Bu●ks that he make Philip Basse● a Rati●nabil● Tallagium de hominibus suis de eo tenentilus in Mannerio de Wycumb, quod aliquando suit Dominicum Praedec●ssorum R●gis, etc.  
In the 39 th'. year this King (as the Doctor shows us at large by a Reco●d in the keeping of the Remembrancer of the Exchequer) he taxed all his Demeasn; and among the rest the City of London at 3000 Marks; 
B. A. I. 178.  which though with some contest mentioned in this Record, they were at last forced to pay; because it was found upon Record that this King and his Father had several times palliated or Taxed the sai● City in like manner, at the sums therein mentioned; so that at last the Mayor and Citizens were fain to acknowledge themselves th●s Talliable by the King.  
So in the 52. year of his Reign he Taxed all his Demeasn Lands beyond Tren● by his Escheators; 
Rot. Cl. 52. H. 3. m. 10. dorso. Ryleys placit. Parl.  and this Right was acknowledged by all the Bishops, Earls and Barons in the 33 d year of Edw. I. as app●a●s by their Petition to him in Parliament, in these words, All P●ti●ionem Arc●iepiscoporum, Episporum, Praelatorum, Comitum & Baronum & aliorum proborum hominum de Terra p●tentium quod Rex concedere veli. quod ipsi p●ssunt ta●●i●re antiqua dominica, unde sunt in Tenantia, ●icut R●x Dominica sua taliavit; it● responsum est, fiat ut petitur.  
From all which you may plain see that the Kings of England had anciently a Prerogative of laying Taxes not only upon their own Tenants and their Mesne Tenants who held under them, but upon the whole Kingdom too; and it their Successors have acted otherwise it has proceeded from their meet grace and favour who have tied up their own hands from exercising this Prerogative.  F. 
I confess you have mustered up a great many Authorities; but for what end I know not unless it be to prove that some former Kings stretched their Prerogative to act directly against Law, and their own Charters to the contrary; and to justify them in it when they have do●e, as if all things were done according to their Lawful Prerogative, because they did it; if this be Law or Reason either much good may do you with it; for at this rate the King notwithstanding all Laws made and sworn by him to the contrary may take what he pleases out of our Estates without our consents, because his Predecessors broke the Laws and their Coronation Oath into the Bargain; but you might have remembered that a de f●cto ad jus non datur consequentia; but I doubt the Precedents you have now brought, will not come up to the proof of the assertion you have laid down; for it is plain as well from King John's Charter, as by that passage in Bracton, I but now cited, whereby it appears that extraordinary Taxes such as Hidage, Corage, and Carvage, & alia (under which I suppose was included your Scutage-Tax also) could not be imposed without the consent of the Common Council of the whole Kingdom; when the King met his People in Parliament; if then this were Law whatever K. john o● Henry the Third, or any other King acted contrary to this Rule, was illegal, and produced among other mischiefs the general revolt of all the Baronage, i. e. as well the Inferior as Superior Nobility of the whole Kingdom, till such time as our Kings, finding they could do no good by force, were fain at last to content themselves with the Legal Prerogatives of the Crown, and by new Laws and fresh Declarations of the ancient Law to declare it unlawful for them to impose any Taxes upon their Subjects without their consents in Parliament.  
But let me tell you that by thus setting up the King's Illegal Prerogative of taxing the Mesne Tenants of their Tenants in Capite, you quit the question; for I asked you by what right the Tenants in Capite (whom you suppose) could grant by this great Charter a Fifteenth of the Movables of the whole Kingdom as well of those who did not hold of them by Military Service, as of those that did, nay of those who never held of them at all; and you then fly presently to I know not what unknown Royal Prerogative of Taxing the Mesne Tenants of the Tenants in Capite at pleasure; which was either according to Law, or it was not, if the former, I have already proved he could not do it by Law at all; but if against Law, there was the like reason why he should have had the like Prerogative over his Tenants in Capite too; even over the very Bishops, Abbots and Temporal Lords; and then I desire to know whether the great Council of the Kingdom had not been long since destroyed and given up.  
But to examine your Authorities, it is true, Hoveden says of Richard the First, that accepit de unaquaque Hida Terrae V. solidos, yet does it not therefore follow, that he took this Tax without consent of his great Council, it was the ordinary Phrase of Writers in those times to say, Rex accepit, i. e. received such a Tax, when indeed he took nothing but what was given him by his Parliament. And therefore though we find this Tax not mentioned in any other Writer, but only Hoveden, and so cannot give you an express proof that this Tax was granted in a great Council, yet it is most likely (nay certain it was) for the word accepit does not in its own nature import any violent or illegal exaction▪ and therefore considering the nature of the thing, it is greater reason to suppose that this aid was granted by consent; since this same 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 answer this Money to the Exchequer, Coram Episcopis, Abbatibus & Baronibus ad hoc assignatis, who would never have undertaken it, 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 pleasure may appear by a relation out of this very Author: in the very same year, 
Pag. 441. b.  but a little before, viz. that when the King demanded by Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury, that Homines Angliae the men of England should find him 300 Milites, i. e. Knights to stay one whole year in his Service, or else would give him so much money as that he might therewith maintain those 300 Knights in constant pay, viz. to every Knight three Shillings of English Money wages a day, and that to grant this, all the rest were willing, as not daring to resist the King's will, only Hugh Bishop of Lincoln as a true servant of God abstaining from all evil answered, That he would by no means agree to the King's desire, because it would redound to the detriment of his Church, etc. and so it seems the business fell and came to nothing. Now it is plain that this Request must have been made in the great Council of the Kingdom; or at least in that of the Tenants in Capite, and if he could not charge his Subjects with the keeping but of 300 Horsemen for one year without their assents can any body believe that he should presently after extort a much greater Sum, viz. five Shillings out of every Plow-land in England. But as for all your Precedants for King John's reign, he was such a Notorious Tyrant and breaker of his Coronation Oath, and common Faith both to God and man, that I hoped that neither yourself nor any good English man would have fetched Precedents for Prerogative, from so pros●igate a Reign as his, and in which I grant there were more than once illegal Exactions of this nature, which yet are branded by those very Historians that relate them for great oppressions and unjust exactions; 
Vid. Chron. Thom. Wikes. & annal de Waverly in Anno 1207. Published at Oxford.  as particularly in this first instance of out of Mat. Paris of K. John's taking away by force the Seventh of the Movable Goods of the whole Kingdom; which is by this Author called by no better than Rapinam, Rapine or Robbery.  
The same I may say to the like Exactions of his Son H●n. the Third, which are branded by all Writers as horrible and illegal oppressions, nay are owned to be so by this King's frequent Confirmations of Magna Charta, and Acknowledgements of his breach of them, and promised to observe them better for the future; But I am sorry to find your Doctor, whom you follow, both in his Answers to Mr. P. and Mr. A. as also in his complete History still to cite the most violent and illegal Actions, nay the very perjuries for ●lowers of the Crown, and Royal Prerogatives.  
But as for the Authorities you urge for this Kings Talliating his Demesnes without consent of Parliament, you yourself grant that this Talliage was not general upon the whole Kingdom; and if so, could only concern his own Tenants in ancient Demesn, and none else; who were always exempted from being taxed with the rest of the Nation▪ because they were liable to yield the King a reasonable Talliage ratione Tenurae whensoever he needed it; yet this was counted rather a privilege than otherwise, since they were not only free from all other burdens and Parliamentary attendance, but were also Taxed much less than the rest of the Nation in regard of their Tilling the King's Lands; but when this reasonable Prerogative grew to be abused, and the Exactions levied upon them became intolerable, than they would no longer suffer it; but got it taken away by the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo; after which we find the Tenants in ancient Demesne frequently giving their shares of Aides and Subsidies in Parliament by Delegates of their own, as in the Record of the 35 th'. of Edward the First, which you have now cited; till at last they came to be resolved into the common body of the Kingdom, but a● for the City of London▪ it was never taken for part of the King's Demeans, and so is not to be found in Dooms day Book, but as appears by Record held of the King in Capite, and therefore could be no otherwise Taxed then as the rest of the Tenants in Capite, that is, by the Common Council of the Kingdom. And this made the Londoners deny to be otherwise Talliated, as appears by this Record of Henry the Third, which you have now cited. But the truth is they had this Exaction first laid upon them in the exorbitant Reign of King john; and this was afterwards trumped again upon them in all the ill part of his Son's Government, because his Father had done it before; and I doubt not but if Shipmoney had passed unquestioned, and been as often paid in the Reign of K. Charles the First, but that it would have been urged as a Precedent in the Reign of Charles the Second.  
But as for your last Authority of the 33 d. of Edward the First, pray take notice, that it is before the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo, and extends only to such Estates in ancient Demesn as were held of the King by Noblemen or Gentlemen, either by Gift, or Purchase; and which, for all that still kept the ancient custom of being Talliated by the King, as their under Tenants were by them, to enable the Lords to pay the King's Talliage; and in this sense I understand these words in this Record, unde sunt in Tenantia; i. e. of which they are in Tenancy to the King. Nor does the Record call them Dominica sua, as it does the King's Demesns that follow; so that this could not be a Tax upon all under Tenants by Knight's Service as you suppose: sin●e their Estates were never called Antiqua Dominica, and therefore I think after all, you cannot show me any legal Precedent that our Kings claimed a Right under colour of their Prerogative of Taxing the whole Nation de Alto & ●●sso, at their pleasure.  M. 
I shall not now dispute it longer with you whether the Kings of England had not anciently a power of Taxing the Lands held of them, without the consent of their Great Council; but thus much I think I may safely aver that when this Great Charter was made the Tenants in Capite as the Common Council of the Kingdom gave Taxes and made Laws not only for themselves but their Mesne Tenants, and the whole Nation also. Nor was this at all unreasonable, that those who thus held Estates by Mesne Tenure under the Tenants in Capite, should be bound by the Acts of those of whom they held them; 
B. I. A. pag. 171.  since we see in Scotland that at this day none sit there, either as Commissioners of Shires, or Burgesses for the Royal Buroughs, but such as hold in Capite of the King; for anciently before the Law for excusing the smaller Barons and free Tenants in Capite, and sending Commissioners of Shires in their stead, was introduced by a Statu●e made in the Seventh Parliament of K. jam. 1. A. Dom. 1420, it consisted all of Tenants in Capite, viz. of the Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons; & Libere Tenentibus qui de R●ge tenant in Capite; as appears by the very words in the Latin Titles to divers of those Statutes, as you may find them in Slenes' Collection of Scotch Laws. Now if this Law did anciently, and does still prevail in Scotland, that the Tenants in Capite should be the sole Representatives of that whole Kingdom; I cannot see any Reason why it might not have been so anciently in Engl●nd also, especially since I can give you so good Reasons to back this opinion.  M. 
I will answer your Argument from Scotland by and by; but in the mean time give me leave to tell you why I think it could never have been the custom in England; and that for two Reasons, first because it was against Reason; and 2 lie, because it was against the known Law of the Kingdom▪ that it was against Reason, is apparent; since what reason was there that if a Man in those times purchased an Estate for a valuable consideration of a Lord, or any other Tenant in Capite (as certainly thousands did) to be held either by Knight's Service, or in Socage that such a Tenant should lie at the Mercy of his Lord, to dispose of his Estate in Taxes, and make Laws for him at his pleasure; however exorbitant those Taxes were, or inconvenient those Laws might prove, the Lord being no Representative of his own choice▪ or appointment.  
In the next place, that this was contrary to the received Law and Custom of the Kingdom in those times, I can prove by two very sufficient Authorities, the one of the Earl of Chester, the other of the Bishop of Durham. Now it is certain that both this Earl and Bishop hel● their County Palatines in Capite immediately of the King, nor had those Counties any Representatives in Parliament, till long after that they had Knights of Shires and Burgesses, granted them by particular Statutes made for that purpose; now according to your Hypothesis, all the Freeholders and Inhabitants of those County-Palatines should have been bound by all Acts of Parliament, and Taxed with the rest of the Kingdom as often as there were Laws made, and Taxes given when their Bishop or Earl was present, which was not so; for in the first place as for the County of Chester if the Earl had been the Representative in Parliament of his Tenants by Knight's Service, or otherwise, as also of all the Abbeys, and the City of Chester itself, and all other great Towns in that County, his Vote in Parliament would have obliged all of them; and there would have been no need of a Common Council or Parliament of the States of the whole County in which they then made Laws, and Taxed themselves as a Separate Body from the rest of the Kingdom, as may appear from these following Records which Mr. A. hath given us; the first of which is a Writ of K. Edw. I. 
I. A. p. 22. Ro●. Pat. 3. E. 1. M. 6.  directed, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus, Priori●us, Baronibus, Militibus & omnibus ●liis Fidelibus suis in Comitat. C●striae; reciting that whereas the Prelates, Counts, Barons, & alii de Regno, had given him a 15 th'. of their Movables. He desires that they also would of their Benevolence and Courtesy (in Latin Curialitate) grant him the like Subsidy, which Note could not be done out of a Common Council.  
So likewise in another Writ of the 20 th'. of this King, reciting that whereas the Probi Homines, 
Rot. Bat. 20▪ E. 1. m. b.  & Communitas Cestriae sicut caeteri de Regno nostro 15 mam partem omnium mobilium suorum nobis concesserunt gratiose: Now supposing (as the Doctor always does) that these Probi Homines were the Earls Tenants in Capite, what can this word Communitas here signify but another sort of men distinct from them, viz. the Communality or Commons of that County: And which is also remarkable, this County was now fallen to the Crown for want of Heirs male of the last Earl; and so according to the Doctor's notion, the King being their sole Representative needed not to have been beholding to them for these Subsidies; since, though not as King, yet as Earl of Chester, he might have Taxed them himself, which yet he thought not fit to do, because he knew it was contrary to the Rights and Privileges of that County, which had ever since the grant of it to Hugh Lupus by Will. I. always been Taxed by themselves.  
Which Privileges are also expressly set forth in a Supplication of all the Estates of this County Palatine to K. Henry the Sixth, which Mr. P. has given us from an Ancient Copy of it then in the hands of Sir Thomas Manwaring of that County, 
P. R. C. p. 45, 46.  Baronet: Wherein the Abbots, Priors, and Clergy, Barons, Knights, Esquires, and Commonalty set forth, that they with the consent of the Earl did make, and admit Laws within the same, etc. and that no Inheritors, or Possessors within the said County were chargeable or liable, or were bounden, charged or hurt of their Bodies, Liberties, Franchises, Lands, Goods, or Possessions, unless the said County had agreed unto it. Now what can here be meant by County but the Common Council, or Parliament thereof, since otherwise they could make no Laws, nor do any other public Act?  
The like I may say for the County Palatine of Durham, which from the Grant thereof by William Rufus to the then Bishop, had always been Taxed by themselves, 
Rot. Aleman. 14 Ed. 3. m. 9  and not by the Bishop in Parliament, and that as low as the Reign of Edw. 3. as appears by this Record of the 14 th'. of that King; containing a Letter or Commission to R. Bishop of Durham; reciting, that whereas the Prelates, Earls, Barons and the Commons of Counties, had given him a 9th. of their Goods there mentioned, that therefore the Bishops should convene, the Magnates & Communitatem Libertatis vestrae (to wit, of his County Palatine) ad certum diem, & locum, with all convenient speed, and that done to persuade and excite the said Magnates & Communitas to grant the King the like, or a larger Subsidy, or Aid towards the maintenance of his Wars, which had been altogether in vain, if the Bishop, or the King could in those days have Taxed this County at their Pleasure.  
Now if these great Tenants in Capite could not Tax their Mesne Tenants without their consents, much less could the rest of the Tenants in Capite in England impose Taxes on their Tenants in Military Service, or in Socage without their consents, which last had a much less dependence upon them.  M. 
I must confess I never considered these Precedents of the County Palatine of Chester and Durham; and therefore can say nothing to them at present, since it is matter of fact, but as to Reason and Law; I think it is consonant to both, 
B. A. P. pag. 171.  that not only Tenants in Military Service but Socage Tenure should be found by the Acts of their Superior Lords, of whom all the Lands of England were formerly held by Knight's Service: And though in Process of time many of these Estates and Lands became free Tenements, or were holden in Socage, that is, were Free holder's; yet the Lords retained Homage (which in the times we now write of, was no idle insignificant word) and by that a Dominion over the Estate▪ whereby upon Disobedience, Treachery, or Injury done to the Lords, etc. the Lands were Forfeited to them, and although the Lands, nor the Tenants of them (which were termed Freeholders') were subject to any base Services, or Servile works, yet the Lords had a great Power over these Tenants, by reason of their doing Homage to them (which though now antiquated) yet eo nomine their Lands were many ways liable to Forfeiture, and Taxes too.  
So that upon all these accounts, it was then as reasonable that the Tenants in Capite should in those days make Laws, and grant Taxes for all the rest of the Kingdom; as the Tenants in Capite in Scotland should do so to this very day, for all the Inhabitants of that Kingdom of never so great Estates, and to this Argument which is certain in matter of fact, you have yet answered nothing, nor do I believe can.  F. 
I cannot see notwithstanding what you have now said, that the Superior Lords, by reason of Homage should have an absolute Power over their Tenants Estates: For though in the Profession of Homage to the Lords, I grant the Tenant thereby promised to become the Lords Man; yet he never thereby meant to become his slave, and there were mutual Duties on both sides; so that if the Lord failed to protect his Tenant in his Estate, or unjustly oppressed him, he might have refused (nay renounced) his Homage, till the Lord had done him right; nor can I see how a bare right of having the Forfeiture of the Estate in the Cases you have put which yet let me tell you, were never so strict in respect of Socage as Military Tenure as I could show you, were it worth while; for if this right of Forfeiture alone▪ could give the Superior Lord a Power over his Tenant's Estate, to make Laws for him, and Tax him as he pleased, then by the same Rule, the King as Supreme Lord over all his Tenants in Capite, should have had the like Power over them, of making what Laws for them, and imposing what Taxes he pleased upon them without their consents: and so there would have been no need of Common Councils or Parliaments at all, since upon your Hypothesis, the Tenants in Capite were the only Persons that had any right to appear there. But if neither the Wardship, Marriage nor Relief of the Heir▪ could give the King such a Power over his Tenants in Capite, much less could they attain the like right over all their Mesne Tenants by Knight's Service, for that would have given them a greater Power over their Tenants then the King himself had over them; therefore if those great Ties of Wardship, Marriage and Relief of the Heir, could neither give the King, nor yet any Tenant in Capite power over the Estate, or Liberty of his Tenants by Knight's Service, much less over their Tenants by Socage Tenure, who were not under this subjection; and farther, if a right of Forfeiture alone, in some Cases, could have given the Lords a Power of making Laws; and granting Taxes for his Tenants in Socage, than they should have kept that right by this Rule, since all Lords had a right of Forfeiture even upon their Tenants in Socage in some Cases, before the Statute of taking away Knight's Service; and the Court of Wards, and Liveries in the second year of King Charles the Second, as I could prove, were it worth while.  
As to Scotland, I shall not deny the matter of fact to be as you say, that it hath at this day no other Representatives in their Parliament, but the Tenants in Capite, yet whether it was so or not anciently. I very much doubt, since I find the very same words and Phrases made use of in the Titles of their old Statutes, as also in their Records to express the Constituent parts of the great Council of that Kingdom as were used in England, to express those of England at the same time: For proof of which, 
Vid. Chart. Fund●● Monast. de Dunferling.  pray see the old Charters of King Malcolm III. and David I. as you may find them at the end of the 2d. Vol. in Mr. Dugdales' Mon●st. Angli●. and you will see the former to have been made by the Assent of the Comites & Barones Regni, Clero adquie cent que Populo, etc. and as I shall also show you from Sir john Skins Collection of Scotish Laws, to begin with the most ancient there Extant, 
B. A. P. p. 96. & dein Statut. Williel. Reg. fol. 2. cap. 7.  (viz.) an Assize, or Statute made in the time of King William, Sir named the Lion, who began his Reign Anno. Dom. 1105. in the Fifth of our Hen. I. to the observance whereof it is there expressed, that the Epi●copi, Abbates, Comites, Barones, Thani & tota Communitas Regni tenere firmiter juraverunt, so likewise King Alexander II. who began to Reign Anno. 1214. which was the Sixteenth year of our King john, 
Stat. Alexan. R●g. fol. 22. cap. 2.  and he made his Laws de confilio & assensu venerabilium Patrum Episcoporum Abb●tum, Baronum ac proborum hominum suorum Scotiae, and who these were may also farther appear by the beginning of certain Statutes made by the said King Alexander in the same Year, which begin thus: Statuit Rex per consilium, & assensum totius communitatis suae, etc.  
I shall next produce the Title of a Parliament holden the 13th. of Rob. I. who began his Reign Anno. Dom. 1306. the 3d. of our Edward I. 
Stat. Rob. 1. fol. 29.  In Dei nomine, Amen. Rober●us Dei Gratia Rex Scotorum Anno Regni suo Decimo tertio die Dominica proxima, etc. habito solenni tractati●, cum Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Comitibus, Baronibus, & aliis Magnatibus de Communitate totius Regni ibidem congregatis, and which Title concludes thus, de Communi consilio & expr●sso con●ensu omnium Prelatorum, & libere Tenentium predictorum ac totius Communitatis predicte ordinavit, condidit, etc. Statuta infra Scripta, etc. So likewise in an ancient Manuscript, called, Scoto-Chronicon, formerly in the Possession of the Right Learned and Honourable Arthur Earl of Anglesey and now in the Herald Office; you will find the Entail of the Crown of Scotland to have been made by this King Robert, Anno. Dom. 1315. in a general Council or Assembly of the whole Kingdom of Scotland, as well Clergy as Laity, which as this Author tells us (who lived within Sixty Years after) was held, 
Chap. 24.  Dominica proxima ante festum Apostolorum Congregati apud Aere in Ecclesia Parochiali ejusdem Laici, Episcopi, Abbates, Priores, Archidiaconi, nec non Diaceni, & caeteri Ecclesiarum Praelati, Comites, Barones, Milites, & caeteri de Communitate, Regni, Scotiae, tam Cleri quam Laici, etc. from which it is apparent: There was a great Council of the whole Kingdom (as in England) more comprehensive than that of Tenants in Capite alone.  
And that our English Records also agree with these Scotch Statutes you may see by 2 Records which Mr. Pryn has given us in his History of Papal Usurpations, out of the Rolls of the 17th. of Edw. I. it is a Letter to Eric, King of Norway, 
Rot, Par. 17. E. M. 4.  concerning the Marriage of his Son Edward with his Granddaughter then Heiress of Scotland and Norway, reciting that the Custodes (Scil. Regni Scotlae) Magnates, Praelati ac tota Communitas predicti Regni Scotiae unanimi, & expresso consensu had agreed to the said Marriage: So likewise in another Letter of this King Edward's about the same Marriage, 
Rot. Par. 18. E. 1. M. ●.  he declares that he had by his Procurators therein named, treated and agreed with the Custodibus, Episcopis, Abbatibus, Comitibus, Baronibus, & tota Communitate ejusdem Regni, and it presently follows, ac praedicti nobiles & tota Communitas Regni Scotiae praedicti. Now whom can this word Communitas signify, put here distinct from the Earls, Barons and Nobles, but the Commons of that Kingdom.  
So likewise in the 14th. year of King Robert I. there was a Letter sent from the Parliament of Scotland to the Pope, 
An. Do. 1320.  complaining against the violence of the King of England (which is to be seen in Manuscript and is also Printed by Dr. Burnet, 
Part. 2. fol. 109. N. 10.  in his History of the Reformation; and by which it plainly appears, that the Comites, Barones, Libere Tenentes, & tota Communitas Scotiae agreed to this Letter.  
And that the Cities and Burrough Towns were at that time part of this Communitas appears by the League made between this King Robert and the King of France in the 28th. year of our Edw. I. which is to be seen in a Roll of this year, 
P. R. C. pag. 83.  still Extant, in the Tower; which League was ratified and confirmed in their Parliament, by King john de Bayliol, ac Praelatos, & nobiles Vniversitates, & Communitates civitatum, & villarum praedicti Regni Scotiae, and I suppose you will not deny that in Scotland, the Cities and Burroughs from times beyond all Memory, sent their Proxyes and Representatives to the Parliament in Scotland, and that each Citizen and Burgess so sent, had as good a Vote in their Parliament, as the greatest Bishop or Earl of them all.  M. 
I desire no better proofs then what yourself 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 shall appeal to those very Statutes and Records you have now cited, which compared with divers subsequent Statutes of that Kingdom, will make the matter plain enough; that the Communitas and these probi homines mentioned in these Laws you have cited, were the Community of the Tenants in Capite only.  
In the first place, therefore let me observe from that very Law of King Alexander's, the Title of which you have but now quoted, that these words per essenssum Communitatis cannot here signify the Commons, since they alone could neither advise, nor give their consent to make Laws, and therefore they must needs refer to the whole Community or Assembly of Estates, consisting of Tenants in Capite only, 
B. A. P. p. 98. Stat Rob. 3. fol. 63.  as I shall prove by a Parliament of King Rob. III. who began to Reign Anno. Dom 1400. (in the 10th. year of our Richard TWO) the Title is thus. Parliamentum Domini nostri Roberti III. Scoto●um Regis, etc. vocatis & summonitis more solito Episcopis, Prioribus, Du●ibus, Commitibus, Baronibus, Liberis Te●entibus & Burgensibus qui de Domino Rege tenent in Capite; and this is also confirmed from the Title to a Parliament held at Perth Anno. Dom. 1427. being the 23d. of King james I Summ●nitis & vo●atis m●re solito Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Comitibus, Baronibus & Liberi T●nentibus, qui de nobis tenent in Capite, & de quolibet Burgo certis Bu●genfibus, so that I think nothing can be plainer from these ancient Statutes then that the Scottish Parliaments did anciently consist of no other Members than the Bishops, Abbots and Priors, Dukes and Earls, Barons, Freeholders' and Burgesses, which held of the King in Capite.  
Having thus shown the ancient Costitution of the Scotish Parliaments for your satisfaction, I shall farther show when, and how it was altered.  
In the Seventh Parliament of King james the First, held at Perth, 
Statut. jacob. 1. ibid.  A. Dom. 1420, there was a Law made (which I shall contract) That the small Barons and Freeholders need not to come to Parliaments, and that for the future out of each Schirefdome there should be sent two or more wise men after the largeness of the Schirefdome the which shall be called Commissaries of the Shire, and that these should have full power finally to hear and determine all causes to be proposed in the Great Council or Parliament, and that the said Commissaries should have Costage of them of each Shire that ought to appear in Parliament or Council. I have only given you an Abstract of this Statute because it is pretty long, and penned in old Scotish English, but you may consult it at your leisure.  
And this is farther confirmed by a subsequent Act of Parliament of King james the Sixth, 
B. A. P. f. 99  holden at Edinburgh, july the 29 th'. 1587., wherein after a repetition of the former Act of King james the First, and a Confirmation of the same, it follows thus:  
And that all Freeholders of the King, under the degree of Prelates and Lords of Parliament be warned by Proclamation to be present at the choosing of the said Commissioners; and none to have voit in their Election but sick as hes Forty Shillings Land in free tenandrie halden of the King, and he's their actual dwelling and residence within the same Schire, etc. I need give you no more of this Act, but I think it is most clear from this as well as the former Act of Parliament, that the Commons in Scotland were only the King's Tenants in Capite, and are so at this day, since none but they can either choose or be chosen Commissioners for the Shires, 
Vid. Present Stat. of Scotland, p. 17.  but as to the Buroughs who do each of them send but one Commissioner or Burgess (except the City of Edinburgh which sends two) all which are chosen by the Common Council of the Towns. Now there are in Scotland three sorts of these burgh's, that is to say, Royal burgh's, burgh's of Regality, and burgh's of Barony; 
Ibid. p. 100  but only the Royal Burroughs, the Burgi Dominici Regis, or qui de Rege Tenent in Capite, send Commissioners to Parliament, and are in number Sixty.  
To conclude, that I may apply what hath been said concerning the Constituent parts of the Scotish Parliament to ours anciently, it seems to me that from the great affinity there was between ours and theirs, 'tis certain, that our and their Communitas Regni, was the same, that is, they were the small Barons and Tenants in Capite.  F. 
I cannot deny but that the Parliament of Scotland hath for above these two hundred years consisted of the Bishops, Abbots and Temporal Lords, together with the lesser Tenants in Capite, or their Representatives the Commissioners for Shires, and Burgesses of Cities and Towns till the Reformation that the Bishops and Abbots were quite taken away, though the former were restored to their places in Parliament by a Statute made in the latter end of King james the First; yet I cannot allow that from the beginning of that Government, the Scotch Parliaments have consisted of no other Members than those, since the word Communitas coming as it does in these old Statutes and Records (I have now cited) immediately after the Praelati, Comites, Barones, & Milites, etc. must signify a distinct order of men from the Tenants in Capite, called in the Statute of King james the First the small Barons, and since the Citizens and Burgesses though none of those Barons, were also comprehended under this Communitas (and whom you grant to make the third Estate,) why this word might not comprehend all the other great Freeholders, I can see no reason to the contrary.  
And therefore I suppose that in the Reigns of K. David 2 d. or Robert the 2 d. or else the beginning of Robert the 3 d. there was a great alteration in the constituent parts or Members of the Scottish Parliament; and about that time the chief Freeholders or Lords of Manors who held of Bishops, Abbots, and other Temporal Lords, as well as of the Tenants in Capite, or else of the King by petty Serjeantry, or Socage Tenure, as also many of the small Towns, or Baronies might either forbear coming at all, or else desire to be excused because of the great trouble and charge of attendance; (as you see the smaller Tenants in Capite afterwards did when Commissioners for Shires were appointed in their steads) and so might by degrees leave off coming or be excluded by some Law not now extant; and thus the Tenants in Capite, might become the sole Representatives of the whole Nation in Parliament; and I am of this opinion because in many of the old Statutes before the time of Robert the 2 d. we find the Communitas totius Regni coming immediately after the Earls and Barons (as in our own ancient Statutes and Records) but after those Reigns we find no more mention of this Communitas, but only of the Dukes, Earls, Barons, Liberi Tenentibus, & Burgensibus qui de Rege tenent in Capite, as in the Titles to those Statutes of K. Robert the 3 d, and james the 5 th'. you have now cited.  
And yet that Liber Tenens was not anciently taken for a Tenant in Capite only; pray see the 14 th'. Chap. of the Laws of K. Alexander the 2 d. made Anno Dom. 1214. with your Doctor's comment upon them; Statutum est quod nec Episcopi, nec Abbates, nec Comites, nec aliqui liberi Tenentes, tenebunt curias suas nisi Vicecomes Regis, 
B.A.P. p. 98.  vel servientes Vicecomitis ibidem fuerant, upon which words the Doctor in his answer to Mr. P. hath this remark, viz. this again shows us, that the Freeholders were Lords of Manors at least. So that unless you will suppose that none but Tenants in Capite were Lords of Manors, or held Courts, (as certainly very many of the Mesne Tenants did) this word Liber Tenens must extend to any other great Freeholder or Lord of a Manor, of whatsoever Lord he held it; and as such might anciently have had a Vote in that Parliament, so that if I have (as I think sufficiently) proved that the word Communitas coming after the Earls and Barons in our ancient Statutes and Records did certainly signify another order of men distinct from the Tenants in Capite, ay I have the same reason to believe it was so in Scotland too; not only because these general words Communitas totius Regni, must needs be more comprehensive than to express the Tenants in Capite only (who could never Represent all the great Freeholders in Scotland any more than they did in England) but also because it is acknowledged by the Scotch Lawyers that the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions are the same in both Kingdoms, for Sir john Skene in his Epistle to K. james before his Scottish Laws▪ says thus, Intelligo tuas tuorumque Majorum leges, cum legibus Regni tui Angliae magna ex parte consentiunt, which is also acknowledged by the King himself in the Speech he made in Parliament concerning the Union of both Kingdoms.  
To conclude, I cannot but admire your Doctors strange partiality who does allow the Commons of Scotland to have even been a third Estate, when he expressly grants that the Commons of Scotland were, and are at this day the King's Tenants in Capite, and that the King's Royal Burroughs were such as ever did, and do at this day in Scotland only send Burgesses to Parliament: Now why the Cities and Burroughs in England should not have always had the like Privilege as well as in Scotland, I wish you could give me any sufficient reason.  M. 
Since you own that the Tenants Capite, or else Commissioners in their stead have been the sole Representatives for the whole Kingdom of Scotland for above 200 years, I doubt not but they were so long before that time; since you confess you cannot show any Law by which this ancient Custom came to be changed; though I grant that the Statutes before K. David and Robert the 2 d, are said to be made by the Communitas totius Regni, yet you must not suppose that Constitution of the Kingdom altered, when the Clerks altered their phrases in penning their Statutes and Records, so that this Communitas was the Community of the Tenants in Capite only, and not of the Freeholders, or of the Citizens and Burgesses of the whole Kingdom; since as for the former you cannot say that all the People in Scotland had ever a right to choose the Commissioners for the Shires; for then 'tis most likely they would have kept to this day, whereas we see that none but Tenants in Coplie have Votes at such Elections.  
And as for Cities and Burroughs, I cannot find (nor do I believe you can show me) any instance of a City or Burrough-Town in Scotland that ever sent Deputies to Parliament, but what held in Capite of the King. For though there are, at I said already, besides the Royal burgh's, two other sorts, viz. Burroughs of Regality, and Burroughs of Barony, who hold of the King, but not in Capite; or else of some Bishop or Temporal Lord; and though divers of these are considerable for Trade and Riches, yet none of them send any Burgesses to Parliament; so that though I confess there are three Estates in the Scotch Parliament, called in the Statutes of K. David and Robert the 2 d, the Tre● Communitates Regni, yet did these always consist of the Tenants in Capite only, who therefore sit together, and make but one Assembly.  
Now that we may apply what hath been said to England, I desire you to take notice that the Doctor and we that are of his opinion, do not positively affirm that that the Commons of England were not at all represented before 49 Hen. 4. but that they were not represented in Parliament by Knights, Citizens and Burgesses of their own choice, but by the greater and lesser Tenants in Capite, the greatest part of which I grant were not Lords; and admit that I should grant you that some Cities and Burroughs sent Members to Parliament, before the 49 th'. of Henry the Third; yet were they only such as held in Capite, and no other, as the Doctor has very well observed in his Answer to Mr. P's argument from the Petition of the Town of St. Alban; so that upon the whole matter there will be no more gained by you in this Controversy than that perhaps some Citizens and Burgesses appeared in Parliament, and constituted a third sort of men, which you may call the Commons, if you please, though I cannot find they were so called, till after the time of Edward the First; but supposing this to be so, it is very far from your Republican, levelling opinion, who do suppose that all the Freeholders of England, had an ancient indisputable right of appearing in Parliament by reason of their propriety in Lands, or other Estates, whereas by our Hypothesis we suppose the great Council or Parliament to have anciently been the King's Courtbaron consisting of his immediate Tenants called thither by him their Supreme Lord to advertise him of the Grievances of the Nation, and to propose what new Laws were necessary for the public good of the Commonweal, and together with him to raise such public Taxes both upon themselves and their Tenants as the necessities of the State required; yet notwithstanding there is a vast difference between your notion and mine concerning the Rights which such Tenants in Capite might claim of coming to Parliament, since before King John's Charter, (whereby I grant all the lesser Barons or Tenants in Capite were to be Summonld by the Sheriff to come to the Common Council of the Kingdom) the King might have only called some of the greatest and wisest of them, and such as he thought most fit to advise him in making Laws, and imposing Taxes upon the Nation. And the like Prerogative his Son Henry the Third resumed during the greater part of his Reign, as I shall show you from divers old Statutes by and by: 
B. A. P.  And that our Kings did often take upon them to call whom they pleased, and omit whom they pleased of these Tenants in Capite, may appear by those who were called Pares Baronum, or alios Magnates, who are put after the Barons; and of these there are many instances of their being called to Parliament, and again omitted in several Kings Reigns after the Commons were a third Estate, as represented as at this day.  F. 
I must beg your pardon, if I cannot come over to your opinion, notwithstanding what you now have said; since I do not find your reason to come up to what you intent therein, for you only suppose, (but without any proof) that the words Populus and Communitas must signify only Tenants in Capite, in the ancient Scotish Charters and Statutes. All the Argument you bring to the contrary is that I cannot show you any Law by which it was altered to what it is now, and therefore that the Constitution has been always the same as at this day. Now pray consider whether this will not press altogether as hard upon you in relation to England; for you cannot show me any Law whereby the Tenants in Capite were excluded here, and Knights of Shires introduced in their fleads; and therefore by the same Rule let the Scottish Parliaments have been of what they will, yet ours have been still the same they are now. But if you say that this contrary usage hath been introduced either by the King's Prerogative, or by the silent consent of the People, or by some Law that is now lost are not all the same Arguments to be made use of in the case of the Scotish Parliaments; which I may upon as good Grounds suppose to have deviated from their original Constitution as you do that our English Parliaments have done it.  
So that if those Arguments are of any weight they will serve for England, as well as Scotland; but if they are not, it is in vain to make use of them at all. The like I may say as to Burroughs in Scotland, since it is as easy to suppose that divers Burroughs in Scotland might voluntarily desist from sending their Deputies to Parliament, that did not hold of the King in Capite; as it is that divers Burroughs in England did Petition to be exempted from sending Burgesses to Parliament, by reason of their inability to pay the Expenses of their Burgesses; as I could show you by divers Precedents, (some of which are in Print) had I now time.  
As for the rest of your Discourse I cannot imagine to what it tends; for if the Tenants in Capite had any place in, or right to come to Parliament, how came they to have it, but by reason of the great Freehold Estates they held of the King? and if so, I can see no reason why those that had as good or better Freehold Estates than they should be all excluded; Or why a small Tenant in Capite of but one Knights Fee held of the King in Capite, should give him a right to a place in Parliament, and get that a Mesne Tenant, or Vavasour (as he was then called) who held ten Knights Fees of some Bishop or Abbot, who perhaps did not hold in Capite at all, should have no right of appearing there, nor of choosing any Representative for him; since notwithstanding all you have now said the Doctor either contradicts himself, 
B. A. P. p. 68  or you, when he tells us expressly in his Answer to Mr. P. That the Tenants in Capite, who were no Barons represented only themselves, and not the Commons; but how this will agree with what he says in his Introduction, that the Body of the Commons had no share in making Laws, etc. before 49 th'. of Henry the Third, unless they were represented by thd Tenants in Capite: and if so must then certainly represent those that he here calls the Body of the Commons of England Collectively taken.  
But as for your notion of the Parliament's being the King's Court Baron; though you have borrowed it of a Learned Scotch Lawyer Sir George Me●●ensy, yet let me tell you it was never true, for it is well known that the Great or Common Councils both in England and Scotland are much more ancient than the Tennres of Lands by Knight's Service; or then the very Institution of Manors in this Kingdom▪ which the Doctor tells us are of no higher an original than the Norman Conquest.  
But admit I should allow your notion of the Parliaments 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 arising among the Tenants in the Lord's Court, where neither the Lord himself nor his Steward were Judges, and that of right and not by savour; whereas you suppose such a Courtbaron as was never heard of, where the Lord could admit or exclude whom of his Tenants he pleased, to which if they had a right ratione Tenurae, certainly he could never do. So that instead of a Courtbaron and a Common Council according to King John's Charter, whereby all the Tenants in Capite were to be Summoned to this Council, or pretended Court Baron; you suppose the King still retained a Prerogative of calling or omitting whom he pleased, which instead of confirming the validity of the Charter, and that it was to be a Rule how such Councils should be called for the future; you make to signify just nothing, and that no Common Council was ever called according to that Model. But pray show me a Courtbaron, wherein the Tenants ever took upon themselves a Power of giving Taxes out of their Estates, that did not hold of the manor, though they were resident within it: But indeed you are out in the whole matter, for the Doctor himself grants in his answer to Mr. P. when he gives us King John's Letters of Summons to a Council directed to the Barons and Knights (and as he translates Eidelibus) Feudatories, or Vassals of all England wherein he lets them know, 
B. A. P. pag. 40.  that he had sent his Letters to every one of them, if it might have been done: Now what reason had he to write thus, if these Gentlemen had no right to be consulted, or that the King might have called or left out whom of them he pleased. But the Barons and Tenants in Capite, were in another mind, when in the 37th. of King Hen. III. as Mar. Paris tells us, they refused to Act or Proceed upon any thing, without all the rest of their Peers, divers of whom, it seems the King had for some reasons then omitted to Summon.  
But as for your instance of the Baron's Peers, or alios Magnates, which were sometimes Summoned, and sametimes 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 Estate; for indeed, it was only after that the Tenants in Capite had left off making a distinct Council by themselves; which I suppose was about the end of Henry III. Reign, and then it is true, the King called several of these Tenants in Capite, (as also others that were not so) by Writ, to the House of Lords, as Pares Baronum, i. e. not as real Barons, but Barons-Peers, since a ba●e Summons by Writ did not as yet, (nor long after) vest a Peerage in their Heirs, so that upon the whole matter, I see no reason from any thing you have urged from the example of Scotland to make me change my opinion, that the Tenants in Capite were anciently the sole Representatives, either of this or that whole Nation in Parliament; for pray take Notice that I do not find the Tenants in Capite, so much as mentioned in the ancient Statutes of that Kingdom, or Charters of their Kings, as the Common Council or Parliament of Scotland before the Reign of King Robert III. which was but late in Comparison of the antiquity of those Councils in that Kingdom.  M. 
I could say more as to the Antiquity of the Tenants in Capite their coming to Parliament as the sole Reprensentatives of the Nation before the time you mention; but it grows late, and therefore I shall wave it at present, and so shall only proceed to remark that great part of the Error of the Gentlemen of your Opinion, proceeds from this false ground, that you suppose that the Parliaments, both of England and Scotland were a perfect Representative Body of all the Freehoulders and Freemen of those Kingdoms, which is a mere Chimaera; for in the first place, if we will consider, it never was, nor indeed is so at this day; since you yourself must acknowledge, that all Copy-holders' and Lease-holders' under Forty Shilling a Year, all Freemen in Towns Corporate▪ where the Elections lies wholly in the Major, and Aldermen, or Common Council; and lastly all that will not pay Scot and Lot in divers Burrough Towns, are utterly excluded from giving their Votes in the choice of Parliament Men; and consequently from having any Representatives in Parliament, though sure as much Freemen as the rest of the Kingdom; and this either by general Statutes, or else by the particular Charters and Customs of those Cities, Towns and Burroughs; all which are looked upon as good and lawful Representatives of those Cities and Burroughs; so that I am clearly of the Doctor's Opinion, 
B. A. P. pag. 68  that the Tenants in Capite as well those who were Barons as those that were not, only represented themselves, and not the Commons, as being (as you truly observe) never chosen by the People; and as no Man can believe that a great Lord or Bishop could Represent his Mesne Tenants, so neither could the smaller Tenants in Capite who were no Barons, be properly said to represent theirs; and yet, these might according to the Custom of Feudal Tenors, and the Power they then had over their Tenants Estates, very well make Laws for them, and Tax them at their pleasures, because the main interest and strength of the Kingdom, lay almost wholly in them; and these (as the Doctor very well observes) having the Power of this, or any other Nation de facto, always did make Laws for, and Tax the rest of the People.  
But to say somewhat to the Authorities you have brought from the County Palatines of Chester and Durham; I know not what old Privileges they might pretend to, of not being forced to give Voluntary Aids or Subsidies of their Movable Goods without their consents; yet this 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 rest of the Subjects of England or else how came they afterwards to be bound by our general Statutes at all, as certainly they were from all times since the Conquest; though Chester had no Representatives in Parliament, till the Reign of Henry VIII. and Durham had none till our times.  F. 
You Gentlemen who hold this general notion of Tenants in Capite are so intoxicated with it, that you do not care what absurdities or contradictions you fall into, provided you may maintain your dear opinion, as I shall show you by and by: But first let me tell you your Reply to what I have now said, is very fallacious, and in some points mistaken as to the matter of Fact: For in the first place, I doubt not but our Common Councils or Parliament were in their first institution, the main Body or Representative of all the Freemen of the Nation; and though it may by long continuance of time to deviate from that Institution; yet, that it is to be attributed either to some prevailing Custom, or else positive Law to the contrary; for it is certain that in the Saxon times, all the Free holder's of England had a right of coming to Parliament in Person; and hence it is, that Liber Tenens, Liber Homo & Ingenuus were Synonimous, and of the same signification, as I have proved from Sir Henry Spelman's Comment, in his Glossary upon those words; and hence it is, that the Members of those Councils were so numerous as they were in those times, and long after, till they became so vast and unmanageable, that they were fain by degrees to pitch upon this method, of sending Knights of Shires to represent them, which is certainly a very ancient Institution, since the Tenants in Ancient Demean, claimed to be exempted from the Expenses of Knights of the Shires by Prescription, as I shall show you more particularly by and by; and likewise since all Riches consisted in those days in Land, or else in Stock, or Trade, therefore the Cities and Burroughs, and Towns, by reason of their Riches, had always a share in the Legislative Power, as well as in giving of Taxes; and since all such Citizens and Burgesses, not being able to come in Person, as the Freeholders' could, were represented either by their chief Magistrates, called their Aldermen, or else by Burgesses of their own choosing as at this day; so that all Freedom, or Ingenuity being in this, as in all other Commonwealths, reckon per censum, by the Estates of the owners; our Common Councils were, and that truly, the Representatives, not only of the Estates, but Persons of all the Freemen of the Nation, for I am so far of the Doctor's Opinion, that the Cheorl Folk (as they were then termed) were little better than the Scotch Vassals or French Peasants at this day▪ and so were not Reckoned among the Freemen; all Freedom consisting then in so much Freehold Lands, held in a Mans own right, or being Freemen of some City or Burrough Town; and this gives us a reason why Copy-holders' and Tenants for years, have no Vote in Parliament at this day; since it is certain, (and all our Law Books allow it), that at the first all Copyhold Estates were held by Villeinage, and the owners of them at first the Villani, or tilers of the Demefnes of the Lord of that Town, there being at first no freehold less than that of a whole Township, since a Manor; and therefore all Copy-holders' and Tenant's for years, or at Will, though Freemen are not admitted to have Votes at this day, because (as I said before) Freedom anciently consisted in the Inheritance or freehold Estate of Land, or in Riches, in Trade or Traffic; Leases for Life and Years, being not known, or at least not commonly in Use in those days; and hence it is, that when Estates of freehold came to be divided into small Parcels, all Freeholders' till the Statutes of Henry IU. and VI (which we have before cited) were as much capable of giving their Votes at the Election of Knights of Shires, as the best and greatest Tenant in Capite in England, till it was reduced by those Statutes to 40 s. Freehold per Annum; these Freeholders and Burgesses of Towns being anciently looked upon in the Eye of the Law as the only Freemen; and it was these Freeholders alone who owed Suit and Service to the County, Court, and were amerced if they did not appear.  
This being premised, and sufficiently understood, will give us a very good account, why Copyholder and Lease-holders' for years do not give any Votes at Elections of Knights of Shires; and yet the Parliament may still continue the Representative of 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 Liberti, and in Inqui lini, who sure were Freemen, and not Slaves, and yet had no Votes in theirs Comitiis Centuriatis, or general Assemblies of all the Roman Citizens.  
But that the Liberi homines, & Libere Tenentes de Regno, must take in more than your Tenants in Capite the Doctor himself is at last forced to confess in his Glossary (notwithstanding his maintaining the contrary in the body of his Book) viz. that the Liberi Homines, 
Tit. Liberi Homines & Libere Ten. p.  & Libere Tenentes mentioned in John's Magna Charta, were not only the Tenants in Capite, but their Retinue and Tenants in Military Service also, and whom he there supposes to have been then the only men of Honour, Faith and Reputation in the Kingdom, and if so might certainly have been chosen Knights of Shires as well as any of the Tenants in Capite; though this is but Argumentum ad Hominem; for the truth is that the Mesne Tenants by Military Service were not the only men of Faith, and Honour in those times, since it is certain the King's Tenants in Pe●yt Serjeantry, and of some Honour or Castle, or else his Tenants in Socage, besides those who held of other Mesne Lords; and the Tenants of those Abbots and Priors, who did not hold in Capite, and yet were very numerous, were men of as much Faith and Honour as those that did; since many of them possessed as good if not better Estates than the Tenants in Capite themselves▪ so that you are certainly mistaken in matter of Fact when you say the whole force and strength of the Nation lay in their hands; for if you mean Legal force, I have already proved, that the Tenants in Capite had no Legal right to give away the Estates of their Mesne Tenants, or to make Laws for them without their consents, who were altogether as free as themselves, Servitiis suis debitis solum-modo exceptis, as Bracton tells us, much less for so great a Body of Men as I now mentioned, who never held of them at all, and consequently could not upon your own Hypothesis, be ever represented by them; but if you mean a Physical strength, or force, though this can give no Natural, much less Legal right for one Man to Lord it over another: yet even this was much farther from truth, since the Mesne Tenants of all sorts, as well by Military Service as in Socage, together with those above mentioned: who never held of the Tenants in Capite at all, made six times a greater Body of Men, both for numbers as well as Estates, than all the Tenants in Capite taken together.  
But to conclude, neither is your remark upon my Authorities from Gheller and Durham at all to the purpose; for I have sufficiently proved, that those County Palatines, were not at first concluded within the general Laws and Taxes of the Kingdom; since they had their particular Councils for both within themselves, as the Supplication of the Estates of the County Palatine of Chester, sufficiently declares; and certainly Durham had the like Privileges, since I never heard that the Men in that County were more Slaves to their Bishop, than the Cheshire Men to their Earl; and though I grant that about the confused Times of King Hen. VI there was a great breach made on the ancient Liberties of these two Counties Palatines, and if the King and Parliament made Laws for, and Levied Taxes upon them, though they had no Representatives therein, this proceeded partly from their being overpowered by the rest of the Nation, and partly by the ease they found in being excused from the Expenses of Knights of Shires, and Burgesses, which all the rest of the Kingdom, was at that time liable to, and which came to a great deal of Money (Four shillings per diem, being in those days, more than Forty Shillings now,) and yet you see at last they were aware of their Error, and at their request, got the Privilege of having Representatives in Parliament of their own choosing, as well as the rest of the Kingdom; and if this had not been a certain right of English Subjects, how came the Welsh Counties, which were anciently no part of the Kingdom of England, to have been admitted to choose one Knight for each County, and Burgesses for each Burrough Town, as well in North Wales, as South Wales, though both these were Conquered Countries at the first, and incorporated to England by particular Statutes; and therefore we have no reason to deny the Truth of Bracton's and Fortescue's assertion, that no Laws are made nor Taxes imposed in England, 
Vid. Fortis. de L●us. Leg. Ang. Cap. 36. pag. 84.  sine consensu communi ●uius Regni; or as the latter truly adds in Parliamento; and certainly this word common Assent must take in all their Assents, who had Estates either in Land or other Riches at that time when this Law was Established.  
But leaving this dispute about Scotland, and the County Palatines, pray make an end (for it grows late) and give me the rest of your Reasons, why the Commons could not be represented in Parliament before the 49th. of Hen. III. and 18th of Edw. I.  M. 
I will proceed to do it, and for this end shall reduce my Arguments to these three Heads, the first is, some Writs found out and produced by the Doctor, whereby he proves that the Commons were not Summoned during the Reign of Hen. III. till the 49th. secondly the general silence of all Statutes in H●n. III. Reign; wherein is not one word mentioned of the Commons, but rather to the contrary, thirdly the critical Time (viz. in the 49th. of Hen. III.) when the Commons were first called, during Monsfords' Rebellion, fourthly, their discontinuance from that time, till the 18th, of Edw. I. there being no mention made of them in all the rest of the Reign of Hen. III. nor yet of Ed. I. till the 18th. in which the Doctor shows you a Writ (not taken notice of before) by which the Commons were Summoned, a new to Parliament: Lastly, from the uncertainty of the manner of the Writs of Summons, whether for one Knight or two Knights, and sometimes no Citizens and Burgesses at all, which sufficiently prove the Novelty of the Institution, as also of some Parliamentary Forms relating to the Commons, which show that neither their number nor manner of Election was settled long after the Reign of Edw. I.  
To begin therefore with the first Head. I know the Gentlemen of your opinion make a great Noise about the loss, or rather defect of the Writs of Summons, and Parliament Rolls of all the Kings, till the 23d. or 25th. of Edw. I. So that we cannot be so well assured what was done in Parliaments of those times, as we may be afterwards: Yet there are still some Writs of Summons Extant upon the Close Rolls before and in those times, 
B. A. P. p. 87. & dein.  by which the Bishops, Earls and Barons, were Summoned to Parliaments or great Councils. And we have all the Close Rolls of King john and Henry III. on the Dorse●. of which anciently, most of the Writs of Summons to the Commons in other King's Reigns, are entered (few on the Patent Rolls which we have likewise.) 'Tis therefore very strange, if the Commons were then represented by Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, and Summoned to Parliament as at this day, that there cannot be found any Summons to them upon these Rolls, as well as to the Lords.  
But the Learned Doctor hath for our Satisfaction, found out three Writs of Summons to the Lords, one in King John's Reign, and two other of Hen III. The first is in the Close Roll▪ 6th. of King john directed to the Bishop of Salisbury, 
M. 3. dors.  which is needless here to be repeated Verbatim, only pray take notice of the material words of this Writ, where after the Cause of the Summons particularly expressed, it concludes thus, expedit habere vestrum Consilium & aliorum Magnatum Terrae nostrae quos ad diem ilium & Locum fecimus convocari. 
M. 13. dors.  The second is in the Close Roll of the 26th. Hen. III directed to W. Archbishop of York, wherein he is likewise Summoned ad tractandum, Nobiscum una cum caeteris Magnatibus nostris quos similiter fecimus convoca●i de arduis Negotiis nostris statum nostrum & totius Regni nostri specialiter tangentibus; with this note underneath eodem modo Scribitur omnibus Episcopis, Abbatibus, Comitibus & Baronibus.  
The third is of the 38th. of the same King directed to Boniface Archbishop of Canterbury, 

Cl. 38. Hen. 3. M. 14. dors. de Magnatibus vocatis al Concilium.  
B. A. P. pag. 92, 93.   whereby he is Summoned to be at Westminster within Fifteen days after Hillary next coming before the Queen, and Richard Earl of Cornwail about the Affairs of Gascony; and this very Council Mat. Paris Anno. Dom. 1254. calls a Parliament, to which all the Magnates or great Men of England came together▪ the Day of which Meeting he makes to have been the 6th. of the Calends of February, being St. Iulian's day, and which fell one within Fifteen days after St. hilary's Day, which was that appointed for the Meeting of this Parliament by the aforesaid Writ of Summons, and who were the Constituent parts of this Parliament may be be farther made out by a Letter of the Queen, and Earl Richard to the King then in Gascony, 
Additament. fol. 189. N. 50.  which is recited by Mat. Paris in his Additaments in these words; Domino Regi Angliae, etc. Regina & Richardus Comes Cornubiae Salutem, Recipimus literas Vestras ad Natale Domini proximae praeteritum quod in Crastino Sancti Hillarii Convocaremus Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Abbates, Priores, Comites & Regni Angliae ad ostendendum, etc. Whereby it appears who were then the Constituent parts of Members of our English Parliaments, viz. the Archbishops, Bishops, etc. Earls and Barons of the Kingdom. So that there is no such Universal silence concerning the Constituent Parts of our Parliaments, as you and those of your Party, suppose from the loss of the Parliament Rolls of those times, most of which, though I confess are lost, yet there are enough left to satisfy any reasonable Person, that there were then no Commons in Parliament in the sense they are now taken.  F. 
You cannot give me a better demonstration of the loss of the Parliament Rolls and Writs of Summons than what you now offer, for if we have all the Close Rolls of King john and Henry III. on the Dorses. of which you tell me, the Writs of Summons use to be entered, then certainly those to the Lords were there entered also, and if so; how comes it to pass that in above Eighty Years time, in which there must be above Eighty Parliaments, you can show me but three Writs of Summons, and those only to as many Bishops, and to no Temporal Lords at all: If so be these were Parliaments and not great Councils of the Bishops, Lords and Tenants in Capite only, as I rather believe they were, for you rely too much upon you Doctor's credit, when you allege that we have all the Close Rolls of King john, and Henry III, which is a great mistake, for I have had a Friend who has given me a note of what Close Rolls are still Extant in those Reigns, and what are lost which you may here see.  
To begin with King john, pray observe that all the Close Rolls of the first Five years of his Reigns are gone, and so they are in the 9th. 10th. 11th. 12th. and 13th. for certainly, there were some in those, as well as in the succeeding years: In the next place till the 18th. there is but one Roll left of each year, 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 be assured that there was not more than one Roll in every precedent year, as well as in the 15th. the like I may say for the Reign of Hen. III. which though I grant are more entire than those of King john; there being some left us of every year but the 23d. yet they are but a few; and for the greatest part but one in each year, never but two in any year in all this long Reign, unless it be the 39th. in which there are four, which is very strange, that in so busy a time, as most of this King's Reign was; there should be no more Rolls left, and therefore it seems very probable, that at least half are lost, and in which might be many Summons, as well to the Commons, as to the Lords, and if they are not lost, pray tell me what is become of all the Writs of Summons to your lesser Tenants in Capite, who certainly often met in this long Reign according to King John's Charter, but if you will tell me they are lost, or omitted to be entered upon the Close Rolls, I may with like reason and certainty affirm the same of the Writs of Summons to the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, for if the one may be lost, sure the other may be so too.  
But what if after all, these Writs you have produced were not any Summons to a Common Council or Parliament at all, but only to a great Council of the Tenants in Capite, which I have great reason to believe, not only because the Title to the last Writ is only Summonitio ad Concilium, and not Commune Concilium Regni, but also because Mr. Selden and Mr. Pryn, who certainly must have seen all these Writs as well as the Doctor, and were as able to Judge of them, never cite them for Summons to Parliament, and Mr. Pryn observes of several Writs, in which the like words of Summoning the Lords to give their advice, are likewise found, that they were only to such Councils, or Treatises which were frequently used as Low as the Reign of Richard II. but if these Writs had been Summons to Parliament, sure Mr. Selden and Mr. Pryn had no reason to bewail (as they so often do) the loss, of not only of Parliament Rolls, but of all Writs of Summons, both to Lords and Commons (except those of 49th. Hen. III.) till the 23d. of Edw. I. But pray go on if you please to make good the rest of the positions you have now laid down.  M. 
I doubt not but in the next place to show you (though 'tis true, most of our Parliament Rolls are lost) both from our ancient Historians and Statutes, that there were no Commons in any Parliament, during all the long Reign of King Hen. III. except in the 49th. of that King.  
I shall begin with the first Act of Parliament we have of the time of Henry III. which was made in the 20th. of this King at Merton, where though it is said, to be provided and granted, as well by the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, as others, yet the words & Aliis and others are to be understood of the Tenants in Capite, distinct from the Earls and Barons, as I have already proved.  F. 
I shall answer your Authorities as you go, you may say you have proved it, but I know not when; and why may not I with as good a Face maintain, that these words & Aliis do here signify the Commons, if the word Barons must take in all the great Lords and lesser Tenants in Capite, as sometimes you suppose it doth, when no other Lay-Members are mentioned; but I have already observed, that this Barones is a Cheveral word, and to be stretched, or contracted as best suits with your Hypothesis. So I think I may with greater reason, suppose the Earls and Barons to be all comprehended under the word Barones, and the Commons under Aliis, as I have already proved; and which is also most suitable to the last Clause of Magna Charta of King Henry III. But you forget that I have I think sufficiently made out, that the Commons had their Representatives, both at the making and confirming of Magna Charta in 2d. and 9th. of Henry III. and therefore whatever proofs you bring to the contrary, will come to late; though I shall patiently hear what you have to say, but if you have no more Authorities to produce from Statutes and Records, which have not been already considered: Pray proceed to the 49th. of this King's Reign, and give me some reasons why the Commons were called in that year, and never before nor after, till the 18th. of Edw. I. for they both seem to me very improbable suppositions.  M. 
I shall observe your Commands, and shall give you as short an account as I can of this transaction: First, therefore I desire you to take notice, that after Simon Mon●fort and the rest of the Barons of his Faction had taken King Hen. III. 
B. A. P. p. 134. & dein.  and Richard Earl of Cornwall the King's Brother, with many other of the Nobility Prisoners at the Battle of Lewes. He carried them about with Him, till they had taken in all the strong Forts and Castles of the Land, and when this was done, Mat. Paris tells us, that calling together at London, the Bishops, Earls and Barons of that Faction, which so seditiously held their King Prisoner, they began to set up a Committee for the Government of the Kingdom consisting of Twelve Lords, who were chosen out of the whole Community or Body of the Baronage, without whose advice and consent, or at least of Three of them no affairs in the King's Household, or in the Kingdom should be transacted; and to these Ordinances, the King and his Son were forced to agree; and though the Record of this Agreement recites that this Ordinance▪ 
Rot. Pat. 48. Hen. III. M. 6. Dorso.  was made at London, by the consent, good-liking and Command of the King, and also of the Prelates, Barons, and of the Community there present, yet I am not yet convinced, that by the word Communitas in the Latin Record, is to be understood the Commons, but the Community of the whole Kingdom, since this Agreement is Signed only by some great Earls and Barons, and no Commoner witness to it, but the Mayor of London, whom yourself will grant, was no Parliament Man.  
After which, Simon Montfort, the better to settle himself in his Usurped Power, and in those Lands and Castles which himself, and those of his Faction, had unjustly wrested from Prince Edward, who was now also a Prisoner, having delivered himself as a Hostage for the Performance of this forced Peace; they in the first place sent out Writs in the King's Name, unto divers Bishops, Abbots and Priors, and to such of the Noblemen as were of their own Party▪ to appear at Westminster on the Octaves of St. Hillary next ensuing and the Doctor hath given us a Copy of the Writ of Summons to the Bishop of Durham, 
B. A. P. p●g. 137. Rot. Claus. 49. Hen. III. M. 11. Dorso. in Sch●dula.  as it is found in the Close Rolls of the 49th. of this King, and at the end of it, it is thus recited, ●eodem mo●o Mandatum est Episcopo Carleol: As also to divers Bishops and Abbots, all of their own Party and Faction, there being above an Hundred Abbots and Priors then Summoned (more than ever were I believe before or since) and then follows a short Writ to the Sheriffs of Counties, to Summon two Knights de Legalioribus & Discretoribus singulorum Comitatuum ● though it doth not appear by the Writ, whether the Sheriffs of the Counties were to Elect, and send these Knights, the Sheriffs being then of the Faction, and made by them, for 'tis there said only quod venire faciar●. There are also other Writs recited to have been directed to all the great Cities and Towns of England, as also to the Cinque Ports, to send two of the most Legal and Discreet of each of the said Cities, Burroughs, Towns and Cinque Ports to the said Parliament at Westminster, at the time aforesaid. So that without the History of this Neck of time, these Writs (which are said to be for the Delivery of the Prince out of Prison, and for the settling of tranquillity and Peace in the Nation,) cannot be understood.  
But Prince Edward's Release could not be agreed upon in this Parliament, whatever other Business might be dispatched: So that things still remained in this uncertain condition (the King being all this time a mere Shadow) until such time as Simon Montfort, and Gilbert de Clare Earl of Gloucester falling out, the latter, at last took up Arms, and joining with the Earls of Surry and Pembroke, to whom also came Prince Edward, after he had made his Escape from Hereford, they altogether raised considerable Forces against Monfort, who meeting them, and joining Battle near Evesham, Monfort with 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 History of the matter of Fact, why the Commons were first called to Parliament by Monfort during his Rebellion; and I think I can also give you very good reasons (and Authorities to back them) why they were again discontinued all the rest of this King's Reign, until the 18th. of Edward. I.  F. 
I shall tell you my opinion of your Narrative by and by, but in the mean time pray satisfy me in one or two Questions, pray Sir, what may be the reason, that we can find but twenty three Earls and Barons Summoned, of that great number there was then, and only to thirteen Bishops in this Parliament, and yet at the same time there should be summoned above an hundred Abbots and Priors, and but five Deans of Cathedral Churches; pray why might not these numerous Barons be trusted as well as all the Abbots and Priors?  M. 
As for his not Summoning all the the Earls, Barons and Tenants in Capite, but putting Knights of Shires and Burgesses in their rooms, 
B. A. P. p. 143.  there may be a very good reason given for it, viz. the danger that Simon Monford and his Privadoes apprehended from the too great Concourse of the Nobility, and their great Retinue●▪ and the Example of his own and the Baron's Practices at Oxford in the Parliament of 42 d. of Henry the Third might be the cause why they altered the ancient Usage; and of their sending Writs out, commanding the Sheriffs of each County as also the Cities and burgh's to send two Knights. Citizens and Burgesses respectively. But the Reason why there was so many Abbots and Priors Summoned was, 
Ibid. 139.  because Simon Monfort thought himself sure of them; He was a great Zealot, and a Godly Man in those times, and a great Minion of these Religious men (as then called) as also of the Bishops and Clergy, and they were at least seemingly Great Favourites of his.  F. 
I must confess there is some colour of Reason, why Simon Monfort should Summon so many Abbots and Priors to this Parliament if he were sure of all their Votes before hand, but there is no certainty of this, for if he had been so sure of them, there was as much reason why he should have called them all likewise to the Parliament at London, which you say he Summoned the year before, when with the Consents of the Bishops, Barons and others, he made the new Ordinances you mention; but you cannot find in any Historian, or Record, that he then Summoned so many of them, and it seems pretty strange, that all these Abbots and Priors. and Deans, not a fourth part of which were Tenants in Capite should all take the trouble to come to this Parliament without any scruple, if neither they nor their Predecessors had ever been Summoned before.  
But the other reason you give why so many Earls and Barons should be omitted, is much more unlikely, for if the numerous Barons Factious Practices at Oxford had before frustrated, Monfort's designs, there had been indeed some reason why he should have done, all he could to have hindered their coming again; whereas on the contrary the Earls and Barons at the Parliament at Oxford, though they came thither with Arms and great Retinues, yet it was only to join with him, and to force the King to agree to the Oxford Provisions. But if the Commons were now Summoned (as you suppose) to curb the extravagant Power of the Lords, yet it could not be his Interest, or indeed in his Power so to do, not the latter, because the Earls, Barons and Tenants in Capite, were too powerful and numerous a body to have suffered such an affront and breach on their Right, as this was. Nor could he and his two and twenty Companions have ever dared, to have displeased so great and powerful a body of men, as you must allow your great Barons and Tenants in Capite▪ both great and small then were, and who made such a powerful opposition for their Liberties in King John'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 less the Citizens and Burgesses, most of whom were certainly not Noble by Birth, nor yet held Lands in Capite; nor could it be for Monfort's Interest so to do; for the greatest part of the Earls, and Barons were of his side already, and thus to ●●clude them, had been the only way to disoblige them, and make them leave him, and go over to the King's side: So that I must needs tell you upon the whole matter, granting Monfort to have been such a Knave and Hypocrite as you make him, yet certainly he was no Fool, but a great Politician and I leave it to yourself, or any indifferent person to judge whether it was possible for him to do so silly and unpolitick a thing as this. For granting all the Abbots and Priors to have been of his side (as you suppose) they could no way counterbalance the great Power of those Earls and Barons, and numerous Tenants in Capite, that were all hereby excluded. So that let the Commons have been Summoned when you will, it was certainly before this 49 ●h. of Henry the Third, or not at all.  
But to give you my opinion why so few Earls and Barons are mentioned in this Record of the 49 of Hen. 3 d to have been Summoned to this Parliament; I conceive it was not out of any jealousy or suspicion in Simon Monfort of those who were then his fast Friends but out of pure carelessness, or omission of the Clerks; who I suppose through haste, inadvertency, or multiplicity of business omitted to enter the names of all the rest of the Earls, Bishops and Barons, to whom Writs of Summons were likewise sent, and that I do not speak without Book, I appeal to the Record itself; where there is a blank space left unfilled of about four Inches breadth which could be left for no other end than to add the names of all the rest of the Earls and Barons who were certainly Summoned to that Parliament as well as those whose names are there expressed.  M. 
I shall not longer dispute this point, but I think you must grant that the Commons are never mentioned in any Record or Statute of this King; for after his Victory at Evesham he called a Parliament at Winchester, whereto we do not find any Commons Summoned, as before, but the King by the advice of his Magnates' alone, Seized the Liberties of the City of London, and also they gave Him all the Lands of the late Rebels.  
And then there was after this a Parliament Summoned at Kenelworth, in the 50 th'. of this King, where it was agreed by the common assent of the Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and all others, that six Persons who were all (except one) either Bishops or Barons, should choose six others and the whole twelve were to judge concerning those who were disinherited for their late Rebellion, and their Determination or Award, is called Dictum de Kenelworth, and was made to better the condition of the disinherited, and to turn the Forfeitures and Loss of their Estates into a Composition for them after the value of five years' Purchase, to be paid at two or three short payments, yet we do not find that to this Parliament the Commons were at all Summoned, but to the contrary; for though it is true that the Statute gives us all their Names. Yet the Doctor further proves to you from Sir William Dugdale's Baronage, that there was not one of them, but what was either a Bishop or a great Baron of the Kingdom; whereas had there been any Commons in this Parliament, they would certainly have had Commissioners of their own order as well as the Bishops and Lords.  F. 
I shall give you a short answer to your Authorities from the Parliaments of Winchester and Kenelworth; as for the former you must own that all the Rolls of it are lost; 
B.A.P. p. 144.  and that there is no more left of it on Record than that Writ or Commission which the Doctor has given us, which recites that by the unanimous consent of all the Magnatum, or great Men (as the Doctor renders it) the King had the seisin and possession of all the Rebels Estates given to him; which is no argument to prove that no Commons were there; since I have so often made out that under this word● Magnatum not only the Knights of Shires, but Citizens and Burgesses were often comprehended: 'Tis true there are no Writs extant to prove the Commons were now Summoned; neither is there any reason to believe the contrary; since if it were a cunning invention of Montfort to Summon the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses to abate the power of the Tenants in Capite, it was sure as good policy for this King to continue so politic an Institution, which would for the future serve for so good a balance; not only against his Tenants in Capite, but his great Lords. also, as for the Parliament at Kenelworth, I shall admit all the matter of Fact to be true as you have related it from Mat. Westminster, who says, that the Twelve Commissioners appointed to draw up the Statute of Kenelworth, were chosen de Potentioribus Procerum, & Prudentioribus Praelatorum, and also that the French Record (cited by the Doctor) together with Sir William Dugdale's Comment upon it make it out plain enough that the Lay▪ Commissioners who were chosen by all the parties there named, to make this Statute, were all great Earls and Barons, though in the Record itself only styled Knights.  
Well, what follows from all this? that the Commons could have no hand in this choice, because the tous Autres, or omnes Alii mentioned in this, and other Records must needs always signify the smaller sort of Tenants in Capite; and I say it signifies the Commons as now taken; whether you have made good your Interpretation by any cogent proofs I must leave to your own ingenuity; for to tell you the truth, I think your Doctor has led you astray in this point; and till you can make it out better than you have done, I must beg your pardon if I keep my old opinion; and if your Argument be good, that no Commoners were there, because none of them were chosen Commissioners, then by the same Argument none of the small Tenants in Capite were there neither; because none under the degree of an Earl or Baron were Elected. As for the want of Writs of Summons to these Parliaments if that were to be the rule, that makes as much against the rest of the Tenants in Capite, who were no Barons, nay the very Bishops and Abbots, and Lords, since there is no Writs of Summons found for their appearance at either of these Parliaments; and so the King might call whom he pleased.  M. 
In the first place it does not follow that because Montfort had Summoned some of the Tenants in Capite to appear for all the rest; and that he also called some Citizens and Burgesses to this Parliament of the 49 th'. yet the King might have very good reasons (though we cannot now positively tell what they were,) nor to follow this new Invention of Monforts, however it might then serve the turn; for perhaps the King did not like it because introduced by a Rebel. And he had also by his Victory at Evesham so 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 pleased, according to the Testimony of Mr. Cambden's Nameless Manuscript Author, cited in his Brittania; that after the horrid troubles and confusions of the Baron's Wars, only those Earls and Barons, Quibus Rex dignatus est brevia Summonitionis dirigere venirent ad Parliamentum suum, & non Alii.  
And that this was true in matter of Fact, I shall prove from the next Statute of Hen. 3. which is extant, viz. that of Ma●l●bridge, 
B. A. P. 144, 145.  made in the 52 d. year of this King to which there were no more Summoned than some of the more Discreet of the Greater and Less●r Barons, as appears by these words in the Preface to that Statute, Convocatis Discretioribus ejusdem Regni tam Majoribus quam Minoribus, Brovisum est; & Statutum ac concordatum, etc. which seems to have been done by the King's particular direction since by the general Writ of Summons provided by King John's 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 Discreet were then Summoned, nor is there in this Preamble, the least Hint or Intimation of any Writs directed to Counties, Cities or burgh's for the Choice of Members.  
I desire you in the next place to take notice that Britton (who lived about that time) supposes this Statute to have been made, 
B.A.P. Pag. 95.  Per la Purveance de Robert Walerand & per Commune Assent des graunt's Signior du Realm. By the Procurement or Forecast of Robert Walerand, and by common assent of the Great Lords of the Realm, without any mention of the Commons. I have a great many more such Statutes to instance in which are said by M. Paris to have been made in several Parliaments of this King, by the Community, or Common University or Baronage of the whole Kingdom, but I pass them by because we have sufficiently debated most of them already.  F. 
If only some of your Great Lords and Tenants in Capite could thus meet, and make Laws to bind all the rest, and they so tamely put up this strange Infringement of their Privileges as you suppose, it seems their Power was much abated since the 37 th'. year of this King, when (as I said) Mat. Paris tells us, that the Barons would do nothing without the rest of their Peers, whom it seems the King had then omitted to Summon; and therefore I must needs tell you, that I am not of your Doctor's opinion, nor yet of Cambden's nameless Author, that this King after his victory over Montfort and his Adherents could by his Prerogative call, or omit what Peers he pleased, since it is contrary to the Declaration of all the Bishops, 
Ibid. Sir R. Cotton 's Collection of Records in this Year.  Abbots, and Priors in Full Parliament, 2 Rich. 2. wherein they claimed, That holding per Baronium▪ it did belong to them, de jure & consuetudine R●gni Angliae (that is, by Rights of Prescription) to be present in all Parliaments as Peers of the Realm, and to treat, consult and ordain concerning the Affairs of the Kingdom; and if the Spiritual Lords claimed this Privilege, sure the Temporal Barons might with the like right have made the like claim, and I am sure 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 pleased, and so to make packed Parliaments to serve a turn when ever he pleases.  
But to come to the main strength of your Argument, that because the more Discreet men of the Kingdom of the Greater as well of the less●r are only mentioned in this Statute; that therefore there were only called to it such Lords and Tenants in Capite, as the King pleased to Summon, and that all the rest were left out; which is a very idle Supposition; for at this rate, may as well say, that there were no Temporal Barons there at all, and that by the Greater discreet m●n are to be understood some of the Bishops and Judges; who though no Peers▪ yet were then the most Learned in the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom of any persons at that time, and consequently the most wise and discreet to draw up Laws, and by the lesser sort of discreet men, shall be understood such Great Clerks and Lawyers, though not Tenants in Capite; as the King pleased to choose, as being likewise most able to advise him. But if you tell me that this Interpretation is forced; I may as well say the same of yours, and that with greater reason. Yet I shall prove that this Parliament was Summoned in no other manner, and consisted of no other persons than those that used to appear in all other preceding Great Councils or Parliaments. In the first place therefore I must put you in mind of what I have already said, that there is no conclusion to be drawn from the bare penning of the different Forms of ancient Statutes, who were Summoned to the making of them, nor by what power they were Enacted; some of them it is true, being drawn in the form of the King's Charters, or Writs; without any mention of the Assent either of the Lords or Commons, and others are said to be Enacted by the whole Realm without any mention of the King at all; and I have given you a List of divers old Statutes from the Reign of King Henry III. to the time of King Edward III. in which there is no mention at all made, either of the King, or any other of the three Estates; and yet no Man I think but will grant that these Statutes were all made, and agreed to by them according to the usual Forms, though it be not particulaly expressed, and therefore to give a better account of this Law, it is fit we consider, that these words convocatis Discretioribus Regni, are no more restrictive to some particular Persons, then if it had been in the Superlative Degree, and instead of Discretioribus, it had been Discretissimis, or Sapientissimis Regni, which no Man would interpret to mean only a few of those whom the King should judge the wisest and most discreet Men of the whole Kingdom; and therefore we must not mind the Grammatical, but Legal sense of these words, and then it amounts to no more than this, that by the Greater discreet Men, were meant the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, as under the lesser Discreet Men were included the Commons.  
But that these Minores Descreti cannot be understood of the Tenants in Capite only, appears by the conclusion of the Preface to this Statute of Marlebridge in these words: Provisiones, Ordinationes, & Statuta subscripta ●b omnibus Regni ipsius incalis, tam majoribus, quam Minoribus, firmiter & inviolabiliter temporibus perpetuis Sta●neri● observari; so that if by the Majores I●colae, who were to observe these Statutes, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal are meant, then by the Minores Incolae Regni must be understood by the same reason the whole Commons of England; and so likewise for Parity of reason by the Minores Discreti, mentioned before in the Preface, must be also meant the Representatives of the Commons in Parliament.  
And that this alone can be the genuine sense of these Words, may appear by comparing this Statute with another made at Gloucester the 6th. of Edward I. where in the Preface it is recited in these words, purvenant m●sm le Roy, pur Amendement de son Royalme, & pur pluis plenier exhibition de droit sicome le profit d'office demand, appelles les pluis Discretes de son Royalme auxibien des Greindres, come des meindres, establie est, & acordan'ment ordain. So that if the Commons were there called to this Parliament, and if by the Greindres Discretes were understood the Lords, then by the like reason under Meindres Discretes must 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, Summoned ad Libitum Regis, appears by all the original Writs, founded upon several branches of this Statute, wh●ch are to be seen in the Register; reciting that this Statute was made de Communi Concilio Regni. 
Fol. 171, 174, 175.  Now the word Commune signifies no more than General; and how could this be called a General Council, which only consisted of a few of the wiser sort of Bishops, Lords and Tenants in Capite?  
As for what you and the Doctor cite out of Cambden's Nameless Author of King Henry's, sending Writs of Summons, and culling out a few 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 those who never forfeited by reason of Montfort's Rebellion. I need not say much to it, 
Fol. 590.  since Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour hath sufficiently baffled that Author's authority, for if it was never true as to Earls, it was not like to be truer in respect of the greater Barons. But as for your lesser Barons or Tenants in Capite; I know not but he might be much more in the right in respect of them.  
What you say as to Robert Walrand is not much material, for though he was never so great a Baron or Lawyer, yet he could draw up this Law, but as being one of the King's Council, who in those days drew up, and prepared all Bills that were offered in Parliament. And thus Britton might well say, that this was made by the Common Assent of the Grand Signior (this Act being so highly for their advantage) and yet the Commons might be also there as well as the Great Lords; for otherwise if Britton must be literally understood, what becomes of your Minores Discreti mentioned in this Statute to have given their consents as well as the Majores, whereas this Author mentions none at whose request it was made, but the Great Lords only: But that by these Minores Incolae Regni, mentioned at the end of this Statute, were meant the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses; Pray see a Writ of Summons the 24th. of Edward I. with the Doctors note upon it in his answer to Mr. P. the Writ is directed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
Rot. Cl. M. 4. Dorso.  and concludes thus, 
B. A. P. pag. 155.  that he should warn the Procuratores Cleri there mentioned to appear with him, ad tractandum, ordinandum & faciendum no●iscum, & cum ceteris Praelatis, & Pro●eribus, & aliit ●nc●lis Regni nostri in the Margin over-against these last words, the Doctor gives us this Note, the Incolae Regni were the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses mentioned in the former Writ, but not here particularly enumerated. Now, though it is true, that this Writ is after the time that the Doctor will acknowledge the Commons to have been constantly Summoned to Parliament, yet if these words could mean the Commons in this Writ. why they should not signify the same in this Statute, I can see no reason, but the Doctor's strong prejudices to the contrary. But if you have no more Authorities to allege from the Reign of Henry the Third, pray go on, and show me the rest of your Arguments; why you suppose the Commons were never called in above half the Reign of Edward the First, till the 18 th'. And I desire this the more, because as I have already proved from the Statute of West. 1. 3 Ed. 1. the words & tout le Communalty de la Terre, coming immediately after the Counts, Barons; and those other words foregoing, must needs signify the whole Commonalty of the Land; 
B.A.P. p. 146.  and so the Doctor himself has rendered it in his Answer to Mr. P.  M. 
But first pray observe what the Doctor there tells you, that by the word Commonalty he means not the Commons in the sense they are now taken, but the Community of the Tenants in Capite only; and for this, 
Claus. 3. Ed. 1. in 1. die veniendo ad Parliamentum.  pray consult the Writ of Summons to the Archbishop of Canterbury to come to this Parliament, (which I confess is the only Writ of this kind that is left upon the Rolls from the 49 th'. of Henry the Third to the 23 d. of this King) in which you will find the Archbishop Summoned ad tractandum, ordinandum una cum Prelatis, & 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, 
Ibid. p. 147.  the Earls, Barons, and greater Tenants in Capite, and the less which then were the Community of the Kingdom; so that your Interpretation of the words des Greindres, & des Mendres in the Statute of Gloucester (by which you would interpret the like words in the Statute of Marlbridge) for the Commons, as now understood, will signify nothing, as being before the time we allow the Commons to have been Summoned to Parliament in this King's Reign.  F. 
It were a very easy thing for any man of a confident undertaking temper to frame what Interpretations he pleases from the general or equivocal of Histories or Records, if he could as easily find Authorities to support it; but I see nothing like a proof for it, but the Doctor's bare Assertion: Since I have already sufficiently proved, that the words Communality and Communitas coming in our Statutes and Records immediately the Counts and Barons after do always signify the Commons as now understood, and why they should not signify so here, I can see no reason; for as to the words in the Writ to the Archbishop of Canterbury, they prove nothing at all, who were the Constituent parts of that Parliament; for if the word Magnates must need signify the greater and lesser Tenants in Capite only, pray why do they not signify so in the Writ of Summons to Parliament, of the 49th. of Henry III. 
Cl. 49. H. 3. M. 11. Dorso.  to the Bishop of Durham (which the Doctor has Printed) where there is no mention made of his Treating or advising with any other Persons than the other Prelates, & Magnatibus nostris, yet the Doctor within two Leaves after gives us the Writs of Summons for the Knights, 
B. A. P. pag. 147.  Citizens and Burgesses to this Parliament. But it seems in his first Edition of his Book against Mr. P. he had not made those rare discoveries he did afterwards; where he pretends not to carry this Opinion beyond the 49th of Hen. III. Therefore pray go on to show this new Light, by which the Doctor discovered, that the Commons were never Summoned to Parliament all the Reign of Edward I. till the 18th.  M. 
In the first place, you cannot show us any mention of the words Communality, or Communitas in any of the Parliaments of this King's Reign; not in the Statute de Bigamis made in the 4th. of this King; the Preamble thereof runs to this effect: 
B. A. P. pag. 147, 148.  That these under-written Constitutions were recited before some of the Bishops and others of the King's Council, and afterwards heard and published before the King and his Council, here is no express mention, who were the Constituent Members of Parliament at this time, or of this Parliament in particular, more than that it is said in the Close of this Statute, that the aforesaid Constitutions were Published at Westminster in the Parliament after the Feast of St. Michael.  
So likewise by the Statute of Westminster the 2d. made in the 13th. of Edw. I. it appears that the Prelates, Earls, Barons and the King's Council, were the Constituent parts of the Parliament at Gloucester you but now mentioned; for it recites that the King in the 6th. year of his Reign, Convecatis Prelatis, Comitibus, Baronibus, & Concilio suo apud Glocestre, etc. and thus; the Statute of Mortmain made by this King in the 7th. of his Reign, is recited to have been made de Consilio Pralatorum, Comitum, Baronum & aliorum fidelium Regni nostri de Concilio nost●o existentium, etc. the Statute of Acton Burnel, was made in the 11th. of this King, by himself and his whole Council, Le Roy per Luy, & per tout son Council ad ordain & establie; though this was done in Parliament, as appears by the Statute of Merchants of the 13th. of the same King, which recites, that the King had made by himself and his Council at his Parliament at Acton Burnel these Establishments. I have been the more particular in the recital of these Statutes, not only because here is no mention made of any Commons in these Parliaments, but also because it farther confutes your position in your 5th. Dialogue, that the King had not then the sole Legislative Power.  F. 
You have said almost nothing now (I except that of the Kings being the sole Legislative Power,) which I have not already freely acknowledged, viz. that the words Communitas, and Communality are not above twice mentioned in the enacting part of any Statute in this King's Reign; and the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses not once mentioned, till the 34th. of this King, nor any mention again of the Commonalty till the Statute of Lincoln, made in the 12th. of Edward II. and yet it appears by the Writs of Summons and Expenses, beginning at the 28th. of Edward I. that the Commons had been Summoned to Parliaments, ever since that time; and that they were so, also before that time; I have already proved both by Acts of Parliament and Records, but by yours, and your Doctor's method of arguing; if the Writs of Summons to the Commons of the 49th. of Henry III had happened to have been torn off, and lost, as they easily might have been, since it is only affixed to the Roll by a loose Schedule, and also that all the Writs of Summons to the Commons had been lost, from the 23d. of Edward I. to the 34th. then there is no denying the Commons to have been there, because particularly named; and if these Writs had also happened afterwards to have been lost till the 12th. of Edward. II. when they are expressly named in the Statute of Lincoln which I now mentioned; then the Commons should have been again excluded by the same Argument, as they are after the 49th. of Henry III. because no Writs of Summons are found for them, nor any mention made of them in any Statute, first for above 30 Years, and after that for above 13 Years together, since you will not allow the words Communitas and Communality to signify the Commons, till you please to allow them in that sense.  
This may serve as a general answer to all you have said▪ concerning the omission of the Commons in all Statutes till the 18th. of this King, and may serve not only for them, but against the Bishops and Tenants in Capite. being all present at divers Parliaments, where the Acts are recited to have been made by the common Assent or Accord, without at all specifying whose Assent, and sometimes without naming the King at all.  
This being premised, it will be easy to return you a short and particular answer to the Statutes you have cited. As for that de Bigamis, you confess that the Statute only mentions its being recited before the King's Council, and Published in Parliament without relating what were the constituent parts of it; Ergo, no Commons were there, and I may with as good a Fa●e say, no Bishops, Abbots, nor your smaller Tenants in Capite were there, because not particularly named: As for the rest of the Statutes you have cited of Gloucester, Mortmain and Act●n Burnel; 'tis true, the Prelates, Earls and Barons are the only particularly mentioned, because they then bore the greatest figure in the Government, your lesser Tenants in Capite being quite lest out; for that they could not then be comprehended under Baronum, I have sufficiently made out. But to conclude, give me any sufficient reason, why the Commons might not be at these Parliaments as well as they were after the 18th. though most commonly no otherwise mentioned than they were before that time, if you say the Writs of Summons make it out they were there: You confess l●ke your prejudice, since the two Writs of Summons before that time would, if they had not been lost have made out the same thing.  
As for what you say for the Kings being the sole Legislative Power in those times. I have long since proved, that no King could ever legally make laws without the consent of the Common Council or Parliament, and after that, all that you can say for the Kings making Laws alone with the advice of his Council signifies nothing; For if the words are literally to be understood, than this Council of the King, whether you will have it to consist of the whole Parliament, as the Statute of Mortmain seems to intimate, or else of his particular Council in Parliament, as in the Statute of Acton Burnel, where those constitutions are said to be ordained by the King and his Council, if by ordained, you mean only drawn up, and prepared for the Parliaments Assent; it is no more than what I shall easily grant to have been often used in those times, but if you will have ordained to signify enacted, then pray tell me how you will avoid the King's Council, having a Joint Hand with the King in his Legislative Power, since the words are the King by himself and his Council had Ordered and Established: But you have carried both yourself as well as me, too far from the main Question; therefore pray give me some better reasons why you are of this Opinion, that the Commons were not Summoned again to Parliament till the 18th. of Edward 1  M. 
I am now coming to it: But first remember that about an hour or two ago, I cited a Record of the 30th. of Edward I. which related to an Act of the 18th. of this King; 
B. A. P. pag. 149.  by which Record it appears, that the Prelates, Earls, Barons and other great Men of the Kingdom had then in full Parliament on the first of june, granted him 40 s. on every Knight's Fee to Marry his Daughter; and it thence also appears, that though this Tax is said to be given for themselves and the whole Community of the Kingdom, yet it was by the Community of Tenants in Capite alone, because it was to be raised wholly upon Knights Fees; so that hitherto in this King's Reign, there appears nothing that can plainly evince, either the Summoning, or being of any Commons in Parliament, as now understood; we are at least left at great uncertainties, nay in my Opinion, the proof is more strong on the Negative, that there were none.  F. 
I wonder you should mention this Writ any more, since I have already confuted the Doctor'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 40s. upon every Knight's Fee at all prove it; for if it is to be understood of Lands only held by Knight's Service; then this Tax could not have extended to any other Estates, as certainly it did, since the King could by King John's Charter, have forced his Tenants in Capite to grant him an Aid towards this Marriage of his Daughter, and (if what you say be true) could also have made all the Mesne Tenants of the Tenants in Capite, to have contributed to it according to the Knight's Fees they held, and this without calling a Parliament at a●; therefore pray give some better Authority than this, for I●e assure you I am not at all satisfied with it.  M. 
I will now give you the Writ the Doctor has discovered, and by which, it will plainly appear, that this Tax granted in the 18th of this King's Reign, 
B. A. P. p. 149. & dein.  was given before ever the Commons were Summoned to it; and for this, the Learned Doctor has found out a loose bundle of Writs of this year, directed to the Sheriffs of most Counties of England, and they are the ancientest Extant, or perhaps that ever were (for in probability, the calling of Knights, Citizens and Burgesses according to that Example was discontinued from the 49th. of Hen. III. unto this time) by which two or three Knights were directed to be chosen for each County; pray read the Writ itself, since I look upon it as the first Pattern of this kind, that of the 49th. of Henry III seeming to have been Written in haste without those Forms, that were afterwards required in Writs of this kind, and particularly in this: Edwardus Dei Gratiâ Rex Angliae, Dominus Hiberniae▪ & Dux Aqui●aniae Vice-comisi Westm●rlandiae Salutem. Cum per Comites, Barones & quosdam alios de Proceribus Regni Nostri, nuper fuisse●us super quibusdam Speci●liter requisiti super quibus, tam cum i●sis, quam cum aliis de Comitatibus Regni illius Colloquium ha●ere volumus & Tyactat●m, tibi praecipimus quod duos, v●l tres de Di●cretioribu●, & ad laborandum potentioribus Militibus de Comitatu praedicto ●ine delatione Eligi, & eos ad nes usque West monasterium venire facias ita quod sint ibidem à die Sancti johannis Bapt. prox. futur. in tres Septimanes ad ultimum cum plena potestate pro se, & Communicate Comitat. praedicti adconsulendum, & consentienoum pro se & Communitate illâ hiis quae Comites, Barones, & Pro. eres praedicti, tunc dixerine concordanda, & habeas ibi h●c Breve. Teste meipso apud Westmonast. 14 die Jun. Anno. Regni Nostri 18.  
Whereby you may see in the first place, that there was yet no certain number of Knights of Shires settled, 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 30th. Ed. I. that on the first of this Month, the King had Scutage then given him in full Parliament; and now Fourteen days after, at the Instance of the Earls, Barons and other great Men of the Kingdom, upon certain matters by them moved and propounded to him; He Issued His Writs of Summons to the Sheriff● of the several Counties, to cause to be chosen two or three Knights of each Counties, to come to him at Westminster, three Weeks after St. john Baptist at farthest. We may also further observe from this Writ, that it is most probable (though it is not here absolutely said so) that the King was moved by the Earls, Barons and great Men of the Kingdom, to call these Knights to this Parliament, and that as this Writ is the first to be found after that of the 49th of Henry III. so it really was the first Writ of Summons after that time, for the Election of Knights to represent the several Counties.  
In the next place, that there could ●e no Citizens nor Burgesses chosen, or sent to this Parliament by Virtue of this Writ, as they were afterwards by directions contained in the Writs sent to the Sheriffs for Electing Knights of the Shires.  
Lastly, that by this Writ, the Knights were to come to the King at Westminster, three Weeks after St. john Baptist at furthest. which was the 15th. of july; also, that in the same year, between the time of the date of the Writ, and the time appointed for Meeting of the Knights, The Statute of Westminster the third was made as may appear by this Clause at the beginning, Dominus Rex in Parliamento suo apud West monasterium post Pascha-A●o Regni sui Decimo octavo, videlicet in Quindena Sancti johannis Baptist. (that is the 8th. of july) ad Instantiam Magnatum Regni sui Concessi●, Providit. & Statuit, Quod de caetero liceat unicuique libero homini, etc. So that this was the same full Parliament, which gave the King Scutage on the first of june, 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 were not in Parliament) or the Knights came a Week before they had need to have done, but neither of the latter are probable, seeing the Knights than were great Husbands of their time and Expenses, and were not very forward to undertake this Service, as being constantly bound with, or engaged by Sureties, or Manucaptors for the performance of it, and their appearance in Parliament, and therefore it seems reasonable to conclude, 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 House of Commons came to be fixed and established in the present constant Form, it is now, and hath been in, for many King's Reigns, and than the King in this Age was not altogether confined to any Number of Knights, Citizens or Burgesses, nor were several strict Forms and Usages now Practised ever then thought of, nor some Legal niceties and Punctilios now in use, then judged absolutely necessary.  F. 
Pray give me leave to answer what you have now said from this Writ, before you proceed to any other Record. First as to your Argument from the variety or uncertainty of the number of Knights of Shires, which you at first suppose to have been Summoned to Parliament, that I doubt will prove a gross mistake, for if we closlely consider the Writ itself, it will prove no more than a Summons of these Knights to a great Council, Colloquy or Treatise (as the Writ here cal'● it) and not to a Parliament, the words Colloquium & Tractatum mentioned in the Writ, not then signifying a Parliament; but such a Collequy Treatise, or great Council as is mentioned i● the Statute of the 7th. of this King, forbidding all Men coming with Arms to such Assemblies wherein there is also a plain difference made between Parliaments and such Treatises as I have already proved from the Statute of the Staple of the 27th. of Edward III. which was first made in such a Treatise or Council as appears by the Title to the said Statutes, and was afterwards confirmed by the next Parliament, in the 28th. year of the same King, Cap. 1. whereby Magna Charta, and all other Statutes before made are also confirmed; for had this Summons been to a Parliament, sure there would have been also Writs of Summons found for the Electing▪ and returning of Citizens and Burgesses, as well as Knights of Shires to this Assembly, and these Writs of Summons would have been entered on the Dorse of the Close Rolls according to the Rules, yourself have laid down; whereas this Writ is only found, in a loose Bundle of Writs of divers other Matters; neither is there any title in the Margin of the Record (as is usual in Writs of Summons) to Parliament, whereby it may appear, what kind of Assembly this was, to which these Knights were Summoned, nor is your Argument from the date of the Writs of Summons any convincing proof, that the Commons were not in this Parliament at the time of the Writ Issued; since during the Session of this Parliament, the Earls and Barons might make this Request, for calling of those 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 Request, thought fit to Summon two or three more of the Knights of Shires to have their advice also.  
And as for your last Argument, that the same Parliament which gave the Tax above mentioned on the first of june, must be sitting, even to the very time of the return of the Writ, because the Statute of Westminster, the third was mane on the Quindene of St. john Baptist: (viz. the 8th. of july) So that the King and the Barons, without the Commons, made this Statute, and that these Knights were Summoned after the act was passed. There is no necessity of making these Consequences, for this Parliament might very well be dissolved that very day this Act passed, and this Council or Colloquy might be Summoned to Meet within three Weeks after Midsummer (i. e. about the 16th. of july) according to the Writ you have cited. And so I believe it would appear were the Rolls of that Parliament now Extant, as th●y are lost, as well as those of divers succeeding Parliaments.  M. 
Well then you are forced to confess, that this Writ was Issued whilst the Parliament was still sitting; and if so, I cannot see any need there was of another less Council or Colloquy to meet, after the Parliament was ended, since as long as it was sitting, that could have much better dispatched all such business as the King had to do, and how the King could foresee that he should have need of another Council before he had any business for it, seems very improbable; and therefore I think I may very well suppose with the Doctor, that this Writ was a Summons to Parliament, though it does not (I grant) expressly call it so; but your Argument is of no weight, that because this Writ was not entered upon the Close Roll, that therefore, it is not to be looked upon as a Summons to Parliament, as also because the Title to it is only Summonitio ad Consilium; since the Doctor in his answer to Mr. P. gives us several Parliament Writs upon the Close Rolls with this Title ad Consilium, which proves that the King had in those days a larger Power of calling what number of Knights of Shires he pleased to Parliaments, as appears by two other Writs he there gives us of the 22d. of Edward I. which are entered in the Close Rolls to the Sheriff of Northumberland, to cause two Knights to be Elected for that County, bearing Date the 8th. of October, and the next day after the King, as appears by another Writ to the same Sheriff, ordered him to cause to be chosen two other Knights besides the former, and to cause them to appear at Westminster the morrow after St. Martin's Day, to hear and do such things as the King should more fully enjoin: The like Writs (with bot● the former) were sent to all the Sheriffs in England. Now though it is true▪ that the Title to the first of these Writs, is only de Melitibus Eligendis & Mittendis ad Concilium; yet these words well considered must certainly here mean a Parliament, both these Writs being entered upon the Close Rolls where all Writs of this kind are wont to be found, as I have already observed; and besides the words in the first Writ are the same with those which are found in several other Writs of Summons to Parliament, viz. ad Consule●dum, & Consentiend. pro se & Comm●nitate illà biis qua Comites, Barones & Proceres pr●dict●: concorditer ordinaverint in praemissis.  F. 
I confess we are at a loss in this affair, for want of the Records of this Parliament, which if we had I doubt not but there would appear very good reasons why the Lords did then desire the King should consult more of the Knights of the Shires then what had appeared at this Parliament, as that Lords might refuse to give their Advice in the matters proposed by the King, without he would also consult more of the best and ablest Knights of Counties, who were to come up with fresh Power, and further Instructions, what answer to give the King in the matters he should propose, which, that it was neither to give Money, nor make Laws, is plain; since (you say) the Tax of 40s. on even Knight's Fee was given, and the Statute of Westminster 3d. made before they came up to Parliament; but indeed the words in the Writ plainly prove that this was no Parliamentary Meeting, since they are here only Summoned, ad Con ulendum, & Cons●●iendum; whereas in all Writs of Summons to future Parliaments, the words are ad faci●ndum quod ●unc de Communi Consilio ordinabitur; or the like, as appears by the Writ of Summons of the 23d. of this King, 
●. A. P. pag. 155.  which the Doctor has printed, whereas the words in this Writ are ad consentiendum, etc. ●iis qua Comites▪ Barones & Proceres ●radicti rune duxerint concordanda, etc. And if this had been done at the request of all the Tenants in Capite (as you suppose,) how come the Bishops, Abbots and Priors, who held also in Capite to be omitted, and not mentioned in this Writ, to have joined in this request, as well as the Earls, Barons and great Men?  
But as for the Doctors next precedent, viz. a Writ to the Sheriff of Northumberland, to return two Knights of the Shire, and then the next day after, other two for the same County, I am not at all satisfied, that those Writs were a Summons to a Parliament and not to a great Council, for besides the Title of the Writ is de Militibus Eligendis & Mi●tendis ad Consilium, and the words in the Writ are not the same with those which were commonly used in Writs of Summons to Parliament, as I have already shown ' you in this Writ of Summons we are now upon: Whereas in the Summons to Parliaments of the 23d. of this King, 
Claus. 23. E. 1. M. 4. Dorso.  the ordaining part doth as much refer to the Commons, as to the Lords, the Commune Consilium consisting of both; whereas in these Writs you have cited, they were to consent to such things which the Earls, Barons and great Men, should think fit to agree to; but that I may show you a little more plainly, the absurdity of this fancy of your Doctors, that these Knights of Shires were now Summoned, the Parliament sitting; pray let me ask you one or two Questions concerning this business, pray who were these Gentlemen that the King you say thus Summoned to Parliament?  M. 
According to the Doctor's account, they must have been all Tenant's i● Capite, since he often tells us, that out of these alone, the Knights of Shires were chosen at the first.  F. 
Well, but than who were these Magnates and Alii Proceres mentioned in the Statute of Westminster, and in this Writ of the 18th. of Edward I.?  M. 
I must own myself at a loss, certainly to define who they were; for if I say they were the smaller Tenants in Capite, who are here put as a distinct order from the Comites & Barones immediately foregoing; I foresee you will ask me how these Gentlemen could be summoned, since all the Tenants in Capite were at this Parliament already; therefore I must tell you, I think there were only some of the greatest and wisest of the Tenants in Capite who were no Barons now Summoned, and whom the Doctor tells us, were often called to great Councils, as Barons, Peers, and who, though sometimes called to sit among the Lords, were often again omitted in several Kings Reigns, so that this Parliament was composed (as those of Marlbridg and Glouces●er) not of all, but only of the more discreet of these lesser Barons or Tenants in Capite.  F. 
If this be all you have to say to extricate yourself out of this difficulty, I think it will not amount to much, for in the first place, all you have here said is mere conjecture without any proof; since this Statute of Westminster 3d. says only in general, that it was made at the Instance of the Magnates under which Title your Doctor, 
B. A. P. pag. 147.  when he explains the Writ of Summons to the Arch. bishops of Canterbury tells us, were frequently comprehended the Barones Majores, the Earls and Barons, as under Minores, the lesser Tenants in Capite, which when the Statute of Westmister the first was made he will have to be the whole Commonalty of the Land therein mentioned; and why this Parliament of Westminster the 3 d. should not consist of the same Members now, needs some better reasons than your bare affirmation to the contrary. Besides this Prerogative of calling these Baron's Peers to Parliament, did not only extend to Tenants in Capite, but to other Mesn Tenants also; if the King thought them considerable enough for Estates, or wisdom to do them that Honour, and so was not confined to Summon none but Tenants in Capite, who according to your Interpretation of K. John's Charter had all a right to appear by General Writ's, at the Common Council of the Kingdom: but you may put what sense you please on these words Magnates & Proceres, yet I am sure your Doctor can take them in no other sense than for the Community of all the Tenants in Capite both great and small; 
Tir. Communi●as Regni.  and so he tells us in his Glossary when he Comments upon the Writ of the 30 Edw. 1. which you now mentioned, and which refers to this very Parliament of the 18 th'. when Forty Shillings was granted on every Knight's Fee to Marry the King's Daughter; 
B. G. Pag. 32, 33  and there the Doctor immediately tells us, that such as paid that Scutage were Tota Communitas Regni, and no others; and of these the Tenants in Capite granted. and paid it first for themselves and Tenants, etc. and which must certainly relate to this very Parliament of the 18 Edw. 1. or none at all.  M. 
I confess I do not see how the Doctor can solve this difficulty; but by denying what he has already said; and affirming, as I do now, that all the lesser Tenants in Capite were not Summoned to this Parliament, but only some of them at last ordered by this Writ to be chosen and returned by the Counties.  F. 
Yes, he might do it, if bare affirming were to pass for proof; but I shall not give up my reason upon no better Grounds either to him, or you; not to mention the improbability of the thing, that the King should be now over-persuaded by the Earls, Barons, and other Great Men to call these Knights of S●ires which had been now omitted ever since the 49 Hen. 3. for above twenty year●, when he had no need at all of them▪ but rather the contrary advantage of Governing without them, since it is the Policy of Princes rather to diminish than increase the number of the Members of their great at well as private Councils, who certainly are most easily managed when they are a few than a great many.  M. 
But what if we should go from the Doctor's Position, and say, that perhaps these Knights were chosen out of the Mesn Tenants of the Tenants in Capite, many of whom I grant might be considerable for Interest as well as prudence; and with whom the King at their request might desire to treat of certain matters which had been before moved and propounded by him.  F. 
This is all that can be said, and yet is much more unlikely than the other; since to believe that the Earls, Barons and Tenants in Capite should be now grown so weary of their Power of imposing Taxes▪ and making Law● for the whole Nation as to, entreat the King to admit their under-Tenants to partake of so large a share in both, is so extravagant a Fancy, that if it had not suited with the Doctor's present Hypothesis, he would never have asserted it in cold blood; since himself affirms that upon the making of King John's Charter, that the Earls, Barons and Tenants in Cap●●e, were the only Parties to it, and that all the rest of their Tenants who were there present were only their Retinue and Tenants in Military Service which were with them at Runnemede, and were hardly to be reckoned among the Freemen of the Kingdom, 
B.G. Glo. p. 51.  all the rest being only Followers who helped to augment the noise; and were not Lawmakers, for 'tis not probable (says the Doctor very well) that those men that had the force of the Nation would permit men of small Reputation to share with them in Law-making, those that had the power of this or any other Nation de Fac●o, always did give Laws, and Tax the People. But it seems these Great Lords and Tenants in Capite, are either very stiff to maintain; or else easy to give up their privileges just as it best suits with the Doctor's present occasion; but the Doctor may contradict himself as much as he pleases; since it is not his fault, but his Hypothesis that hath lead him into it.  M. 
I confess it does seem somewhat hard at present to conceive it, but we know not what reasons the Lords and Tenants in Capite might have had to desire the Concurrence of these Knights of Shires at this Juncture of time; but that their coming to Parliament looks like a new Institution, may farther appear from hence, that the King for a good while after the introducing Knights of Shires to serve in Parliament, 
B. A. P. p. 152.  was wont to use the liberty of Nominating the same Members of Parliament who were formerly chosen, appears by a very remarkable Writ the Doctor there likewise gives us of the 28 th'. of the same King, 
Cla●●. 28. Ed. ●. M. 3. Dors.  directed to the Sheriff of Cumberland, whereby he is commanded to cause to appear at the Parliament at Lincoln on the Octive of St. Hilary the very same Knights, Citizens and Burgesses who had before appeared at the last Parliament, unless any of them were sick or dead. From which we may collect, that our Kings in those days often made use of their Prerogative of Summoning such Members to Parliament, as were not then actually chosen to serve in that Parliament; and for a farther confirmation of this, there is still extant upon Record in the same Roll the Returns of several of the Sheriffs upon the same Writs. Whereby it appears that the same Members were returned to appear in this Parliament who had before served at the precedent, unless in the Case of some that were sick or dead.  
And that our Kings had not yet a long time after lost their Prerogative of Nominating how many Knights, Citizens and Burgesses they would have chosen and returned to appear in Parliament, may appear by a Writ of the 45. Edw. 3. whereby one Knight for a County, 
Claus. 45. Ed. 3. M. 2. Dors.  and one Citizen and Burgess, and those too, named by the King to the Sheriff were to be Summoned to appear at Winchester to do those things that are appointed in the same Writ, which were likewise directed to all the Sheriffs in England; and that this was a Parliament appears from hence, that the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses had Writs for their Expenses at this Meeting at Winchester. 
Cl. 45. Ed. 3. M. ●●▪ Dors. T. R. ●7. ●i●▪ junii.  And though in these Writs it is only expressed by these words▪ Magnum Consilium Nos●rum, yet from this Writ of ●ummons it is evident, it did the Business of a Parliament, and so no great matter for the Name.  F. 
If th●se be all the Arguments you have to produce against the Ancient Right of the Commons being part of the Parliament before the 18 Edw. 1. I doubt they will not be sufficient to do the business. For as to this Record of the ●8 of Edw. 1. whereby the King is supposed to have had a power to cause those Knights of Shires to be returned who were Elected to serve in the Parliament before going without any new Election, this is altogether Precarious; for if you will but read the Writ itself, and the reason of the King's thus acting, it will plainly prove the contrary. For the King re●ite● in that Writ, That having resolved that the Charter of Forests should be observed and that his Subjects had made a perambulation thereupon; yet that he would conclude nothing in that matter, without the Counsel of the Prelates, Earls▪ Barons, and other Great Men; and therefore desiring to hasten that business, as far as he could without any delay. He thereby order him to cause to come before him to the Parliament at Lincoln the same Knights, Citize●n, and Burgesses as were before Elected. Now the King might have very good reason for it, why he would rather treat with them than with any other, because they had been privy to all the precedent transactions concerning this business of Forests, and therefore were most likely to come to the speediest conclusion with the King in that affair, as being better instructed in it, than it was possible for any new Members to be, who had not before been privy to the whole Affair.  
Yet that the King never intended hereby to impose Representatives upon his People without their free Consent, appears by this Clause at the end of the said Writ. 〈◊〉 qu●d Milites, Caves & Burgenses praedicti dictis die, & loco n●●dis omnibus inter●ut eum plena potestate aud●endi, & faciendi ea quae ibidem in praemiss●● ordinaeri con●ingent pro cummuni commodo dicti Regni. Now how these Knights, Citizens and Burgesses could appear in Parliament with full power of acting therein, without the new Election or Confirmation at least of those whom they represented, I should be very glad ●f the Doctor or yourself could inform me▪ But to come to your next Record of the 45 Edw. 3. whereby you would prove that the King in those days had a Power of appointing not only how many Citizens and Burgesses should appear in Parliament for each County, but also could name the Persons that should appear therein. I wonder how the Doctor could so impose upon your, or his own, understanding since nothing is more apparent than that this Council at Winchester to which they were Summoned, was no Parliament at all but a Great Council, as appears by the very words of the Writ itself, which recites, That whereas a Parliament lately at Westminster had given the King a Subsidy of 24 sh. and 3 d. upon every Parish in England, that the King being willing to be better informed after what manner the Levy of this Tax might be soon performed, and because it would be burdensome for all the Great Men, Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, who came to the said Parliament to meet together again for this matter, therefore he Ordained for the sparing their Pains and Expenses, to have a Colloquy and Treatise with some of the same Members, and therefore names the very Persons whom he commands should appear before him at Winchester to inform him and his Council of the best manner and form whereby the said Tax might be soon and most conveniently levied, according to the intent of the said Grant. So that nothing is more plain from the Writ itself, than that this Assembly was no Parliament; the proper Business of which is always to make Laws, give Money, or re●ress Grievances, none of which ●ut it is apparent were the cause of this meeting. To which these that were Summoned did not appear as Knights of the Shires (their power being expired at the Dissolution of the Parliament) but only 〈◊〉 so many particular private men, who by reason of their Interest in the Country the King supposed could best inform him in the business above mentioned. But that in the Reign of this King there were several Councils of this kind, which though no Parliaments as having but one Knight, one Citizen, and one Burgess, and only making Temporary Constitutions concerning Trade, and other things of less moment, which were to be put in practice for a time till they could be confirmed by the next Parliament, appears by the Ordinance or Statute of the Staple above mentioned. And of these Mr. Pryn in the first part of his Parliamentary Register of Writs gives us divers Precedents; 
P●g. 215.  which he rightly  
So that I hope I have now fairly run through, and examined all the Precedents which you or your Doctor have been able to urge in this great Question▪ and I think, if you are a● candid and ingenuous as I take you to be, you will not assert, that any of them do amount to a proof▪ either that the Commons were never Summoned from the ●9th. of Henry III. to the 18th. of Edward I. or that the Writs of Summons he there produces, 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 Burgesses, should come to Parliament, or could nominate who they should be, or could discharge whom he pleased from serving as Members therein. All which your Doctor, I think with greater confidence, than right understanding of the true meaning of the ancient Writs and Records of Parliament, hath undertaken to assert▪ I beg your pardon for troubling you so long on these Heads. since the length as well as diversity of Records you have now cited, could not be answered in less compass.  M. 
I must confess, you have given pretty plausible answers to most of the Authorities and Records I have now cited, yet I cannot assent so far as to come over to your Opinion, without a longer consideration of the strength of the answers you have now given me to the Doctor's Authorities. But in the mean time you would oblige me, if you could give me the rest of your Arguments, whereby you would undertake to prove that the Commons have been always an essential part of the Parliament ever since the Conquest, for it seems to me, by what I have read out of our ancient Historians, that there is no express mention made of them by Name. in any Historian or Record, till the Reign of Edward I. and as for those Arguments Mr. P. hath given us to the contrary, methinks the Doctor hath given satisfactory answers to them.  F. 
I think I have made it clear enough, that the Commons of England were a constituent part of the Wittena G●●ote, or Common Council of the Nation before your pretended Conquest; and if it doth not appear that they were deprived of that right by the Normans entrance (which you have not yet proved) I think we may very well conclude, that things continued in the same State as to the Fundamental Constitution of the Government▪ as well after your Conquest as they did before. Nor have you as I see proved any thing to the contrary. since you confess that as much a Conqueror as King William was, yet he altered nothing in those Fundamental Constitutions, the most that you pretend he did, being only in an alteration of the Persons, who were the Legislators from English to French Men or Normans; so that upon the whole matter, I think there is no need of any new Arguments to confirm this truth, since the Commons of England, claiming a right by Prescription, of having their Representatives in Parliament; if you nor your Doctor, nor none of those whom he follows, can prove by sufficient Authorities when this began, than I am sure you ought if you were of the Jury in th●s matter, to find for the Tenants in Possession; since that, together with a constant usage, time out of mind is as well by your Civil as our Common Law a sufficient Title to any Estate; yet I doubt not but to show you the next time we meet, that the Doctor has no● given such satisfactory answers as you imagine to most of Mr. P's best Arguments, proving this right of Prescription to have been the constant Opinion of an succeeding Ages; to which I shall also add divers new Authorities, as well from ancient Historians, as Parliamentary Records and Statutes, but since it is grown now very late, I beg your pardon till another opportunity.  M. 
I thank you Sir for the pains you have taken to satisfy me in this gre●t Question; but pray come again within a Night or two, that we may make an end of this weighty Controversy, and then we may proceed to wha● we at first intended, viz. whether the King can ever lawfully be resisted, or whether by any Act he may Commit, he can ever 〈◊〉 to be King.  F. 
I accept of your Proposal, and shall wait of you again as you appoint, but in the mean time pray consider well of the Authorities I have now urged, and the Answers I have given to your Argument, and then I hope there will be the less need of new ones.  M. 
I shall not fall to do it, but in the mean time am your humble Servant.  F. 
And I am yours.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
THE Publisher begs your Pardon for letting a Term pass without giving you this Dialogue, which has so close a dependence on the Former; but it has been his own unhappyness, and not his faul●.  
In the next place he hopes you will not take it ill of him, that he has ●welled this to a bigger bulk than the other, since the Author, by reason of the weightiness, as well as multiplicity of the Arguments could not make it 〈◊〉, without doing a considerable injury to this Important Subject. And to let you se● that I do not dissemble, the Author was forced to reserve two or three Sheets more of the same Argument (because he would not ●ver tyre you) for the next Discourse.  
And the Author also desires the Learned Doctor Brady's pardon, if through his own haste, or the Inadvertency of the Compositor, there have been some Omissions of the Marginal References to his answer to Mr. Petyr, but since the Doctor knows very well how to distinguish his own from the Author's Matter, and that those who are conversant in his W●itings, may do so likewise; he hopes, both the Doctor and the Reader will the more easily forgive it; Especially, since you will find him so fair a Representer, as not to curtail the Doctor's Arguments, but rather to enlarge them wh●● he thought he had a just occasion.  
FINIS.   

Bibliotheca Politica: OR A DISCOURSE By WAY of DIALOGUE, BEING A Continuation of the former Discourse, concerning the Antiquity of the Commons in Parliament; wherein the best Authorities for it are proposed and examined. With an Entrance upon the Question of Nonresistance, etc.  
The Third Part.  
Collected out of the most Approved Authors, both Ancient and Modern.  
Dialogue the Eighth.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, near the Oxford-Arms; where also may be had the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, six and Seventh Dialogues. 1693.   

The Authors chiefly made use of in this Discourse, and how denoted in the Margin.  

P. R. C, Mr. Petyts Rights of the Commons asserted.  
B. A. P. Dr. Bradyes Answer To Mr. Petyts Treatise.  
B. A. A. Dr. Bradyes Answer To Mr. Cook's Treatise entitled, Argumentum Antinormannicum.    

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
I Must beg your Pardon, if I have made my Publisher tell you an Untruth before I was aware, in the Advertisement at the end of the last Dialogue; when he told you there were, but two or three Sheets behind upon this Subject; whereas indeed this Dialogue is almost wholly taken up in discussing these Reasons, and Authorities, that have been formerly brought by Mr. Petyt or are now newly added by me; to prove that the Commons had Representatives in Parliament long before the 49th of Henry the 3d, in doing which, if I have been too long, I hope you will pardon it, since so weighty a Question could not be dismissed without saying the most, I could find had been alleged; as well for as against it. And since I was to explain the meaning of those Words Clerus & Populus, in the times immediately after the Conquest, it was fit to let you know that anciently the Inferior Clergy, (who did not hold in Capite) had Places and made a part of the 3d Estate, as well the Bishops and Abbots, in our general Councils or Parliaments.  
There was likewise a necessity of showing, that the Commons of England claim to appear in Parliament by Prescription, Time beyond Memory, and consequently of showing how that time is to be understood in all our Law Books; which are the only proper Interpreters of that Law Term of Time, of which there is no Memory to the contrary. And since there is no Writer that I know of, who hath opposed this Notion of the Right of Prescription in the Commons, but Mr. Prin. I have Impartially considered, what he has writ against it, in his 2d and 3d. part of his Parliamentary Register, and put down the Substance of it in this Discourse, with what may be reasonably replied thereunto; so that considering the many fresh Authorities from Historians and Records that are here inserted, and that have never been Published altogether before. I think I may safely affirm, that there hath never been so much hitherto put together of this kind; nor perhaps will be till Mr. Petyt shall please to publish at large his Learned and Elaberate Collections from Ancient Monuments of Antiquity, Histories; (both Manuscript and Print) as also from Parliamentary and other Records on this important Subject, many of which you will here find Abbreviated; and to whose Learning and Knowledge in matters of this kind, I must own myself beholding for the Arguments from the Inferior Clergies (who were not Tenants in Capite) being anciently part of the great Council of the whole Kingdom, as also that of applying the Right of Prescription to the House of Commons.  
But if Dr, Brady or any Friend of his shall think fit to animadvert upon any thing that hath been here laid down, I shall be so far from being concerned at it, that I shall rather be very well satisfied; s●nce as a fair Representer of other men's Opinions, who write not for Victory, but the Discovery of Truth, I shall be glad if the Dr. or any other Learned Person shall think fit to give the World greater Light on this Subject, by publishing somewhat that is now, and more convincing; then what hath been heretofore done. For had it appeared so to me, I declare I should not have taken so much Pains to set down the Arguments on both sides; which I shall still continue to do, if any thing shall be performed material in this kind. I have to make up this Discourse just entered upon the Question of Nonresistance, but cannot go far in it now; but shall leave what is to be f●rther said upon that important Subject to the next Dialogue, which will be speedily Published.   

THE Eighth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian, AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman.  M. 
I Am glad to see you again so soon; for indeed I am very impatient to make an end of this great Question concerning the Antiquity of the Commons appearing in Parliament; and therefore pray go on where you left off, and give me those plain proofs you promised me, whereby you would make out that both the Knights of Shires, as well as the Citizens and Burgesses had a right to be there ever since the Conquest; for I desire to go no higher.  F. 
I thought I had said enough on that Subject at our last Meeting to satisfy any reasonable person: I am sure more than you were able fairly to answer, especially as to my Replies to the best Authorities you brought from the Doctor; and therefore pray before we proceed farther, tell me your Opinion upon second thoughts of those Authorities and Arguments I then gave you.  M. 
I must confess they do somewhat shock me; but I hope you will pardon me if I cannot come over to you, without first hearing what may be said by the other side, and to this end I have writ to the Learned Dr. for his Solution to several difficulties, that I confes● upon his Hypothesis I know not how to solve; but doubt not but to receive farther satisfaction from him as to those Points in a short time; but in the mean while, let us proceed in our intended design, and examine the rest of the Arguments you have to produce on your side.  F. 
I shall obey your Commands; and therefore in the first place you cannot expect more than is in our power to give you: For since all the Parliament-Rolls and Writs of Summons, (except those of the 49th of Henry the Third) are lost till after the times in question between us, you must be contented with what other proofs we can produce, provided they are sufficient to satisfy any unbyast, indifferent Person: And to this end I shall sort the Authorities I intent to make use of into these three Heads. First, I shall give you divers Quotations out of the most Ancient Writers, who lived in, or nearest the time you prefix; viz. the coming in of the Norman William; and shall descend down in order of time as low as your Drs. 18th of Edward I.  
2. I shall show you from the Authorities and Testimonies of the Judges of almost all our Courts; of the House of Commons; nay of several whole Parliaments, and the King himself, that the Commons had an undoubted Right of S●tting there by Prescription.  
3. From the Consent of all our Neighbouring Kingdoms who being governed by a King, and a great Council or Assembly of the Estates according to the Gothick Model, the Commons had always from the Institution of the Government their Representatives in those Assemblies.  M. 
I much doubt that; but pray begin with your Ancient Historians; for as for my own part▪ I must freely tell you, though I have looked them over very warily, yet I can find nothing in them concerning the particular constituent parts, or Members, of our great, or Common Councils, but the Magnates, Optimates, or Principes, Comites and Barones; all which tho' you have at our last meeting showed me from some Authorities, that they may take in others, tho' not Nob●● by Birth; yet since these words have been most commonly taken in another sense; it needs some better proof than to say in general, that mere Commoners were there, because those general words may sometimes be taken in that sense▪ and as for the words Clerus and Populus, which I confess are often mentioned to be present at those Assemblies; the Learned Dr. in several places of his Answer to Mr. P. as also in his Glossary hath plainly proved, 
B. A. P. p. 26, 27 Tit. Clerus & Populus.  that as the word Clerus sometimes signifies the Bishops, and sometimes the Inferior Clergy; so Populus does also neither great nor little People, but only the Laity; and therefore as it is used, and restrained signifies the Lay Plebs; or the Lay Magnates. What I mean by Plebs, I shall show you by and by; but that the word Populus does not signify the Inferior sort of people, or such as were inferior to Barons, Tenants in Capite, or Noblemen, the Dr. has very well proved from that passage made use of by Mr. P. to prove the Commons to have been in that great Council which made Henry the first King, 
P. R. C. Fol. 55.  because it is said by Mat. Paris, that Congregato Clero, & Populo universo, etc. by which word Populus he would understand the Commons alone distinct from the great Lords: 
B. A. P. p. 27, 28.  But the Dr. very plainly shew● him the falseness of this Interpretation from the same Author within three lines of the place himself had cited; where the same Body of Men, which is but just before called Populus, is presently after called Magnates, ad haec Clero respondente & Magnatibus cunctis; not one word in this place of any Populus, but the great, or Noblemen, (that is the Tenants in Capite) must be the People or Laymen here mentioned, and this same Clerus and Populus is by Eadmerus, speaking of a great Council held at Westminster in the second Year of this King called Primates Regni u●riusque Ordinis; or as Florence of Worcester words it, 
Anno D. 1102  the Orders of Men assembled in this very Council, Omnes Principes Regni sui Ecclesiastici, & Secularis Ordinis; the which the Dr. also proves from several like passages in Eadmerus; in all which, as also in all other Authors the Dr. hath there cited: This Populus is explained to be the Earls, Barons, and great Men of the Kingdom only, 
Ibid. p. 31, 32.  that is, all the greater, as well as smaller Tenants in Capite. And tho' I confess at our last Meeting you brought very good proof, that the word Populus was more comprehensive among the Romans; yet tho' the Roman Populus comprehended all the People, as well Nobility as Plebeians; and that in Scotland it took in the Burgesses of the Royal Burroughs, which hold immediately of the King; yet does it not follow that this word must needs signify so in this Kingdom too, since in all Countries not all the People, but only the Governing part of it is used for the Populus in all Histories, Public Acts, and Laws of those Kingdoms; thus in Denmark formerly, and still in Poland, the Populus consisted solely of the great Councils, of the Nobility and Senate, in which there were no Plebeians at all.  F. 
I hoped we had done wrangling about this word Populus; but since I see you are not yet satisfied, I shall show you more plainly that by this word used in our Ancient English Historians, is not only meant the great Lords and Tenants in Capite, but another larger, and more comprehensive Body; and whereas you say that the word Populus is still restrained by our Ancient Historians to the Magnates, Primates, & Principes Regni; all which words do in their genuine signification signify Great or Noblemen; and that tho' they are sometimes taken in a different acceptation, yet that it lies upon me to prove that they are to be taken in my sense, to this I must tell you, that the proving part ought to lie wholly of your side; for since the Commons of England have been for above these Four hundred years constituent Members of our Parliament, (as is agreed on all hands) and that they also claim to be so by right of Prescription, it lies still upon your door to prove the contrary, and to show at what time, and upon what occasion they were first introduced, which if you have not been able hitherto to perform, so as to give me any tolerable satisfaction; you cannot blame me if I still keep my own Opinion, and believe them as Ancient as Kingly Government itself in this our Island.  
But since I grant these words Clerus and Populus are of a general, and equivocal signification, their true sense and meaning is best to be understood from the subject matter that is treated of, as I shall show you first from the nature and signification of the words Clerus, and Populus, according to the Ancient Constitution of our Government, that they must signify many more than your Tenants in Capite alone; and then I shall confirm my Interpretation by the Authority of such Ancient Historians as lived either in, or very near the Times I mention: And therefore I shall first prove it from the great Analogy there was between the Clerus, and the Populus, so that if the Clerus took in more than your Tenants in Capite in our Common Councils, by the same reason the Populus must do so too.  
Now that this word Clerus, when used by itself, does not originally signify either the Bishops and Abbots alone, or the Inferior Clergy alone, (as your Dr. asserts) is evident, because Clerus is a general word, and comprehends all the Clergy of whatsoever sort or degree: Now that all the Clergy as well the Superior as Inferior, had either themselves in person, or else by their Representatives a place in the Saxon Witten Gemots, or Mycel Synods, and made together with the Laity one entire Council, or general Assembly, without the joint consent of both which no Laws or Constitutions, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, could be enacted; for proof of this, we need go no farther than Sir H. Spelman's first Volume of Saxon Councils, and particularly in the Councils or Synods of Clovesho first and second, 
Vide Spelman's Counc. 1 Vol. from p. 332. to 346.  that of Kingston, A. D. 838. that held under King Egbert, and Withlafe King of the Mercians, and that of Winchester under the same King Egbert, in which Tithes were first granted; in all which you will find that both the Clergy, as well the Inferior, below the degree of Bishops and Abbots, as also the Laity below your Earls, and great Aldermen and Wites had a share.  
And that this continued so both in, and after the Norman Times, appears by the first great Councils we have left us, that were held under the first Kings of the Norman Race.  M. 
I should be very glad to see that proved; for I always hitherto believed that none of the Clergy had then any Votes in the Great, or Common Council of the Kingdom, but those Bishops, Abbots and Priors, who all held in Capite of the King alone; and tho' it is true, there was also a Synod, or Convocation of the Clergy often held at the same time when the Common Council of the Kingdom was assembled, yet was it no part of that Council; and as the Clergy had nothing to do in the making of Temporal Laws; so had the Laity no hand in the making of Ecclesiastical Canons, or Constitutions for the Pope's Legate or Archbishop of Canterbury often held these Synods at other times when the Common Council of the Kingdom was not assembled at all; and thus it continued till the 25th and 26th of Henry the 8th, when the King was first by the Clergy in Convocation, and afterwards by the whole Parliament recognized and declared Supreme Head of the Church of England under Christ; and from that time the King reassumed the Power which the Pope had before usurped; and his consent alone under the great Seal is the only Ratification of all Canons or Ecclesiastical Constitutions passed in either of the Convocations of Canterbury, or York, at this day.  F. 
I grant that for between three hundred, and four hundred years the matter of fact hath been as you say; but that it was not so from the beginning, is also as certain; for first in the Saxon times before the Pope's Usurpation came 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 Ecclesiastical Laws or Constitutions without the consent of the Wittena Gemot or Mycel Synod consisting of the Clergy, as well as Laity, than he had to make Temporal Laws without it. So far were they in those times from having any notion of any personal Supremacy in the King in Spiritual, more than in Temporal matters; and that this continued so till the Pope did not only usurp upon the King's Right, but that of the whole Kingdom in general, may appear by those Memorial we have left us, of such common Councils or Synods in the Reigns of our first Norman King's.  
For the Proof of which, I shall begin with the Reign of William l. in whose 14 th' Year, 
Anno Domini. 1077.  the Privileges of the Abbey of Westminster were Confirmed by that King in a Common Council, as well of all the Clergy as Laity of the whole Kingdom, as may be proved by a Charter, still to be sound at large in the Old Chartulary of the Abbey of Westminster, 
Sab effigy Fausti●ae, A. 3.  now in the Corronian Library; Collected by Sulcardus an ancient Monk of that Abbey, the Conclusion of which Charter of Privileges, makes it very plain of what Members this Council than consisted, and who gave their Consents to the Acts of it; which pray read, In solemnitate Pentecosty: haebito consilio in celeberrino loco praescripti Westmonast, & a nostra regia Maj●s●ate Conventis in unum, cunctis Regni nostri Primatibus, ad audiendes, & confirmandas quosdam Synodalis decreti causas necessarias communi consensu maxime Episcoporum Abbatum, & alio●um insignium Procerum, etc. Scripta est haec Charta, & sigillata & ab ipso Reg●, & supradic●is personis testificata confirmat. & auctorizata in Dei nomine, etc.  
This being one of the first, and most remarkable Councils of this King's Reign. I cannot let it pass without observing, First, That all the chief men of the Kingdom were there, as well of the Clergy as of the Laity; and that the Words Primates, and Proceres here mentioned are very Comprehensive; and may take in many others, besides your great Lords and Tenants in Capite, I have already proved at our last Meeting but one: Secondly, Pray observe, that this Charter of Privileges, tho' all of them concern mere Temporal Things, is authorised, Confirmed by the common Consent, and Subscriptions 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 whose joint Consents, nothing could be transacted in the Legislative: Whether of Ecclesiastical, or Civil Concernment.  
I could give you more Instances of this kind in this King's Reign, but I make haste to that of his Son William II. in whose 7th Year Eadme●●s tells us, 
A. D. 1093. Ead. Hist. Nou. L. 1. f. 26. Spelmani Concil. Vol. 2. f. 26.  there was a Common-Council held at Rockingham, about the difference between Archbishop Anselm and the King; at which were present, Episcopi, Abbates, Principes, ac Clericorum, ac Laicorum numerosa multitudo; no● that by Principes or Chief Men, may be here meant many more than your Tenants in Capite, I have already sufficiently proved: and that this Numerosa multitudo must mean somewhat more than those, I shall prove f●rther by and by.  
In the long Reign of Henry I. I could give you many Instances of this kind, bu● let these suffi●e: In the 7th Year of this King, Bromton tells us in his History (speaking of the Council in which this King gave up his Right of Investitu●es) Clero & Populo ad Concilium Londoniae congregato; 
An. D. 1100. Col. 1000 Spell Conc. T●. 2. f. 28.  and who this Clerus and Populus then were, he immediately explains himself; thus, Astantibus Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, caeteraq, multitudine maxima Procerum, & Magnatum; under which words I have already proved, that divers others besides your Tenants in Capite might be comprehended, and their great number shows them to have been more than those.  
But tho' this Author does not here expressly say it, yet that the Inferior Clergy were likewise at these Councils, appears from Sim. of Durham, and the C●ntinuator of Florence of Worcester, A. D. 1126. being the 25. of this King, where they both make mention of a Synod or Council held at London, at which were Assembled the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, &c (the Pope's Legate presiding over the Clergy,) and besides these, cum innumera Cloi, & Populi Multitudine, and the Continuator of Florence shows us the manner of their giving their Consents to those Constitutions, as well Civil as Ecclesiastical, there made, and Published: they being proposed, with a Placet vobis, and the Answer to them is, Plaecet, Placet, Placet, thrice repeated; which is very like the Form still observed in the Bishops and Lords giving their Consent to all Matters proposed in their House by saying Content.  
So likewise the Continuator of Florence, in Anno Dom. 1127. being the 27th of this King, mentions such another General Council, or great Synod; 
Vid. Spel. Council 2 Vol. f. 35.  wherein William Archbishop of Canterbury Presided over the Clergy, and after the recital of all the Superior Clergy as before, he thus proceeds, Confluxere quoque illue (i. e. to Westminster) magnae multitudines Clericorum & Laicorum, tam Divitum, quam Mediocrium, & sactus est Conventus inaestimabilis sedit etiam tribus diebus, acta sunt ibi de negotiis saecularibus nonnulla, quaedam quidem determinata, quaedam dilata, quaedam vero propter nimium aestuantis turbae tumultum ab Audientia judicantium pro●●igata: And tho' the Author gives us the Ecclesiastical Constitutions only, yet it is plain from him, that Civil Matters were also transacted in this very Council which consisted as well of the Superior as Inferior Clergy; as also of the Nobility, and Commons; which are all expressed under the general words of Divitum & Mediocrium, and resemble the Phrases of the Majores, & Minores; and the des Greindres; & des Meindres, mentioned in the Statutes of Marlbridge and Gloucester; which words were debated at our last Meeting.  
In the Reign of K. Stephen, there were also several Councils held of the same sort: and particularly that of his Third Year, in which was granted a Charter of Confirmation of this Kings, 
A. D. 1138, 1139.  of the Privileges of the Abbey of Westminster, which is also to be found in Sulcardus' Chartalary abovementioned, wherein after the general words of habito universali totius Angliae consilio, and a mention of the Pope's Legate (who Presided over the Clergy): It follows thus, ●ffuerunt etiam Comites, Regni mei & Barones quamplurimi, & innumera Cleri & Populi multitudo qui his omnibus interfuerunt, & Religioso favore voluntatem & Assensum, Authoritati nostrae paginae, & Privilegio praebu●rent, etc.  
So likewise in an ancient Manuscript Chronicle of the Abbey of Ely, under A. D. 1139. being the 4th Year of K. Stephen, there is a remarkable Passage, 
Vi. Anglia Sacra. f. 622.  when speaking of a great Council then held at London, he expresses it in these Terms▪ Concilio adunato Cleri, & Populi, (and then explains of what Members these did consist) viz Episcoporum atque Abbatum, Monachorum, & Clericorum) Plebisque infinitae multitudinis: Now pray give me leave to make some Observations from these Passages in all these ancient Charters, and Historians: that besides these Bishops, Abbots, Earls and Barons of the Kingdom, there were also an innumerable Multitude of Clergy and People, or (as the Ely Chronicle words it) an infinite number of Clerks, and Commons. Now, pray tell me, what can be meant here by all these put distinct from the rest of the higher Orders, but the inferior Clergy, as the Deans▪ Arch-deacons, and Procurators of the Chapters of Cathedral Churches; as also those of the secular Clergy of the whole Diocese? And who can be meant by this infinite Multitude of People, or Plebis, (which naturally signifies the common People distinct from the higher Nobility) but the most considerable Freeholders', or Lords of Manners, whether Tenants in capite, or not, under the degree of the higher Nobility, together with the Citizens and Burgesses of Cities and Towns, and who came not only as idle Spectators, since the Charter I last cited, expressly mentions that they were not only present, but also gave their Assents to this Charter of King Stephens?  M. 
And may I not with as good reason ask you why these words Populus and Plebs may not in the Historical barbarous Latin of that Age serve only to express (not the Multitude, or Rabble, or mere common People) but the whole Body of lesser Tenants in capite, beneath the Dignity of the greater Barons?  F. 
I will give you two very good Reasons for that; First, from the great Analogy there was then between the Members of the inferior Clergy, and those of the inferior Laiety or Commons; the former of which, even all the Abbots and Priors; (except those few that held in capite) with all the rest of the inferior Clergy already mentioned, holding only in Frank Alimoign, and not by any Military Tenure at all. Now pray give me any sufficient Reason why the Laity should not also consist of all other Orders of Men who did not hold in capite neither, and by whom I do not mean the mere Vulgar, or Rabble; tho' Freemen, of Freeholders' of small Estates, but the most considerable Freeholders' or Lords of Manors in England; or else the Knights of Shires, who, I suppose, represented not only themselves, but their inferior Tenants; whether Copy-holders', or for Term of Years; as also the Representatives of all the Cities, and Borough Towns in England: Now these might together with your Tenants in capite, make so great an Assembly as might very well deserve the Title (with an easy Hyperbole) of Infinita or innumera multitudo as our Ancient Historians express it.  
Whereas your Drs. Tenants in Capite, could never in these first Times after this Conquest, amount to so great a Multitude, not being by his own Confession, 
B.I.A. p. 171.  above 700 Persons, besides the Bishops, Abbots and Priors; who did not make above 100 more, which could never deserve the Title of an infinite and innumerable Multitude.  M. 
I must confess, that neither your Notion nor your Authorities to prove it do any way satisfy me, for in the first place your Argument from the Analogy between the Clergy and Laity, who, you say, made up this Assembly does not hold; 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 Bishops, Abbots, and great dignified Clergymen; (nay, Procurators of the inferior Clergy too if you please▪) yet were not these (who I grant, were not Tenants in Capite) Members of the great Council of the Kingdom; but a distinct Assembly from it, which treated only of Spiritual Matters, and together with the Bishops and Abbots made Ecclesiastical Canons, as the two Houses of Convocation do at this day; yet meddled not at all in Matters of a mere Civil, or Temporal concern; any more than the Lay Council could meddle with Spirituals: and to let you see that this was true, it is evident beyond dispute that this Ecclesiastical Synod was often assembled by the Authority of the Pope or Archbishops of Canterbury and York, when the Common Council of all the Laity were not summoned at all: and so Vice versa the Common Council of the Kingdom often met, when the Synod of the Clergy was not convened; as appears by the most ancient Writs of Summons to the Bishops we have left us; as particularly, The first Writ of this kind that is upon the Rolls, viz. That for the Bishops (which Mr. Prin has Printed, in the First Part of his Parliamentary Register) in the 6th of K. john, 
P. 2.  and which I have cited from the Drs. Answer against Mr. P. at our last Meeting, in which Writ, tho' I grant there is a Clause for Summoning the Abbots, and Conventual Priors, yet there is none for the inferior Clergy.  
But in the next Writ, which the same Authors have likewise Published, viz. That to the Archbishops of York there, there is no Clause at all for Summoning any of the Clergy as such, 
Ibid. p. 3.  tho' it is true, there is underneath an Eodem modo scribitur omnibus Episcopis Abbatibus, etc. Comitibus & Baronibus; which shows that this Writ was not to Summon them in their Spiritual but Temporal Capacities. So likewise in the next Writ of Summons to Parliament, 
P. 717. P. 5.  we have left us on the Roll, which is cited in Mr. Selden's Titles of Honour: as also in the same Parliamentary Register, and in Dr. B. against Mr. P. viz. That of the 49th of Henry the Third, to the Bishop of Duresme without any Clause of Summons to the Clergy, whether Abbots or others. So likewise in the next Writ of Summons that is left us, viz. That of the 23d of Edward the First, (Published also by Mr. Prin) to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
Ibid. p. 6.  in which there is no Clause of Summoning any of the Clergy; and tho' there immediately follows another Writ of the 23d of this King, in which I grant there is this Clause of Praemunientes Priorem, etc. viz. The Prior, Chapter, and other of the Clergy of his Diocese to appear in Parliament; yet that they were no necessary part of it, but only of the Convocation, appears by the rest of the Writs of Summons to Bishops, which Mr. Prin has also given us in that Chapter; all which if you please to peruse, you will find, that in near 200 Writs to Parliaments or great Councils, the Clause of Praemunientes Clerum, is to be found in scarce half of them; which shows that the summoning or omitting them depended wholly upon the King's Pleasure, and so were no constituent part of the great Council or Parliament, as you suppose they were under the first Norman Kings; for then sure they would not have been omitted, to have been constantly Summoned in all Parliaments, as well as the Bishops and Abbots.  
But to come to your next Argument from the numerousness of these Assemblies, which you say could not be properly called Numerosa, or Infinita Multitudo, whereas all the Tenants in Capite as well ecclesiastics as Laymen, did not amount in all to 800, there may be an allowance made for this to the Monkish way of Writing of those times, who might call such a great, or more than ordinary Assembly of the Clergy, and Tenants in Capite, an innumerable, or infinite Multitude, when indeed they were but few more than our Lords and Commons are at this day.  F. 
I pray Sir, give me leave to Answer what you already said, before you proceed any farther, because what I have to reply to it, will be pretty long; in the first place, you cannot with any reason (if you better consider of it) deny, that the Clergy, as well the Superior as Inferior, did, before your Conquest as well as long after, make but one Assembly or Body of a General Council; tho' sitting in several Places (as the Lords and Commons do at this day) for the words in the Old Book of Ely, are Adunato Concilio Cleri, & Populi, which is to be rendered, the Council of the Clergy and Laity being united and joined together, as I already showed this word Adunato does always signify; as also by the Confirmation of that Charter of King William's to the Abbey of Westminster, and to which, (tho' a Matter of mere Temporal Concernment) all the Clergy, as well as Laity, gave their joint Consents, as appears by the Conclusion of that Charter, as also to that of K. Stephen, but now cited which they could never have done, had they not then made a part of the same General Council, or Assembly.  
Having proved to you that the inferior Clergy did anciently make a part of the General or Common Council of the whole Nation, I shall now proceed to answer your Objection: 'Tis true, that for a great part of some King's Reigns, for want of the Writs of Summons to the Superior, as well as to the Inferior Clergy, we cannot certainly tell, tho' we may presume it from the general words of the Historians, whether the Inferior Clergy were Summoned or not; yet this, I think, I may boldly aver●, that wherever any ancient Author makes mention of the Clerus, and Populus in general, being present at any such Common Council, it must necessarily mean not the Bishops, and Abbots; or the Superior Clergy alone, or the great Lords and Tenants in Capite only, but those and the Representatives of the whole Nation both Clergy, and Laity taken together; as I think I have sufficiently made out.  
Nor is your Objection considerable, from that writ of the 6 th' of King john, that no Inferior Clergy were summoned, because only the Abbots and Priors are mentioned at the end of it, to this I answer, that (granting it to be a writ of Summons to a Common Council of the Kingdom, which is not yet proved) the omission of the Inferior Clergies being summoned, is no cogent Argument to prove they were not there; since for aught as you and I know there might be other writs issued to the Inferior Clergy, distinct from those to the Bishops and Abbots: Which last used to have distinct writs to each by themselves, and I may as well suppose these writs to be lost as you do, that all the general writs to the smaller Tenants in Capite, who were no Barons and yet were to be all summoned, according to King john's Charter are all lost; and as for the Abbots and Priors mentioned at the end of this writ of King john's, they were such as held only in Capite, or else such as did not; if the former, this might be only a Council of Tenants in Capite, and none other, of which I grant there were many held in those times upon occasion of Wars, Scurages, and other matters; but if by these Conventual Abbots and Prio●● summoned by this writ, you will mean all Abbots, and Priors of whatever Tenure; than it appears plainly that this great Council consisted of many other ecclesiastics, than what held in Capite, and if so, why might not the Inferior Clergy as well make a part of it?  
But as for your next Authority, the writ of the 49 th' of Henry the 3 d, which is certainly a summons to Parliament, in which is no Clause of summoning the Inferior Clergy; this is no more an Argument than the former, since it might not then be the Custom to insert them in the same writ with the Bishop, to be summoned by him; but they might have general writs of their own directed to the Clergy of each Dioces●; but that all the Inferior Clergy as well as the Superior appeared at divers Common Councils or Parliaments during this King's Reign, (which they could never have done without the King's Summons, though the writs are lost) may appear from that great Council or Parliament of the 9 th' of Henry 3 d: Whereto as, Mat. Paris tells us (in the place, I have so often mentioned) were summoned Clerus & Populus cum Magnatibus Regionis, or Regni as Mat. Westminister Words it; and in this Council was given by omnes de Regno the 15 th' of all the moveables of all the whole Kingdom. So that certainly these omnes de Regno must take in all Degrees of men, and consequently the Inferior Clergy too; since it is certain the Bishops, and Abbots did never represent them in the House of Peers, or in Convocation, so as to lay any Taxes upon the Inferior Clergy without their express Consents; and this is the more evident, because this Tax was a 15 th' upon moveables; and not a Tax upon Land, and consequently could never be imposed upon those of the Clergy, (who held in Frank Almoign as all the Inferior Clergy than did and do at this day) by the Bishops and Abbots that held in Capite, and that these Charters were made by the Common Consent of the whole Kingdom; (and then certainly by the Inferior, as well as Superior Clergy,) may appear by the Confirmation of the great Charters, 
Rot. Stat. 25. E. 1. m. 38.  as also in the Preamble to the Statute of Articuli super Chartas (made the one in the 25 th', the other in the 28 th' of Edward I.) in both which it is expressly recited that the great Charters of Liberties, and the Charters of Forrest were made per Commun Assent de tout le Royalme, en Temps nostre Pere; and if by the Common Assent of the Realm, then sure by that of the Inferior as well as Superior Clergy, since the Bishops and Abbots, who sa●e there only by their Baronies could never represent them.  
That the Inferior Clergy were also summoned to Parliament, in the 39 th' of of Henry 3 d. appears from the Annals of Burton, in Anno Dom. 1253. Where that Author (who lived at that time) relates that the Inferior Clergy then appearing in Parliament, sent Messengers to the Pope concerning the intolerable Grievances they then lay under; among which, the first Grievance set forth by the Procurators of the Clergy, for the Diocese of Lincoln is this, Quod decima bineficiorum suoram Domino Regi fuit concessa ipsis non vo●atis, maxim cum agitur de aliquo obligando necessarius est ejus expressus consensus: By which it appears, that the Inferior Clergy than 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 express Consents, and they contended so hard for it, that they have preserved this Right even to this day, when they now give their Votes to the choice of Knights of the Shires; though till the late King Charles' Reign, they were never taxed without the Consent of their own Procurators in Convocation; and this may serve to enlarge your understanding, and to show you in what sense the whole Clergy, as well the Inferior as Superior did anciently make the third Estate in Parliament, which was more Comprehensive than the Bishops and Mitred Abbots alone, who sat in the upper House only per Baronian, by Reason of their Baronies; though in the Synod or Convocation of the Clergy, as Ecclesiastical Persons only; Where they also joined in the making of Ecclesiastical Laws and giving Taxes; which last you cannot deny, but to be a mere Temporal Thing.  M. 
I grant you are so far in the Right; yet though the Inferior Clergy often joined with the Common Council of the Kingdom, in giving the same Taxes, yet this was by, and upon themselves alone, and they had no hand in making of Temporal Laws; and giving Taxes for all the rest of the Kingdom; and I challenge you to show me any precedent within these 500 years, that the Inferior Clergy ever made the third Estate in Parliament, or that their Consents was ever asked to the making of Temporal Laws; since the Bishops have been always looked upon till of Late, as the only Representatives of the Inferior Clergy in Parliament, how else could they be obliged by general Statutes or Acts of Parliament; since according to your own Confession, they gave no Votes at the Election of Knights of Shires, but since the return of King Charles II. so that if they had ever joined in this Legislative Power (as you suppose they anciently did) I cannot see why they should not have kept to this day.  F. 
I grant indeed, it has been otherwise between 300, and 400 Years, but for that it was not so from the Original Institution of the Government, is also as certain; for that the English Common Councils consisted of all sorts and degrees of ecclesiastics you must allow; since before the coming in of the Normans, the Bishops and Abbots did not sit in the Mycel Synods, as Temporal Lords, is generally acknowledged, and yet even after they came to sit among the Lay Peers in the great Council of the Nation by virtue of their Baronies; the Inferior Clergy also gave their Assents to the making of Temporal Laws, and giving Taxes; I have proved by such Authorities, as I do not see you are able to answer; and for further Proof of this, to show you their coming was continued down to the Reign of Henry third, see Sir H. Spelmans Councils, second Volume, where you will find that they were in that great Council at Clarendon, 
P. 64.  when those famous Constitutions were made, as appears by these Words in Mat. Paris at the end of these Constitutions. Hanc Recognitionem, sive Recordationem de consu●tudinibus & libertatibus iniquis Archiepiscopi, 
Ann. Dom. 1164.  Episcopi, Abbates Priores, Clerus cum comitibus & Baronibus, & Proceribus cunctis juraverunt. So likewise at the Council of Gaintington in the 34 th' of this King. 
P. 641.  Roger Hoveden has in his History these Words. Dominus vero Rex statin postquam in Angliam applicuit magnum congregavit concilium, Episcoporum, Abbatum, Comitum & Baronum, & aliorum multor●m Clericorum, quam Laicorum, apud Gaintington. And Mat. Paris in the Year 1185, (being the 31st of this King's Reign) mentions a Common Council of the Kingdom then called at Clerkenwel, where Convocatus est Clerus, & Populus, cum tota nobilitate, which Dr. Heylin in his Stumbling Block of Disobedience thus translates; 
P. 193.  the Clergy, and Commons together with the Nobility being summoned. And in 1 of Richard I. R. Hoveden also tells us of a great Council held at Pipewel Abbey in Northamptonshire, where the Archbishop of Canterbury produced a Charter of King William I. Coram Rege, & Vniversis Episcopis Clero, & Populo. And an ancient Charter of primo of King john, (now in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Library,) entitled, Charta Moderationis seod. magni sigilli, recites the said King to have been Crowned, Mediante tam Cleri quam Populi unanimi consensu, & savore, and though the rest of his Reign was Turbulent, 
P. 587.  yet the Author of the Manuscript Eulogium, quoted by Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour, mentions a great Council at London in the 16 th' Year of King john, where the Archbishop of Canterbury was present, Cum toto Clero, & tota secta Laicali, i. e. (says Dr. Heylin in the same place) The Clergy of both Ranks and Orders, with all the Laity (called here Secta Laicalis) and the Lords and Commons had then their places in Parliament; and the Dr. proceeds thus, and in possession of this Right the Clergy stood when Magna Charta was set forth by King Henry the 3 d. Wherein the Freedom, Rights, and Privileges of the Church of England (of which this evidently was one) was Confirmed to them; (i. e. the whole Clergy in general). I have here showed you, what Dr. Heylins' sense was, to let you see that a Person of great Learning, and a high Churchman thought it no Heresy 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 Constituent Part of the Common Council or Parliament long before the 49 th' of Henry 3 d, and that the Inferior Clergy continued to be so, till the Reign of Henry the 4 th' at least.  
But that their Consents was also anciently asked in the making of Laws, we need go no farther than the Authority I have now given you from the Continuation of Florence of Worcester. And farther, that they were once a part of this great Council or Parliament, besides the Testimony of the Modus tenendi Parliamentum, (who though he be exploded, as an ancient Author, yet certainly is a good Witness for his own time, viz. that of Edward the third) where the Procuratores Cleri are reckoned among the Constituent Members or States of Parliament, which is also confirmed by the two first Writs of Summons, we have left us on the Rolls, viz. the 23 d of Edward I. where in this Clause of Praemun●entes Clerum is particularly expressed; 
Rot. Claus. m. 4. dorso. B. A. P. p. 155.  which pray read from your Drs. Answer to Mr. P. Praemunientes Priorem & Capitulum Ecclesiae vestrae, Archidiaconos totumque Clerum vestrae Diocaesis facientes quod iidem Prior & Archidiac. in propriis Personis suis, & dictum Capitulum per duos Procuratores idoneos plenam & sufficientem potestatem ab ipsis Capitulis, & Clero habentes, una vobiscum intersint, modis omnibus tunc ibidem, ad tractandum, ordinandum, & faciendum nobiscum, & cum coeteris Praelatis, & Proceribus, & aliis Incolis Regni nostri qualiter sit hujusae modi periculis obviandum, (viz. The dangers in the Writ mentioned to be threatened from France) and that this was not the first time this Clause of Praemunientes was inserted in the Writs of Summons to Bishops, might be easily proved, had we all the Writs of Summons before the 23 d of Edward I. as well as since: But we may hence observe, that the Inferior Clergy are not only summoned to treat with the Prelates, but are as well as they, here authorised to Treat, Ordain, and Act with them, and the Lords, and Knights, Citizens and Burgesses (for so your Dr. himself here in the Margin translates, Aliis Incolis Regni) and how they could thus Consult and Act with them, if they had not bee● then, as well as the Prelates, a part of the same Body of the great Council or Parliament of the Kingdom. I confess surpasses my Capacity to understand; nor is this Clause found in this Writ alone, but is also in most other Writs of the Bishop's Summons to Parliament as low as our own times; and that these Writs were not to Convocation, but Parliament, 
P. 120.  appears in pryn's Parliament Register, plainly by the Letters of Procuration made by the Prior, and Chapter of Bath to William Swynham and john de Merston, appointing them to appear, and Act for them, as their Lawful Procurators in the Parliament summoned, Ann. Dom. 1299. being the 27 th' of Edward I. which is of a different form from another Letter of Procuration of the same Prior and Chapter, Ann. Dom. 1295. (231. Edward I.) to their Procurators therein named to act for them in the Convocation then summoned at Westminster, the same difference is also observed in all the Writs of Summons to Convocation different from those whereby the same Persons are summoned to Parliament; the former being directed only to the two Archbishops, or their Vicar Generals to Summon all the Bishops, Abbots, Priors, and Clergy of their respective Provinces; without any particular Writs issued to any other Bishops, Abbots, Priors or Clergymen, as in Summons to great Councils or Parliaments; wherein there are commonly particular Orders to the Bishop to warn all the Inferior Clergy in the manner but now mentioned; as Mr. Pryn very well observes, 
P. 106. P. 60.61. Rot. Claus. 31. Edw. 3. m. 21. Dorso.  in his first part of his said Parliamentary Register; where you may see, there is a Writ of Summons to Parliament, of the 31 st Edward 3 d; to the Archbishop of Canterbury, reciting that he intended a Parliament; for divers arduous, and urgent Businesses concerning Himself and Crown, and the necessary Defence of the Kingdom and Church of England. And then proceeds thus, Et quia Negotia praedicta perquam Ardua sine Maxima deliberatione tam Praelatorum & Cleri quam Magnatum, & Communitatis ejusdem Regni; etc. and therefore it behoved him to Summon the said Clergy, Great Men, and Commons; and then requires him to summon all the Bishops, Abbots and Deans, and Priors, and Arch-deacons to appear personally, and the rest of the Clergy by two Procurators; with full Power ad tractandum, & consulendum super praemissis una vobiscum, ad consentiendum. Illis quae tunc ibidem super dictis negotiis divina savente Clementia contigerit ordinari.  M. 
But what can you say to their being omitted to be summoned in divers Writs to Parliament, as appears in pryn's Register you now cited; and from whence himself has there made this Observation, 
P. 107.  That there is no Clause of Praemunientes, etc. in any Writs of Summons to Councils of State, but only to Parliaments, and that not always but at the King's Pleasure. Which shows plainly, that though they were sometimes summoned as a part, yet were certainly no Essential, Constituent part of this general Council, since they were omitted in so many of them; and had they been always a part of this Council; pray tell me, how they came to lose this Right; since the Clergy in those days were not wont to lose any Right, or Privilege they enjoyed?  F. 
I have already granted, that though the Inferior Clergy have been, no necessary Constituent part of Parliament, for divers Ages last passed, yet does it not follow, that therefore they never were so; since they have lost this Right by Degrees; and I shall now show you by what steps it happened: First, therefore pray observe, that anciently all Abbots, and Prior's whatever, as well those that held in Capite, as those that held in Frank Almoign were all summoned alike to the general Councils of the Kingdom; as appears by the first Councils after your Conquest, that we have any Monuments of; nay it also appears from that very Writ of the 6 th' of King john, (if it were a Writ of Summons to Parliament) which as I have already proved at our last Meeting it is most likely it was not whereby the Bishop is to summon all the Abbots and Priors of his Diocese none excepted; and though I grant that in the next Writ of Summons of the 26 th' of Henry the 3 d, to the Archbishop of York, there is no Clause expressed of summoning the Abbots and Priors, and other Clergy of his Diocese, yet it is much to be doubted, whether this were a Summons to Parliament or not● being without any Title of ad Parliamentum or Concilium.  
But that the Abbots and Priors, as well those that held in Capite, as those that held in Frank Almoign were summoned to the great Parliament of the 49 th' of Henry the 3 d, appears by that List of their Names, which both Mr. Pryn, 
Parliament Regist. Part 1. p. 106.108, 109, 110.  and the Dr. have Printed from the Roll, nor ' do I believe that this was the first time that all these Abbots and Priors being 101 in all were summoned to Parliament, notwithstanding your Drs. fancy, that Simon Montsert summoned so many of them, 
B. A. P. p. 138.139.  only because he was sure of them, since if we had the Rolls of the foregoing years, as well as of this; we should (no doubt) find little or no difference; for by another List of the Abbots and Priors, 
Ibid. 156.157.  which the Dr. himself has given us of the 23 d of Edward the I. to the same Parliament above mentioned, when the Inferior Clergy were likewise summoned; there appears to have been seventy Abbots and Priors summoned to this Parliament, of which not a third part ever held in Capite; and though divers of them then pleaded exemptions; yet they were many of them such as held in Capite as well as those that did not, as the Abbots of St. Edmund's Bury, Waltham, St. Alban, Evesham, etc. all which, as it is notoriously known, held in Capite, and were commonly summoned to all Parliaments afterwards; now pray see how all this numerous Train of Abbots and Priors (which Mr. Pryn confesses to have sometimes amounted to 122. 
Parliament Regist. 141. ) who were summoned to some Parliaments and great Councils; came to be omitted is to be ascribed chiefly to their own Petition and Desire, when their constant attendance in Parliament when held every year; and frequently oftener was counted a burden rather than an advantage, by Reason of the great charge, and trouble of coming to those Assemblies; 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 so many discharges upon their Petitions in Parliament, that they did not hold of the King by Barony nor in Capite; 
Ibid. p. 142. Vi. Seldens Titles of Honour, p. 731. to 735.  nay the Abbot of Leycester after serving in no less than 50 Parliaments, yet in the 25 th' of Edward the 3 d procured a writ of Exemption from the King, Quod non compellatur venire ad Parliamentum; the Lords in Parliament easily giving way to it, since they knew that the fewer hands, the Legislative Power was reduced to, the greater still was theirs that remained; to which may be added the King's Pleasure, who by degrees began to omit summoning of divers of the smaller Abbots, and Priors before summoned; since it has been the policy of our Kings to reduce their great Councils or Parliaments, especially the Peers into as few hands as they could, because they are then most easily managed; and the Abbots and Priors never complained of it, for the Reasons already given; thus most of these came to be struck off by degrees, 
Ibid. 141.  till at last of all this numerous company of Abbots and Priors there were in the Reigns of Edward the 3 d. Richard 2 d. and Edward the 4 th'. and even to the dissolution of Monasteries under Henry the 8 th', no more than 25 Abbots and two Priors, viz. the Prior of Coventry, and of St. john of jerusalem summoned to Parliament. I have dwelled the longer on the History of these Abbots and Priors, because it sufficiently confutes your Drs. Notion of none but Tenants in Capite, appearing in Parliament.  
But to give you some account of the Inferior Clergy, how they likewise might come to be often omitted out of the Writs of Summons to great Councils, and not to make a constant part of the Parliament, but only of the Convocation; this might happen two or three ways, and that without any positive Law for it: As in the first place, pray consider the vast increase of Power, which fell to the Bishops, after King Henry the first, had given up his Right of Investitures to the Pope; by which means they depended not at all on the State, and so took upon themselves a greater Power of imposing upon, and making Temporal Laws for the Inferior Clergy in Parliament, as if they had been their Representatives; yet they could never represent all the Abbots and Priors, who held in Frank Almoign for the Reasons already given, as also because most of them were exempted from their Jurisdiction; But that the Bishops could never impose Taxes upon the Inferior Clergy at their Pleasure without their express consents in Parliament, or Convocation; appears by this memorable Writ of 9 th' of Edward 2 d, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
Ibid. p. 154.  which Mr. Pryn has likewise given us; by which it appears that divers of the Clergy had consented to grant the King a subsidy in the precedent Parliament, but only by Reason of the absence of the said Archbishops, and others of the Prelates, and Clergy it could not then be done, and therefore the Archbishop is thereby ordered to call a Convocation for that purpose, which had been needless, if the Bishops alone could have Taxed the Inferior Clergy in Parliament or Convocation without their express Consents; so that it is plain, that in that Age they still retained a great share of the Supreme Power, viz. of not being taxed, unless by Representatives of their own either in Convocation, or Parliament; as it continues to this day.  
But to show you further, how the Presence of the Inferior Clergy, and consequently their summoning to Parliament became less necessary, we must have recourse to the Bull of Pop● Boniface the 8 th' in the 24 th' of Edward I. by which he forbade all the Clergy of the Western Church, as well Superior as Inferior to give any more Taxes of Subsidies to Temporal Princes, without his Holinesses Licence; whereupon the King summoned the Bishops and Clergy to Parliament, at St. Edmunds-Bury in the 24 th' of ●is Reign; where when they then refused to grant him any supplies, he then, (as all the Historians tell us,) held his Parliaments at Westminister, Cum Baronibus suis, excluso Clero, without either Bishops, Abbots, or Inferior Clergy, which was the first Precedent of this kind, that we ever read of in this Parliament; 
Vi. Mat. Westm. Ann. 1296. P. 405. to 408. Chron. Will. Thorn. Co●. 1965. Walsingham. Ann. Dom. 1296.1297.  the King with the consent of the Lay Lords and Commons seized all the Temporalities of the Clergy, as well Bishops as others, and put them out of his Protection, until they were forced to redeem themselves by paying a 5 th' part of their Movables; for doing of which, they were afterward forced to procure the Pope's Absolutions, some of which Mr. Pryn has given us in this said Register; and yet for all this, the Pope maintained this Power over the Clergy for the future; so that they could not be taxed without his express Licence (which since it could not always be obtained) no wonder if our Kings did more frequently omit summoning any more than the Bishops, and Abbots, who were bound to appear in Parliament by their Tenors, and so left out all the Inferior Clergy as useless; the main business, and cause of their summoning to Parliament, viz. giving of Money, being now taken away by the Pope's usurped Power; though whenever his Licence was obtained, yet that their own express Consents in Parliaments or Convocation was necessary, appears by that Passage in the Annals of Burton in Anno 1255. already cited; when the Inferior Clergy being extravagantly oppressed between the Pope and King, they sent express Messengers when they met in Parliament, who were to set forth their greivances to his Holiness. I have given you as good an account as I am able, how the Inferior Clergy, which as well as the Superior did once make a Constituent part of our great Councils, before the Conquest, nay for above 200 Years after, did at last cease to be so, partly by the prevailing Power of the Bishops, partly by the Usurpation of the Pope; though chiefly by their own silence and consent not complaining of their want of Summons to Parliament, as long as they could escape scot free, and all the rest of the Kingdom pay Taxes, notwithstanding which the clause of their Acting, and Consulting with all the rest of the Estates in Parliament, still remaining in the Writs of Summons is a sufficient Monument to Posterity to prove their ancient Right.  
And the Clergy of the lower House of Convocation was so sensible of this, 
Vi. Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation in the Collection of Records, ex Ms. Dr. Stillingfleet, p. 117.  that among certain Petitions by them made to Dr. Cranmer then Archbishop of Canterbury, and the rest of the Prelates in the higher House of Convocation in the Reign of King Edward the 6th, the 2 d Article of which runs thus, Also that according to the ancient Custom of the Realm, and the Tenor of the Kings Writ for summoning of the Parliament, which now, and ever have been directed to the Bishop of every Diocese, the Clergy of the lower House of Convocation may be adjoined; and associate with the lower House of Parliament, or else, that all such Statutes and Ordinances as shall be made concerning all matters of Religion, and causes Ecclesiastical may not pass without the sight, and assent of the Clergy, and there is in the same place a second Petition; 
Ibid. p. 118, 119.  as also a Paper of Reasons offered to Queen Elizabeth, and after to King james to the same effect.  
And lastly to show you, that the Government of the Church and State of Scotland was anciently all one and the same in respect of their Clergy, as well as Laity with that of England in their great Councils or Parliaments; appears by the Agreement between King Edward the ●. and the States of Scotland concerning the Marriage of his Son, Prince Edward with the Princess of Norway then Heiress of Scotland, which is published at large in Mr. pryn's 1 st. Vol. of the Pope's Usurpation, 
P. 396.  where you will find this Agreement to have been made between the said King Edward ex una parte, & venerabiles Patres custodes, (scil. Scotiae) Episcopos, Abbates, & totum Clerum; nobiles viros, Comites & Barones, totamque communitatem Regni Scotiae ex altera de matrimonio contrabendo, etc.  
From whence you may observe, that as the same stile was observed there in the Titles of their general Councils or Parliaments as with us; and as the Inferior Clergy there put after the Bishops and Abbots did not hold in Capite, but frank Abnoign in that Kingdom; So likewise by the same Analogy between the lowest Temporal State, with the Spiritual, the Commonalty of Scotland here styled Communitas Scotiae could not then consist only of Tenants in Capite as your Dr. and those of this Opinion suppose it did.  M. 
I must confess you have shown me more, for the Inferior Clergies being once a Constituent part of the Parliament than ever I knew before; I will take time farther to consider them, but that the word Populus must needs then take in any more than the Tenants in Capite, I much doubt, since the other word Plebs, which you so much insist upon from the old Book of Ely, signifies no more, 
B. G. p. 24.  than Populus which as the Dr. shows us in his Glossary, In itself signifies neither Great nor little People, but only Laity, and therefore as it is used and restrained, signifies either the Lay Plebs, or the Lay Magnates, as I can show you by several Examples, as particularly out of Mat. Westminster, 
Fol. 424. n. 30.  Ann. Dom. 1295. 23 d Edward I. where speaking, how the Pope's Legates were received in England who came to make up the differences between England and France; He thus relates their Reception, Quos in Regne Angliae applicatos excepit Plebs debito honore, accita per Regem apud Westmonasterium Primatum, & Optimatum suorum Caterva. Here the Plebs were the King's Great or Chief Men, that is, the Earls and Barons, which he had called to Westminster, who so honourably received these two Cardinals.  
So likewise the same Author, Ann. Dom. 1297. 25. Edward I. The King and Barons being at some difference about the Observation of Magna Charta, 
Fol. 430.  and the Charter of Forrest, speaking how the King declared that he intended to observe those Charters, after this he relate●, that the King thereupon required to be given him by the Incolae or Inhabitants, the eighth Penny, and says thus, Articulos in praedictis Chartis Contentos, innovari insuper & observari Rex Mandavit, exigendo pro hac Concessione ab Incolis Octavum denarium sibi dari, qui mox Concessus est a Plebe, in sua Camera tunc Circumstante; petit etiam a Clero susidium. Qui respondit se velle summo Pontifici Literas Supplicatorias dirigere pro Conferendi Licentia obtinenda. So that the Plebs here mentioned by the Historian were only the Lay-Nobility that stood about the King in his Chamber. Now pray consider, that the Word Plebs is of a much more vulgar Signification than Populus, so that if the former did not signify the Commons as now understood, the latter cannot do so. And therefore I see no Reason to suppose that there Words must signify the Commons. The like Error I must tell you by the way, the Gentlemen of your Opinion have fallen into, concerning the Word Vulgus in the old Coronation Oath in Latin, 
B. G. p. 34.  when they ignorantly translate these Words in the old French Oath, les leys les quelles ly la commuante aura eleu leges & Consuetudines quas vulgus elegerit to the great Confusion of this Nation in the beginning of the late troubles; whereas the Community here understood in this Oath, was the Community of the Bishops and Abbots, Earls and Barons, and great Men, and the whole Body of Tenants in Capite; expressed before in this Oath by Clerus, and Populus; for by them alone could these demands be made, for the Vulgus, i. e. the Multitude or Rabble, could never come near to make these demands at so great and splendid a solemnity.  F. 
This is but to urge the same thing over and over again, for that under the Word Populus were also comprehended the Commons, I have already sufficiently proved, and can yet prove it further, from divers Historians and Records, both of Henry the 3 d, and Edward the 1st, and Edward the 2ds Reign; in the first place, therefore I must still put you in mind of that Passage so often cited, 
P. 323.  from Mat. Paris in 9 th' of Henry, where the Members of that Common Council in which Magna Charta was granted, is said to be Clerus & Populus cum Magnatibus Regionis, 
P. 284.  or as Mat. Wistminster in the same year, almost in the same Words Clerus & Populus cum Regni Magnatibus; with both which also agrees the Manuscript History of Walter of Coventry, who speaking of this very Council of 9 th' Henry the 3 d, relates it thus, at the Purification of the Virgin, there assembled at London the Proc●res Angliae ibique tractatu diffusiore habita cum Clero & Populo, the King then granted the Liberties of the great Charter, and that of Forests; and that there was granted a Comitions & Baronibus, Clero, & Populo ibidem Praesentibus quinta decima ●mni●m mobilium de Communi Assen●●●. Whence pray observe, what I before minded you of, that this Tax as it was a general upon all the moveables of the Kingdom, and took in all sorts of Persons, and so could not never be given by the particular Order of the Drs. Tenants in Capite, since it did not concern Tenors at all; and was levied on those Knight's Service, as well as upon those that did.  
But the Author of the Annals of the Abbey of Burton is more full in this Point, for in Ann. Dom. 1255. being the 39 th' of Henry the 3 d, he tells us a Parliament was held at Westminster, Convocatis ibidem Episcopis Abbatibus Prioribus Comitibus, & Baronibus, & totius Regni Majoribus in quo, petebat [Rex] a Clero & Populo, de Laicis feodis suis sibi suffragium exhiberi, etc. (viz. For the Business of Sicily) and then goes on thus, disponens de suo iniquo Consilio Hoc prius a Clero, & postmodum a Pop●lo Majori & Minori extorqueri; from which passage, I shall observe, first, That all the Clergy in general, as well the Bishops and Abbots, as Inferior Clergy are here styled Clerus. Secondly, That the Nobility and Commons or whole Body of the Laity are altogether called Populus. Thirdly, That this Populus is there also distinguished into the Major, and Minor, now as by the Major can be meant none but the greater Nobility, so the Populus Minor can signify none, but the Commons in general, unless you will suppose that the King's design was only to extort Money from the Tenants in Capite, and no others.  
But to put it farther out of all dispute, that this Word Populus when put after, and distinct from Magnates, Barones, and the like in our ancient Historians and Records, does signify the Commons alone; I shall prove to you by the Patent Roll of 19 th' of Edward I. 
M. 20.  (the Year after your Dr. supposes the Commons were called to Parliament) where there is a Writ directed, Baronibus Militibus, & Libbards' Hominibus de Wallia, reciting that the Comites Barones & Populus de Regno, had lately freely granted a 15 th' of all their Movables, and therefore desires like aid from the Welsh; now nothing can be plainer than that by Populus in this Record must be meant the Commons; and yet it is also as evident from another Record now in the keeping of the Remembrancer of the Exchequer, that this 15 th' was granted the year before in the 18 th' of this King; for by this Writ, or Commission he appoints Commissioners for the Collecting of that 15 th' of all Movables; which the King thus recites, the Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Abbates Priores Comites Barones, & omnes alii de Regno, nunc sicut alias de nobis & Progenitoribus nostris liberaliter fecerunt, to have lately freely granted him; which can be no other than that mentioned in the Record of the 19 th', unless you can suppose that there was a 15 th' granted two years together, which is very unlikely, and more than the Nation could then well pay.  
So likewise by the Parliament Roll of 1 Edward the 3 d, 
M. 20.  appears that Hugh le Dispenser Jun. had been in the Reign of his Father, Per Considerationem Parium, & Populi Regni, & per Assensum Domini Edwardi tune Regis Angl. exiled and Disinherited for ever, as a Traitor, to the King and Kingdom; that is, he was banish by the Joint Consent of King, Lords and Commons; now if Populus in these Records signifies the Commons after the time you own they appeared in Parliament; I would be glad to see some better Reasons than you have hitherto given me to prove that it could not have the same signification before the 49 th' of Henry the 3 d, or 18 th' of Edward I. yet that Populus does also sometimes signify both Lords and Commons appears from, Mat. Westminster where relating how King Edward I. in the 34 th' year of his Reign, made his Son a Knight, than he tells us, Pro hac Militia filii Regis Concessus est Regi Trigesimus Denarius à Populo & Clero, Mercatores verò Vicesimum concesserunt. Yet that the Commons had also a share in this Grant, the Dr. himself acknowledges in his Glossary, under the same Heads in these words; It is evident from this Record, (meaning that of the 34th of Edw. I. abovementioned) who were the Populus, or People intended by the Historian in this place, to wit, the Comites, Barones, & alii Magnates nec non Milites Comitatuum. Now I desire to know whether the Knights of the Shires were not then Commoners as well as now, tho' reckoned among the Magnates, and as a Superior Order to the Citizens, and Burgesses here called by a general word Mercatores, who then gave a 20th part of their Movables by themselves?  
But that the word Plebs does not only signify the Lay Nobility, but the Commons too, in both the Quotations you have made use of out of Mat. Westminster, is also as plain, for in the first Instance 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 amongst them; and as for the words Primates, and Optimates, I think I have sufficiently proved that those do not only signify the Lords, or Greater Nobility, but the lesser also: Nay, the Chief Citizens, and Magistrates of Cities and great Towns.  
As for the next Authority concerning the Plebs that Granted the vl Penny it is much more evident that the Commons as well as the Lords must be comprehended under that Term; And that this is so, I need go no further than the Dr's own Concession in the same place a little farther; which you may read, 
Ibid. p. 25.  in these words; And that the Agreement for the Confirmation of the Charters here mentioned was made, and the Eighth Penny granted by the Earls and Barons, and perhaps the Knights of Shires; and that they were the Plebs that stood about the King in his Chamber, is clear from the Writ of Summons of Parliament for two Knights in every County, dated Septemb. the 15 th'. immediately following, to come and receive the Confirmation of the Charters and his Letters, that the paying of this Eighth Penny should not prejudice the Commons for the Future, and to do further what by his Son and his Council should be Ordained. So that the Dr. himself is forced to confess, (tho' sparingly) that the Knights of Shires were likewise there, and comprehended under the word Plebs at the time of this Grant: The King held this Parliament at his Palace of Westminster, in some of the Halls or great Rooms, and the Commons might very well sit in the now Court of Requests, (then called the Alba Aula, or White Hall) (where Parliaments have been frequently held) and from thence be sent for by the King into the Painted Chamber, or now House of Lords, where the King then sat; and which might in respect of the Hall from whence they came be very well called, Camera Regis, for none can imagine his Presence Chamber or Bedchamber could hold all that Company, and in that Room the King might make that Speech to them which this Author mentions, and then upon his promising to renew the Charters, followed the Granting of the Eighth Peny ab Incolis, by the whole People immediately granted the said Subsidy: Now the Dr. grants in this place, That the Incolae here meant by the Historian were the Incolae Regni, such Inhabitants as used to Pay Subsidies and Aids, only the Plebs must here signify the Lay Nobility. Now, if the Incolae Regni were such us used to Pay Aids and Subsidies, who made this Concession, can any Man doubt, but that this Grant was made by their Representatives of the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses; for if the Tax was general upon the whole Kingdom (as it appears it was) can you imagine that the Citizens, and Burgesses, were not there present when this Tax was given, as well as the Knights of the Shires; since it was to be levied upon all alike? Nor is the Dr's Objection of any weight, That because the King not long after Summoned another Parliament when he was beyond Sea, to meet his Son Prince Edw. at Westminster: 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 dismissed, and called again about the same business in so short a time, seeing the Confirmation of the Charters was dispatched in Six Days, when the Parliamement ●et October the Sixth. For the Dr. is very much mistaken to imagine that this was the same Business they met about before, when the very Writ of Summons shows 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 haste into Flanders without Confirming the Charters: So that before the People would give any more Money, his Son Prince Edward was forced to confirm them, (as the Dr. himself confesses in the same place) After the Confirmation of these Charters, and that the Earls and Barons were satisfied. But as for the Dr's wondrous discovery of the false bad Translation of the old French Coronation Oath, I do so far indeed agree with him, that the words le Commune aura elu, are not to be translated; which the Commons, or Vulgar People, but the whole Community shall choose; rendered here by the word Vulgus, by the Old Monkish Translator: yet this can by no means signify only the Bishops, Abbots, Lords, and Tenants in Capite; (for who ever knew the word Vulgus to signify the Superior Clergy and Nobility?) and so to exclude the whole Body of the People in general. But Mat. Westm. tells us, 
Folly 431. n. 10.  Concessus es● (viz. to E●. I) Novenarius Dena●ius à Vulgo, à Clero vero Denus ad Scotorum P●rtinaciam reprimendam, who had then invaded Northumberland, and harrassed the other Northern Countries. 
P. 25.  Now pray read the Dr's Comment upon these words in his Glossary. Here Vulgus is the same with Populus and Plebs when opposed to Clerus, or joined with it as a Distinct Body of Men, and Clerus & Populus, Clerus & Plebs, Clerus & Vulgus, are the Clergy and Laity, in the meaning of this Historian; whether the Earls and Barons alone, or the Temporal Earls and Barons with the Commons were understood by them, that is, the Commons represented in Parliament, and not the Multitude or Rabble. Which indeed is a worthy discovery of the Dr's. Nor do I know any body so mad as so to render it in the Coronation Oath: but that this word Vulgus, when put for the whole Laity of the Kingdom is very ancient in that Oath: See the Old Coronation Oath in To●tle's Collection of old Statutes, who transcribed it out of some ancient Latin Copy of that Oath, or else from that Clause in the Coronation Oath of R. Richard II. which is still to be seen upon record.  
I beg your Pardon for speaking these so long upon the true signification of these words Clerus and Populus, Plebs and Vulgus, since there was a necessity for it, by reason of those false glosses that that Dr. has with so much artifice put upon them, still using them like Charms to bewitch and impose upon his unwary Readers: especially since a right Notion of these words is absolutely necessary for the right understanding the true sense and meaning of our Ancient English Historian 〈…〉 after all this pother the Dr. makes about the signification of those words Populus, Plebs, & Vulgus, as synonimous as he grants them to be, they must all signify the whole Body of the People, as well the Commons as the Lords represented in Parliament, by his own confession; or else, I leave it to yourself to consider who of the two is guilty of levelling Notions, your Dr. or Mr. P. since one does but allert with the general consent of Ancient and Modern Writers, that the words Barones and Baronagium Angliae did anciently take in more than the Lords, and Tenants in Capite: And the Dr. strait calls him a man of Levelling Principles, and that jambles the Commons together with the Lords, whereas your Dr. can when he pleases make the words Plebs and Vulgus too to signify the great Lords and Tenants in Capite contrary to the subject matter on which he discourses, and to their Genuine signification either in Ancient or Modern Latin.  M. 
I must confess you have now told me more than I ever yet heard or read of, or indeed thought could have been urged, for the Inferior Clergies having been once a part of the Civil, as well as Ecclesiastical Council of the Kingdom; and I will consider farther of it: But in the mean time let me tell you; you have not been yet so clear in your Explanation of the other opposite word Populus; for admitting I should grant you, that there were in some sort Commons in Parliament as represented by the lesser Tenants in Capite, who were not Lords, yet does it not therefore follow that there must have been another rank, or order of Persons beneath, or different from them, since (as I said it is, but how) 'tis only the Custom; and Law of each Country that can determine what is the Community or Representative Body of the People, so that there is no such certain Analogy between the Clerus, when taken for the Inferior Clergy, and the Populus when taken for the lesser Nobility; or Tenants in Capite. Since in Scotland, tho' their great Council or Parliament might consist of the Abbots, and Inferior Clergy as with us, who did not hold in Capite; yet you cannot deny, but that the Temporal Estate or Laity; (at least of late Ages) wholly consisted of the Earls, Barons, Lairds, or smaller Barons, together with the Burgesses of Royal Boroughts, all which held in Capite; and for aught as I can see from any clear Proofs you have brought to the contrary did so from Times beyond all memory; and so it might have been in England too, for aught as I know, for tho' you have taken a great deal of pains to Answer the Dr's. and my Arguments against the Tenants in Capite, being the Representatives of the whole Kingdom in Parliament before the 49th of Henry the Third, and 18th of Edward the First: and also to prove that the words made use of in our ancient Historians, Records, and Acts of Parliament, are of a more comprehensive signification than to be confined to them alone: But you have not as yet proved that these Gentlemen who you suppose to have had Places in our great Councils, besides the Tenants in Capite, were Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses; or whether all the Lords of Manors, or great Freeholders in England appeared there in person for themselves, and their under Tenants; therefore I pray be a little more clear in this point, and show me some Authorities that the Knights of Shires, Citizens and Burgesses have been always constituent Members of Parliament ever since the Conquest: for methinks you waver in this Matter, and sometimes you seem to assert the former, and sometimes the latter.  F. 
I confess it is not my humour to be positive in any thing that is in the least doubtful, or obscure, and therefore as I will not maintain that Knights of Shires always a constituent part of Parliament, before your Conquest, or presently were after, tho' it is positively asserted by the Author of the Modus tenendi Parliamentum; since the Antiquity of that Piece is justly questioned by Mr. Selden and other Modern Antiquaries; so on the other side, I shall not assert, that they were not there at all; but this much I think I am able to prove, that they were Summoned to Parliament long before the 49th of Henry the Third, or 18th of Edward the First. But as for the Cities and Boroughs that they had their Representatives in Parliament at, or presently after your Conquest I think I can prove from as undeniable Testimonies as can be expected: Since all the most ancient Rolls, and Records of great Councils and Parliaments are long since lost, and destroyed.  
Yet to show you, that we have some very ancient Authors that seem to mention not only the Citizens, and Burgesses, but Knights of Shires to have been summoned before the times you insist upon; and if it prove so, whether they were there from the very Time of the Conquest is not material; since if I confute your, and your Dr's. Opinion of the 49th of Henry the Third, and 18th of Edward the First, I carry the Cause, and you may then invent if you can some other Epocha whereon to fix their first appearing at our great Councils.  
I shall therefore give you another Quotation out of the same old Monk Sulcardus, which immediately follows the conclusion of the Charter of K. William the First, to the Abbey of Westminster, but now cited: and it has been made use of not only by Mr. P. in his Ancient Rights of the Commons, etc. but by Sir William Dugdale himself in his Origines juridiciales; as also by the Author of Argumentum A●tinormaunicum, to prove the Commons to have been summoned to a great Council, in the 9th Year of K. William the First, Anno Dom. 1075. the words, as cited in Sir William Dugdale are these, That after the King had Subscribed his Name to this Charter, with the Sign of the Cross; adding many of the Bishops, Abbots, and Temporal Nobility, instead of Cum multis aliis, hath these words, Multis praeterea illustrissimis virorum personis, & Regni Principibus diversi Ordinis omissis qui huic Confirmationi piisimo affectu testes & ●autores fuerunt: Hii autem illo tempore à Regia potestate diversis Provinciis; & urbibus ad universalem Synodum pro causis cujuslibet Christiane Eccles●e audiendis, & tractandis ad praescriptum celeberriumum Coenobium quod Westmonasterium dicitur Convoceti. Now I shall only observe from this Author, 
P. 273. Tit. Provincia.  that Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour, and Sir Henry Spelman in his Glossary, do render Provincia for a County or Shire.  M. 
I pray give me leave to examine this Quotation, because I confess it seems very specious at first sight, but if it be throughly examined will make nothing at all for you. 
B. A. A. 301.  And to this end, pray let us read the Dr's. Observations on this Passage at the end of his Answer to Argumentum Antinormaunicum.  F. 
But you need not read from the beginning of that Paragraph, since I so far agree with the Dr. as that by Principes diversi Ordinus, are not to be understood (as this Author renders them whom the Dr. here writes against) the Chief, 
Ibid. 301.  or Principal Men of several 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 Dr. here would have it) that these Principes diversi Ordinis were only Bishops, ● Abbot's, and great dignified Clergymen only; and the Procenes, and Magnates, the Earls, Barons, and Temporal Nobility alone; for though I grant he produces several Quotations out of Florence of Worcester, Malmsbury Eadmer, to prove that Principes Regni Ecclesiastici & Secularis Ordinis; Primates Regni utriusque Ordinis, etc. were at these Councils, yet I have already proved that the words Principes, and Primates do not in their proper signification signify none but Bishops, or dignified Clergymen on the Temporal Nobility only; since these words mean no more than Chief, Principal, or most considerable men both of the Clergy, and Laity, who had by reason of their Offices, Dignities or Estates any place in our General Councils at that time; and which did certainly comprehend the Inferior Clergy also, tho' the Dr. has made bold to pass them by without any notice taken of them; and if they were then there, by the same Rule the lesser Nobility or Commons were also summoned from divers Provinces, Cities, and great Towns.  M. 
Well, But pray see here; does not the Dr. prove plain enough, that this Gentleman he writes against is mistaken in his Translation, 
Ibid.  and applying the words Provinciis, & Vrbibus, for Chief Laymen from divers Countries, Cities, and Burroughs; whereas the Dr. here proves that the words mentioned in this passage cannot here mean Laymen sent from County to Cities, but only the Bishops, whose Seats are here called Vrbes, and which, as the Dr. shows us, were by a great Council held at London in the year 1077. being the 11th of King William, translated from Villages to Cities, as were Sherburn in Dorsetshire removed to Sarum, Selsey to Chichester, Litchfield to Chester, which was before this Council at Westminster cited by Sulcardus, 
Ibid. p. 302.  which this Author places in the 14th of this King. And the Dr. here farther proves from these words following, pro causis cujuslibet Christianae Ecclesi●e; that this Universal Synod being called for hearing and handling the Causes of every Christian Church, that these words every Christian Church must certainly mean many Churches in England, which in reason and probability could not be meant of the small Parish-Churches all the Nation over, and therefore must be understood of Cathedrals or Churches, where Bishops Seats than were, or where they had been, or were to be removed.  F. 
Pray give me leave to answer this Comment of your Doctors, before we proceed farther. In the first place, suppose I grant him that by Vrbes may here be meant such Cities as had Bishops Seats, yet does it not therefore follow that it shall signify no other Cities or Towns but Bishop's Seats only; for tho' I grant in the Modern acceptation of this word Vrbs, here in England, a City, and a Bishop's Seat are one and the same; yet it is plain, that at first it was not so, for then there had been no need of the Law you mention, whereby it was ordained that Bishops Sees should be removed from Villages to Cities; nor it seems were all of them so removed at this Council you mention; since the Dr. shows us from this very place here cited, that some of them still remained in Villis & Vicis, in Villages and small Towns; and therefore it is here said, Dilatum est ad Regis Audientiam qui in partibus transmarinis tunc Temporis bella gerebat: ●And tho' the Dr. here supposes (though I know not on what grounds) that the persons summoned by the King to this Synod from Provinces and Cities, were such as were concerned, or able to advise the King in this matter, of the conveniency of the places whither the Removals were to be made, as Deans, Arch-Deacons, and other dignified persons, and Church Officers as well of the Clergy, as Laity, etc. And also the Principes Regni, the great Nobility who were in those days present in those Assemblies.  
Now I shall only observe from these words of the Doctors, that even in his own supposition all Cities had not yet Bishops Seats annexed to them, and therefore the word Vrbibus cannot mean Bishop's Seats alone, but any other great, or walled Towns. But the worst of it is, it falls out very unluckily for the Dr. that this Charter we now mentioned bears date A. D. 1075. two years before this Law for removing Bishops Sees to Cities was made; so that all his Learned Comment on that matter signifies just nothing, and this is one of the Doctors very rational conclusions, which have no other ground than his own Fancy to support them.  
In the next place pray observe, the Dr. owns that by these Principes universi Ordinis, were meant the chief Clergymen and Nobility he there musters up, but passes by, or else did not consider the whole Context of these words, hii autem illo tempori diversis Provinciis, & Vrbibus ad universalem Synodum Convocati; which must certainly refer to the Principes Regni diversi Ordinis, to the chief and considerable Men both of the Clergy and Laity of the Kingdom, who were alike summoned from divers Country's and Cities, and great Towns to this Synod. Now pray do you or your Dr. tell me (if he can) what Earls, Barons, or great Noblemen, were then summoned from Cities, or great Towns, as well as the Bishops and Deans of Cathedrals, which if you cannot do, I see no reason why we may not understand these Principes Regni, who were also summoned from the Country's and Cities for the Representatives of the Commons of those Cities and Towns at that time.  
In the next place▪ I think the Dr. is as much out in his interpretation of the word pro causis cujuslibet Ecclesiae, for the causes of every Cathedral Church, since it must 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 cause of the summoning this Council, which was chiefly for the confirmation of the Privileges of the Abbey of Westminster, which sure was no Cathedral Church, and yet must be some Church or Ecclesiastical Corporation, or else this Synod could have had nothing to do with it▪ And I doubt not but this General Synod might, if it had pleased; have either made more Parish Churches, or united others where there were many, as we find was done in divers great Councils of this nature; and should it not then have been said to have met pro causis cujuslibet Ecclesiae, for the business of each Parish, as well as Cathedral Church? Lastly, The Dr. will have all these great Clergy 〈…〉 Laymen, only to meet at this Council, to advise the King about what farther removals were to be made of Bishop's bees; as if thereupon he had had the sole power of making what Laws about them, without their consent, or that of the Lay-Nobility, who tho' he will have to be always present in such Synods and Assemblies, yet does he not give them any Votes therein; whereas it appears by this Charter in Sulcardus, but now cited, that the Bishops, Abbo●, Earls and Barons, whose Names are to it consenserunt & signaverunt; and it was ab ipso Rage & supra dictis Personis testificata, consixmata & auctoxi●ata; which if I understand Latin, signifies not only that they witnessed, but also assented to; authorized, and confirmed it; which also more plainly appears more fully by the conclusion of the Charter of King Stephens but now cited, all which the Dr. passes by as slily as a Commentator does those words in a Text of Scripture that make against his sense; for this had quite ruined and destroyed his fine notion of the Great Councils of the Kingdoms then wholly consisting of a few Bishops, Abbots, dignified Clergymen, and great Noblemen who had nothing else to do there but to look on whilst the King alone made the Law.  
To conclude, to show you that this Assembly was not only an Ecclesiastical Synod, but Civil Council also; or Parliament as we now call it; I will give you two good Testimonies for it, that we are not alone in this Opinion, the first is from Mr. Summoner's Glossary, Parliamentum Synodus magna vo●atur; and to confirm this there is written in an old hand in the Margin of this Manuscript of Sulcardus over against the passage now cited, this Note; Nota hic amn●s com●rari at Rege sua auctoritate ad causas Religionis tractandas tam nobitas de Clero, quam Principes Regni cum aliis inferioris gradus, quorum 〈◊〉 videtur essa Parliamentum.  M. 
Yet I suppose you cannot deny but that the Dr. has plainly proved from several Quotations from Gervas' of Canterbury, Rich. of Ha●ulstad, 
Ibid. p. 302.  and the Continuator of Florence, that the word Pr●●i●●ia in this place signifies a Bishop's Diocese; and therefore that the Principes Regni who were summoned out of those Provinces or Dioceses were only the Bishops, Abbots, and other great Clergymen.  F●punc; 
I will not deny but that this word Provincia does sometimes in our Ancient Authors signify in an Ecclesiastical sense the Diocese of a Bishops, us these Authors (the Dr. has here cited) show us; yet that it must be taken in a more unlimited signification in this place, is also as certain; since besides that this word Provin●sia does most commonly signifi● a Shire or County (as I have already shown) the very context sufficiently proves it, since Bulcardus says expressly, that the chief persons of both Orders were summoned from the Counties, or Provinces, as I already said, which when it refers to Laymen us well as to the Clergy, I hope you will not affirm that it can signify Dioceses only; but that besides the Bishops, and Abbots, there were a great 〈◊〉 more persons profess at this Council, both of the Clergy and Laity, the Dr. himself confesses. Let us therefore, consult the Authors themselves which Dr. Brady has cited for the sense of this word Provincia, and let us see how fairly he has dealt with them. Now pray Sir observe, it is true, the same words are almost repeated verbatim in every one of these Historians, 
Ibid.  R. Hagulstad, Gervas' of Canterbury, and the Continuation of Florence, who all speak of a General Synod held at Westminster. A. D. 1138 being the Third of King Stephen, in those words, Decima terti● die Decembrie celebraetae est Synodus apud Westmona●●. cui praesu● Albericus Hostle●sit Episcopus Domini Papae Legatus, cum Epis●opis diversarum Provi●oiarum numero XVII. Abbatibus sere XXX. here the Dr. concludes with an etc. Now see what lies hid under this etc. in R. of Hagul●●ad, and the Continuator of Florence, it follows thus, Cum Cleri & Populi multitudine numerosa, in Gervase of 〈◊〉 almost in the same words, Cum innumera Cleri & Populi multitudine. Now pray tell me ingenuously what could be the Doctor's meaning (who pretends to be so exact in all his Quotations) to leave out this so material a passage in every one of these Authors with this, etc. unless it were that he was afraid his Readers should take notice how numerous this Council was both of the Clergy and People; which if he had done, it would have quite overthrown and destroyed his notion of Tenan●● in Capite, and let the World have known that this Council consisted of a far greater number both of the Clergy and Laity than 17 Bishops, and 30 Abbots. Now had such a thing been done by Mr. Petyt, it would have been branded by the Dr. with the hard Terms of taking away, or leaving unrecited such words and matters as he thought would either advance or destroy his Assertions, as he (how justly I leave it to you to judge) accuses Mr. P. in his Title to his first Edition of his Answer to him. But, 
Turpe est Doctori, cum culpa redarguit ipsum.   M. 
I cannot believe the Dr. had any sinister meaning in leaving out this passage, but did it either because (as I said but now) he supposed these expressions as only Hyperbolical phrases, by which these Monkish Writers used to express all the Ecclesiastical or Lay-members of those Councils, or else because he did not think it worth while, since he might not look upon this innumerable company of Clergy and People here mentioned to have had any share or voice in this great Council, but only to have come thither as idle Spectators, 
B. A. A. p. 30.  a● the Dr. shows us the Populus did at the making of Lanfrane Archbishop of Canterbury; nor yet that they, or the Bishops and Noblemen chose him, but only all applauded the King's choice, but that the Dr. was not afraid to take notice of the great multitude of People that in those Hospitable days was wont to flock to such Assemblies, Pray see what he says in his Series of English great Councils, or Parliaments, at the end of his Introduction to English History, where speaking of the Election of Archbishop Anselm, 
P. 54.  he recites this passage out of an Epistle in Eadmerus, Hui● Electioni assueruns Episcop●, Abbates & Principes Regni, & ingens Populi multitude: The ordinary People (says the Dr.) came to shout and make a noise at such Meetings, and only for good Victuals and Drink.  F. 
Very well: I think I shall easily Answer your and the Dr's. Learned Observations: First, as for the Monkish Hyperbolical Phrases of innumerae or numerosa Cleri & Populi multitude; I confess, you might suppose there was somewhat in them, if they had been peculiar only to one, or two of them; but when all these Writers do with one consent agree, in almost the same words, to express all the Members of such Councils; I cannot see how they could have writ thus, unless they intended to be understood literally, that there were great Numbers both of Clergymen and Laics, who appeared as Members of those Assemblies, far more than the Dr's. Tenants in Capite, & that they had also Votes therein, appears by that Passage in the Conclusion of King Stephen's Charter, which I quoted but now out of Sulcardus; when speaking of this very Council in the 3d of King Stephen, which we last mentioned; that not only the Comites, & Barones Regni, but the innumera multitudo cleri & Populi, were not only present, but Religioso favore voluntatem, & Assensum Authoritati nostrae paginae, & Privilegio praebuerunt, i. e. yielded their good wills and consents to this Charter of Privileges to the Abbey of Westminster. And to show you farther that this infinite multitude of Clergymen and Laics were also part of this Council; Pray remember the passage I but now cited out of Florence of the Council held at London, cum innumera Cleri & Populi multitudine, who all alike gave their consents to the Constitutions by placet, placet, placet, and consider what the same Sulcardus has said in the next Council of the 4 th' of King Stephen, when after Concilio adunato Cleri & Populi, and a recital of the Bishops, he concludes with Monachorum & Clericorum Plebisque infinitae multitudinis, as all alike Members of it.  
Now I shall leave it to yourself, or any sober, unprejudiced person to consider, whether it is likely that so grave and august a thing as the R. Charter of a Prince should take notice of the frothy consent and applause of the mere Rabble, or Mob (whether of the Clergy or Laity) or so judicious a Writer as this Author, and the rest of the Historians, (now cited) should have nothing else to do, but to record to Posterity for a very remarkable Transaction, that a great multitude of the ossuary, or vulgar sort of People came to these Assemblies only to shout, and make a noise, for good Victuals and Drink; and therefore the Dr. and you, I hope, will pardon me if I still keep my former Opinion, that both the Arch-Bishops Lanfranc, and Anselm, were not only named or proposed by K. William the First and Second in the Common or General Council of the Kingdom, but were also therein Elected, or Chosen by the Citrus and Populus, according to the manner of that Age, and the literal meaning of those Ancient Authors, 
B▪ A. A. p. 300.  whose words the Dr. either leaves out of strives to wrest to quite another se●ses▪ nor to his Objections against the Election of Lanfranc at all considerable: For as to the first Objection against the literal sense of the Old Author ●●●nted at the end of Tailor's Gavel kind; that he could not be Elected consensu totius Populi Angliae, because, who can believe that all the People of England, or the hundredth part of them, ever knew or understood of Lanfranc's being made Archbishop. Now pray let me ask you this Question; supposing this Election had been made in a General 〈◊〉, of the Clergy alone, and the words had been instead of totius Populi, totius Cleri Anglicae, would it not have been mere cavilling to ask how all the Clergy of England could leave their Livings, and come up to give their Consents at this Election, or that the hundredth part of them ever knew of it, since every body is sensible those words are not to be understood in a literal, but legal sense, that is, the whole Clergy are said to give their Consents to a thing when they do it by their lawful Representatives, the Bishops and Procurators of the Inferior Clergy? And why may not the whole People of England be as well said to give their Consents to this Election by their lawful Representatives at that time? But that we are not singular in this Opinion, pray see what Archbishop Parker says in his Antiquitates Brittannicae of this Election of Lanfranc's; celeberrima est autem hujus, prae caeteris Electio, etc. Electus est enim à Majoribus Cantuarensis Ecclesiae, t●n access●t Procerum, atque Praesulum, totiusque quasi Populi consensus in Aula Regis, quod sanè est inslar Senatus seu Parliamenti Anglicani. As for the next Objection against this Election of Lanfranc's, it is yet weaker than the former, because the Dr. has answered this Question himself how the English Saxon Bishops, Barons, and the whole People should choose a Stranger, a Person they had never known, and postpone all their deserving Countrymen? Now pray read a very good Solution to this difficulty (if he may be believed) in his Answer to Mr. P. wherein he tells us, 
P. 14, 15.  that King William had taken away from the English their Estates, and gave them to his Normans, and that this he did from his very first coming in, and then reckons up the Earldoms he gave to his Norman followers. Now if the English had then no Estates, they could sure have no Places or Votes in that great Council when Lanfranc was chosen; but if to solve this you will say as the: Dr. does in his Answer to Antin●s mannicum, 
P. 300.  that this Council was held about the fourth year of the Conqueror, some years before he had made an absolute Conquest, and that the English Bishops, and Barons, and Freemen had still some Estates left, and therefore might then make the major part of this great Council, when Lanfranc was made Bishop, so would never have Elected him had it been left to their choice: Pray tell me if the fear of refusing be a sufficient Objection that he was not Elected, whether or no it will not be as strong an Objection against his being Elected by the Seniors of the Church of Canterb. a● Gervase tells us expressly he was, 
Gervas'. Dorob. in Act. Povet. Cant. Col. 1653. Glossary, p. 36, 37.  because (says the Dr.) they did it by order and direction from King William, and their proceeding no other than it is now by the Chapters of other Churches upon a Congee dé Estire, they could not refuse him? And now supposing his Power to have been as great (as a Conqueror) in the Common Council of the Kingdom, as in the Chapter of Canterbury, why may we not say almost in the same words they could not; they durst not refuse him (who was already Elected by the Prior and Chapter of Canterbury) for fear of ●●●ing their Estates: But if an Election that cannot be refused, is none at all, the Dr. may do well to consider whether there was then, or is now, any Canonical Elections of Bishops in England at this day.  M. 
I shall not farther dispute this matter at this time, therefore pray go on to the rest of your Authorities out of our English Historians, proving that any Knights, Citizens and Burgesses appeared in Parliament before the times we allow them to have been there.  F. 
Tho I think I have sufficiently at our last Meeting from the Charters of King john, and Henry the 3 d, as also from the Words Communitas and le Commune, that the Common Council of the Kingdom consisted of many more Members than your Tenants in Capite; yet to let you see that the Historians and Armalists of those times did comprehend all the several Orders under the general Titles of Clerus, and Populus, or Magnates and Proceres you may see in the Chron. of Thom. Wikes, A. D. 1237. Where it is only said in general that the Clerus and Populus Regni did in that Year being the 9 th' of Henry the 3 d grant the King a 30 th' of all their Movables for the Confirmation of Magna Charta, and which is more remarkable, the Parliament which was held in 1264. being 49 th' of this King; is only thus mentioned by this Author, in an historical way transacto siquidem vice●mo die N●tivitatis Dominicae sacta est London pes Comitem (seil, Leyeestriae) Convocatio non minima Procerum Anglicorum, etc. Where in the Annals of Waverly in this Year it is only said, Factum est Parliamentum magnum Londonia, etc. Now pray observe, 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, 
Annal. Waverly, p. 217.  which is said to be made, De unanimi assensu, & voluntate nostra (s●ili Regis) Edwardi Filii nostri Praeletorum Vomitum, & Baronum & Communitatis dicti Regni nostri; now it must be granted, since it appears by the Writs of Summons of 49 H. 3. that the Commons were there; and consequently must be comprehended under this Phrase of Communitatis Regni, and if this had been the first time they had been summoned; 'tis strange none of these Authors should take any notice of so remarkable an Alteration, and change of the Constituent parts of our English Parliaments. But that the Knights, Citizens and B●rgesses were also summoned in the next year in a Parliament of the 50 th' of this King, you may see in the said Wikes Chronicle, 
P. 8●.  Ann. Dom. 1265. where He sets down all the Constituent Estates of Parliament, which were summoned to meet at Westminster, at the Translation of St. Edward's Relics in these Words, Convocatis universis Angliae Praelatis & Magnatibus nec non cunctarum Regni sui Civitatum paritir, & Burgorum potentioribus ut Translationis Solemnia Celebrius illustrarent, wherethe Knights of Shires are comprehended under Magnates and the Citizens and Burgesses are here styled Potentiores Civitatum & Burgorum. And that this was not only for a mere Ceremony, but for Parliament Business also, see the next page, where he tells us, Celebratae tundem tuntae translationis solemnitate ●●perunt Nobiles (i. e. all the Estates above mentioned) ut assolent, Parliamentationis genere de Regis & Regni negotiis pertracture, etc. And in which Parliament the King so far prevailed as to obtain a 20 th' part of all Movable Goods of the Laity. And yet the Continuator of Mat. Paris in the Affairs of this year takes no notice of this Parliament, but only says in General that St. Edward's Body was this Year translated into its new Shrine. And the Annals of Waverly Printed in the same Volume under this Year make mention of this Parliament in general terms, thus Facta Convocatione Episcoporum, Comitum, Baronum, Abbatum, Priorum & multerum aliorum. So uncertain a thing it is wholly to depend upon the general Expressions of Monkish Writers without comparing them and the Records together, and considering the Subject matter about which they treat; nor can we suppose that the Constituent parts of our Parliaments were shaped and changed as often as they did their Phrases; and ways of expressing the parts of them. For they not foreseeing the differences that might arise about these matters, had no Reason particularly to recite the Constituent Members or Estates of Parliament, as often as they had occasion to mention them, it being very well known who they were at that time. But to prove further, that it was not likely there was any Alteration in the Constituent parts of the Parliament, from what it was in the 49 th', may appear by his Writ still extant among the Parent Rolls of the 54 th' of this King, 
Rot. Pat. 54. H. 3. m. 7.  where it is expressly recited, that it not seeming safe to the Praelatis, Magnatibus, & Communicati Regni nostri that both Himself and his Son Prince Edward should be both out of the Kingdom at once in the Holy Land, and that therefore he gives the whole Subsidy of a 20 th' granted him by the whole Kingdom to his said Son: and that it continued so in the beginning of Edward the firsts Reign, appears by a Protestation in the 4 th' of this King; as it is found in the Patent Rolls, wherein he recites a 15 th', to have been granted him of all Movables, by the Comites, Barones, ac alii Magnates, & Communitas Regni nostri. So that unless the Sense of these Words Communitas Regni must alter every Year, there is no Reason for us to believe any change to have been in the Constituent parts of Parliament since the 49 th' of Henry the 3 d. this I think may be sufficient to show you that before the time you mention nor only the Knights of Shires, but the Citizens and Burgesses did appear in Parliament both before your 49 th' of Henry 3 d, and 18 th' of Edward 1  M. 
I believe the Commons might be comprehended under the general Words Magnates & Proceres by Wikes' Chronicle in the 49 th' of Henry the 3 d, or else not be mentioned at all, which I rather incline to believe, and I must also confess that the other Passage out of the same Author concerning the Citizens and Burgesses being summoned either to a great Council or Parliament in the Reign of Henry the 3 d, is more than I before ever took notice of. Yet since this Author does not tell us, whether it was to the one, or the other; nor how many of them were there, whether one only, or more for each City and Burrough Town, or whether they were elected by the People or nominated by the King to appear there, does not appear from this Author, but as for the Words Communitas Regni mentioned in the Agreement of the 49 th' of Henry 3 d, though it might signify the Body of the Commons in that Record; yet if they were not again summoned to Parliament, till the 18 th' of Edward the I. it signified only the Body of the lesser Tenants in Capite, till after the 18 th' of that King.  F. 
I am sorry to see Prepossession and Prejudice has so much overrun you as to hinder you from closing with the Truth, for pray tell me, if this Author could in the 49 th' of Henry the 3 d, (when the Commons were summoned without dispute) comprehend all the Estates of that Parliament under the General Words of Pro●eres, and Magnates, and the Knights of Shires are understood by the same Word in the next Passage cited out of the same Author, why might not other Writers do so too in other Parliaments? as for your next Exception it is a very small Cavil; for it appears that this Summons of the Citizens and Burgesses at the Translation of King Edward's Relics was to a Parliament by the Words that follow, Nobiles ut assolent, Parliamentationis genere de Regis, & Regni negotiis pertractare; and why these Citizens and Burgesses should not be as well Elected by their respective Cities and Burroughs this Year as well as the last, as it appears they were by the Writ to the Cinque Ports; which the Dr. and Mr. Pryn has given us; 
B. A. P. p. 140. Prins Parliament Register.  I desire you would give me any satisfactory Argument to the contrary. As for you Objection against the Words Communitas Regni being to be understood for the Body of the Commons in 54 th' Henry 3 d, it is altogether as unreasonable; since this is to make the Constituent parts of the Parliament, alter not only when Writers shift their Phrases, but when they do not; and that without any other Reason, but because the Writs of Summons and Parliament Rolls of those times are all perished, and to deny the Commons were there only for that Reason; is altogether as unjust as for any Court of Justice to turn a man out of the actual and long Possession of an Estate merely because his Writings and Evidences by the carelessness or roguery of his Servants have happened (a great many) of them to be lost or burnt.  
But fully to convince you (if possible) that Dr. Bradyes' Opinion of the Commons not being again summoned from the 49 th' of Henry the 3 d, till the 18 th' of Edward the first is a mere Fancy of his own, and contrary to the express Authorities both of Historians and Records. And to come to plainer proofs, pray in the first place take notice, that it appears by a Writ of the 11 th' of King Edward the I. to the Archbishop of Canterbury acquainting him with the Rebellion of lewelyn Prince of Wales, 
Rot. Walliae. m. 4. n. 2. dorso.  that he had de Consilio Praelatorum, Procerum & Magnatum Regni, nec non totius Communitatis ejusdem, resolved God willing to put an end to this Welsh Rebellion; so that this war seems to have been resolved upon at the Parliament held the Year before, and now mentioned in this Record; a War which that Valiant, and Fortunate Prince effectually concluded by the total subduing of Wales, and killing of lewelyn, whose Head was cut off and sent to London, the particulars of which War Knighton, as well as other Historians relate at large; 
Col. 2463.  and also that presently after David the Brother of this lewelyn, the cause of all these Mischiefs was (as this Author shows us) in Magno Parliamento at Shrewsbury Condemned, and afterwards hanged, drawn and quartered.  
Walsingham is more short in the Relation of this Parliament, only says, 
Walsing. Hist. Aug. fol. 51.  that in the 11 th' of Edward the I. Habitum est Parliamentum at Shrewsbury, in which this David was Condemned and Executed as before. But Thomas Wikes, who lived at this very time in his Chronicle, 
Chron Thom. Wikes, Fol. 111.  but now cited, will better instruct us than either Walsingham or Knighton, and his account of this Parliament is as follows.  
Anno 1282. Circa festum sti Michaelis Rex convocari fecit apud Salopesberiam Majores Regni sui & Sapientiores tam de Civibus, quam de Magnatibus & fecit illuc addaci David, qui apud Rothelan fuerat captivatus ut super exigentiam Delicti ' sui corpore subiret judicium, etc. and then relates at large the manner of his Execution, from which Passage we may observe, that this Author makes it plain who were the Communitas Regni mentioned in the Record of the 11 th' of this King; and who constituted this great Parliament at Shrewsbury, viz. Majores & Magnates Regni, which last, as I have now often proved, takes in the Knights of Shires, and the wisest of the Citizens.  M. 
But yet this Author says no more but that the Majores Regni & sapientiores tam de Civibus, quam de Magnatibus, were called to this Parliament wherein lewelyn was condemned: Now it doth not appear that these Ci●es were Elected, or that there were any Burgesses chosen for the Burroughs, or that there were any Knights chosen by the Counties; there were indeed Magnates called to this Parliament, but they might be all Tenants in Capite.  F. 
Well then, since you will not be satisfied without direct, and evident proof, such as neither yourself nor Dr. B. will I hope deny; pray take this which Mr. Petyt has not long since communicated to me; and which he has lately discovered in Rotulo Walliae, in a buy Roll not taken notice of by any Body as I know of before; 
Rot. Walliae 11. E. 1. m. 2. dors. Id. ibid.  it is a formal Writ of 11 th' Edward I. for summoning the Temporal Lords to be with that King at a Collequy (or Parliament) opud Salop in Crastino Sti. Michaelis; and there is in the same Roll a second Writ directed to several Cities, and Burroughs for Electing two Citizens; and two Burgesses to this Parliament with a void space to insert more Names. 
Id. Ibid.  And also a third Writ is there directed to the Sheriff of every County in England to cause to be chosen two Knights, pro Communitate ejusdem Commitatus. And lastly, there is a 4 th' Writ directed to the Justices and others of the King's Learned Council. With the same Preambles to each of them, all being commanded to appear at the same time and place; now what can Dr. Brady say to this, that he who was so long Keeper of these Records, and sure aught to have perused them, (as he did many others of the same Reign,) yet has either wilfully or carelessly passed by this so memorable a Record. And so I hope, this will convince you for the future of the danger of being over positive in an Opinion, because it could not presently be confuted; and let you see that it is not at all improbable, but that the like Writs of Summons would appear as well before the 49 th' of Henry the 3 d, as in the rest of the Years of his own, and his Sons Reign, had not those Records been lost and destroyed, which considered, we have Reason to thank God for those that the Iniquity of the times have yet le●t us.  M. 
I must confess you have told me more than ever I yet thought could be produced against the Drs. Opinion; and I should be throughly convinced could you show me any Writs of Expenses for the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, who appeared at this Parliament.  F. 
I hope you will not aver against an express Record, though the Writs of Expenses for that Year are lost (being never entered upon the Roll) by the Omission of the Clerks, who as Mr. Pryn acknowledges, oftentimes neglected the Entries of Writs of Summons themselves, 
Vi. 4 th' Part of Parliament Register, p. 12.  as well as of Expenses; but if this were any material Objection, than there should have been no Commons summoned to any Parliament from the 49 th' of Henry the 3 d. to the 28 th' of Edward the first; when the fist Writs of Expenses (except those of the 49 th' of Henry the 3 d) do first appear upon the Rolls, and so you must then go from the Drs. new Notion of the Commons being again summoned in the 18 th' of this King; but to show you that these expenses for the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses could be no new things; pray peruse the Clause in this second Writ. de expensis Militum & Burgensium, 
R●t. Claus. 28. E. 1. m. 12. dorso.  of the 28 th' of Edward I. we have upon the Rolls, the Writ is to the Sheriff of Sammershire to pay to the Knights of that County, Venientibus ibidem nobisoum de diversis negotiis nos, & Populum Regni nostri specialiter tangentibus Rationabiles expensas su●● in veniendo ad nos ibidem, morando, & inde ad propria redeando (and now observe what follows) prout, alias in Casu Consimili furi consuerit: Now pray tell me, how this last Clause could ever be true, if the Knight of Shires, Citizens and Burgesses had never been summoned to Parliament, since the 49th of Henry the 3 d, which was but 32 Years, or the 18 th' of this King, but 10 Years before this Writ, was published all over the Kingdom.  M. 
I confess what you now say, seems to carry some weight with it; but yet in my Opinion falls far short of a Prescription, since a thing might be said to be done; as in like Cases was accustomed, though it had never been practised above 20, or 30 times.  F. 
I see neither you nor your Dr. by Reason of your different employments had ever any true Knowledge of the Nature of Tenors and Prescription; according to the Laws of England, which He is not to be blamed for, had he not taken upon him to be so great a Master in both; but I hope he will for the Future remember, that old Adage ne suitor ultra Crepidam, therefore to set you Right for the future, you must know that the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses have ever claimed, being summoned to all Parliaments by Prescription, as I shall prove by and by; but as for that part of it called Custom, my Lord Cook● tells us in his Notes upon Littleton, 
P. 106.  That in every Custom there be two Essential parts; Time and Usage, Time out of Mind, and Continual Peaceable Usuage without lawful Interruption. Now the Common● have in all times beyond the Memory of Man, challenged to have enjoyed, both those Essential parts of Common Law or general Custom. So that these words Praut C●su'Cons●mili consuevit must be by Implication of Law extend beyond the times of Henry the 3 d, and Edward the 1st.  
And for proof of this, I shall show you what claims the Commons have made to this Usage from time immemorial; therefore I shall begin with Mr. P's first Argument in his Rights of the Commons, 
Page 7.  asserred, Where the Burgesses of St. Alban in their Petition to King Edward II. in Parliament, 
Rot. Pat. 8. E. 2. n. 233. Pro Burgensibus de Sto. Albano.  A. D. 8. Say, that they Sicht caeteri Burgenses Regni ad Parliamentum Regis (when it should happen to be summoned) Per duos Comburgenses suos venire debeant, prout totis retroactis temponibus venire consueverunt, tam tempore Domini Edwardi, nuper Regis Angliae patris Regis, & Progenitorum suorum, as in the time of Edward II. S●mper ante instans Parliamentum, etc. and farther declare that the Names of such Burgesses coming to Parliament were always enrolled in the Rolls of the Chancery; notwithstanding all which the Sheriff of Hertford at the Procuration and favour of the Abbot of St. Alban and his Council, refused, Burgenses praedictos praemunire sou nomina corum 〈◊〉 prout ad ipsum pertinuit, etc. and therefore they pray Remedy, the King and Councils Answer whereunto was thus, Scrutentur 〈◊〉, etc. de Cancellari● si temporib●s ●rogenitorum Regis Burgenses praedicti solebant Venire vel non? & tunc fiat 'tis supe● hoc justitia vocatis evocandis si necesse su●vit. Where by the words totis retroactis temporibus, etc. must be understood that they and their Predecessors were always accustomed to send two Burgesses to Parliament in all former Ages, not only in the time of Edw. I. but his Progenitors; therefore in King John's time, his Grandfather at least, and so long before the 49th Hen. III.  M. 
I confess the Gentlemen of your Party make a great deal of Noise with this Quotation, but if it be strictly looked into, I believe it will prove of no such great consequence as you would make it. For Mr. P. hath concealed the main Cause of these Burgesses pretending a Right of sending Members to Parliaments, and therefore 'twill not be amiss to give you the rest of it at large.  
Ad Petitionem Burgensium villae de Sancto Albano sugg●rentium Regi, quod licet ipsa tenent villam praedictam de Rege in capite & ipsi 
B.A.P. p. 38.  sicut caeteri Burgenses Regni ad Parliamen●a Regis cum ea su●●noniri contigerit per duos Comburgenses suos venire debeane prout totis retroactis temporibus venire, consueverunt pro omnibus servitiis Regi faciendis, etc. By which words, as the Dr. very well shows us it is evident, that the Burgesses of St. Albars claimed not, nor prescribed to come to Parliaments as merely from a Burrow, but as from a Town that held in Chief of the King, and this Service was incident to their Tenure, and was such as the King's Progenitors had accepted in lien of all Services due by reason thereof.  
And farther, the Answer to this Petition is remarkable, which amounts to no more than this, that if it did appear by the Roth of Chancery, that the Burgesses of St. Alban were wont to come to Parliaments in the time of the King's Progenitors, than such as have been called (i. e. to Parliament) should be called when there was necessary for it. Hence 'tis clear the King and his Council were equally judges when it was necessary to call them, and for them to come; as they were of their Rights and Pretences to come.  F. 
I very much wonder a Gentleman of your Understanding should be so much imposed upon by such weak Inferences; for in the first place it is a Great Mistake in matter of fact●▪ that these Burgesses of St. Alban claimed to come to Parliament no otherwise but as 〈◊〉 in Capit●▪ for tho' the said Petition re●ues that they hold the said Town of the K. in Capite, yet they do not likewise say, that they claim'th to appear there only by that Tenure, for than they should have retired that they sicut caeteri Burgenses Tenentes in Capite, and not sicut caeteri Burgenses Regni ad Parliamenti Regis venir● debeant. And tho' it is true they set forth that they appeared there for all Services, yet do they not say, that their Tenure in Capit● was the only Cause of their appearance in Parliam. since divers Towns and Burrought of the Kingdom, which held not in Capite at all, had the like Privilege before, of which I can give you divers Instances, which I shall read to you ou● of this Note, which a Learned Friend of mine slace deceased hath taken out of the Rolls in the Tower, tho' when he sent it me, he through haste, 〈◊〉, hath forgot to set down the number of the Roll to most of such Burroughs, who never held in Capite, and yet have always sent Burgesses to Parliament by Prescription; as first the Burrow these 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 Bishop of Bath and Wells. Thirdly, The City of Wells itself, which always held of the Bishop, and never of the King, and is therefore called Villa Episcopi in all public Writings belonging to that Church, and was made a Free Burrough in the Third of King john. Fourthly, Beverly was made a Free Burrough by Thurston Archbishop of York, 
Par. 52. H. 3. 15 m. 18.  which was confirmed by King Henry III. Hi●●hly, Badmin, which always held of the Earls of Cornwall. Sixthly, Bridgwater for King john granted it to William Brewer, 
Chart. Antiq. 2. joh m. 13.  Quod Brugwater sit liber Burgus. Seventhly, Coventry, which was always held of the Earls of Chester, and pleaded in the Reign of Edw. I. to have never been taxed with the King's Demesnes, but with the Body of the County. Eighthly, Bishop Linne for King john granted to john Bishop of Norwich; Quod Burgus de Lenna sit Liber Burgus inperpetuum; all which by the Writs we have left us, 
Cart. Anno 6. joh.  sent Burgesses to Parliament as early as any that held in Capite. These I give you only for a Taste, but I doubt not, but, if I had time, I could give you three times as many, especially in Cornwall, where the Burroughs did almost all hold of the Earl of Cornwall, and not of the King. But besides, the Doctor's error in supposing that no ancient Cities or Burroughs had any Right of sending Members to Parliament, but only as they held of the King in Capite, his mistake is yet much more gross in his construing those remarkable words in the King's Answer to the Burgesses of St. Alban, Et tunc fiat eis super hoc justitia, vocatis evocandis si necesse fuerit. Thus, And then let them have justice in this matter, and such as have been called, may be called, if there be necessity. Upon which words you have also from the Dr. put this pleasant gloss; Hence 'tis clear the King and his Council were equally judges when it was necessary to call them, and for them to come; as they were of their Rights and Pretences to come. But I must needs tell you ● think nothing can be more absurd, and contrary to the genuine sense of this Record, than the Doctor's construction, who will needs have the words evocatis evocandis, only to mean a Calling, or Summoning to Parliament, which is quite contrary to the true sense of the King's Answer to this Petition; for if that had been his meaning▪ that those only should be summoned to Parliament whom the King pleased to call, to what purpose were these words, scrutentur Rotuli, etc. de Cancel. si temporibus Progenitorum Regis Burgenses praedicti solebant venire vel non? For if their coming to Parliament had been a matter of mere grace and favour, and not of right, & so wholly left in the King's breast whether they should come, or not it, was in vain for him to command the Rolls of Chancery to be searched whether the said Burgesses used to come to Parliament or not in the times of his Progenitors; or if it had not been a matter of right, why should it be here said, that upon search of the Rolls, Tunc fiat justitia, let Justice be done, i● there never was such a right of Prescription by which they claimed? But I much wonder that the Dr. (so great a Critic in Records) should ever construe them evocatis evocandis, a summoning or calling to Parliament; and I desire you would show me in what Parliament Roll, or Ancient Record you can find eveca●● ad Parliamentum, to summon to Parliament: But I more admire that you who are a professed Civilian, should no better understand the sense of your own Terms; whereas if you would have but consulted any Civil Law Dictionary, you might have found evocate Testes always signifies to summon Witness; and I can show you by twenty Precedents both from our Common Law Records, as well as your Canon Law Forms, that evocatis e●ocandis does always signify the summoning such Witnesses as are to be summoned in a Cause, and in this sense it is to be understood in this Record, that not only the Rolls should be searched, but also Witnesses summoned to prove their Claim, if any dispute or doubt should arise about the matter of fact.  M. 
I shall no longer contend with you about the genuine sense of these last words, since perhaps you may be in the right; but yet for all that, it does not appear, that the King and his Council did by this Answer allow this Petition of the Town of St. Alban to be true, that they had sent Burgesses to Parliament in the time of his Predecessors, much less that any other City of Burrough in England were then allowed such a right by Prescription.  F. 
I grant indeed that this Petition doth not absolutely allow the matter of fact, (as it concerns the matter in dispute between them and the Abbot) to be true, as it is there set forth, neither yet does it condemn it for false; but whether it were true, or false, it matters not, for both the Petition and the Answer do sufficiently prove the Point for which we make use of it; (viz) that it was then received for a general Custom, or Law, time out of mind, that the Cities and Burroughs had sent Members to Parliament according as in the Petition is set forth, 
P.R.C. p. 10.  otherwise it can scarce be supposed (much less believed) that the Burgesses of St. Alban, or the Penman of this Petition should dare to tell the King, and his Learned Council, in the face of the Parliament, so great, and ridiculous a Novelty to be recorded to Posterity, as that they and their Predecessors in the time of King Edward I. and his Progenitors, had sent two Burgesses to every Parliament, or that the King and his Council should have ever received this Petition without indignation, and a severe rebuke for their Impudence; If all the World the● knew, (as certainly they must (were it true) that there was never any Election of Burgesses to Parliament before the 49th of Henry III (which was but fifty years before the 8th of Ed. II.) who from thence had appeared no more till the 18th of Ed. I. which was but 24 years before the delivery of this Petition, a time which must have been then fresh in the memories of most of the King's Council there present: Whereas they allow this general Claim of Prescription, and every person, (tho' but meanly skilled in our Law) does understand a general Prescription; viz. à tempore cujus contrarium memoria hominum non existit, what it was then, and so remains, by the Law of England at this day, as appears by our Ancient Records, Law-books, and Judicial Proceedings.  
And surely the Burgesses of St. Alban did not ground their Petition of Right upon an Affirmation in Nubibus, 
Ibid. p. 11.  but the Justice & certainty of their Claim, as they very well knew, which so they prayed it might be examined by uncontrollable proofs: The Rolls of Chancery, and the King, Chancellor and all the Council, did no less know there were such Entries on the Rolls, and therefore order their search; whereas if the very ground of their Petition had been notoriously false, and idle (as it must have been if neither this, nor any other Burrow had sent Burgesses to Parliament before the 49th of Henry III) then instead of recording this Petition and Answer, to future Ages, they would with contempt and indignation have rejected it, nor would the Abbot of St. Alban's Council, and the Sheriff of Hertford against whom this Petition was exhibited, have been wanting in their own defence to have showed that this Ancient Prescription not only of this, but of all other Burroughs was a mere Chimaera and Fable: But instead of this we do not find they made any opposition against it, because they knew they had been summoned and appeared at divers Parliaments before that time, 
Parl. 3. p. 202.  as you may see in Prins Parliamentary Register they were in the 28th of Edward I. which is almost 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 returns that the Bailiffs had made no Return of the Precept sent them; yet this plainly proves that they were then look upon as a Burrow, and that it was very well known, that it was wont to send Burgesses to Parliament, or else it had been a vain thing for him to have sent them any such Precept at all: And tho' it is also true, there are no more Returns from St. Alban left us till the 35th of Edward the First, yet that is no good Argument against their Appearance in the former years, since the Writs and Returns upon them being in loose bits of Parchment, might very well be lost, as well as they are for many other places: But that the Burgesses of St. Alban were summoned, 
Parl. 4. p. 36. B. 7.  and appeared in Parliament in the 35th of Edw. I. appears (tho' the Returns be lost) by the Writs of Expenses of this year (being the first we have left us in Prin's Parliamentary Register) for the Cities and Burroughs; in which Lift the Burgesses of St. Alban are first upon the Roll; and that they were in Parliament before this time, may further appear by that Clause at the end of the Writ which I have already taken notice of, viz. That they were to have their Experces for coming, staying, and returning, prout in casu consimili fieri consuevit; which words relate to Ancient Custom, and extend to St. Alban, as well as no any other Burrow there mentioned: And that they also were summoned, & appeared in primo & jecundo of Edward the Second, (in whose Reign this Petition was exhibited,) you may see in Prin's Parliamentary Registers, both third and fourth parts; 
P. 200 p. 900.  in the last of which you may find the Names of the Burgesses returned in the first and fifth of this King, as they might have been seen also in the second: Had not the Return (as Mr. Prin then acknowledges) been torn off▪ tho' it is plain that they appeared there; and so may be likewise lost for all the rest of the years of this King till the Second of Edward the Third, when we find they appeared again, and so continue to send Burgesses to this day. And if it be a good Argument of their Non appearance from the defect of Records, I'll undertake to prove that London and several other Cities did not send any Citizens to Parliament in several Kings Reigns, as you may see in this List of Town (whose Writs of Expenses we now mentioned) of the ●5th of King Edward the First● where London, and most other great Cities are omitted, and yet St. Alban is in. To conclude, it is certain that this was no new Claim of this Burrow, as appears by a Writ of the 5th of Edward the Second to the Sheriff of Hertford, 
Vide Breve 5 Ed. 2. in Bend●llo.  that the Bailiffs of the Abbot had refused to Levy the Expenses for Ralph and Peter Picot, who had served as Burgesses for the said Town in the last Parliament; whereupon the said Ralph and Peter set forth before the King, that the said Town used not to be Taxed with other Burroughs of the said County for the Expenses of Knights, totis temporibus retroactis; but that it is a Free Burrough, and used to be summoned to Parliaments, which have been summoned by the King and his Progenitors temporibus retroactis; and that the Burgesses of the said Town used to receive their Expenses as the Burgesses of other Burroughs of the Kingdom; to which Plea and Petition of the said Burgesses; when the King had appointed a day both to the said Burgesses and Bailiffs of the Abbot, to appear before him in Chancery, they failing at the day appointed, the King therefore Issued out this Writ to the Sheriff of Hertford to summon the said Abbot and Bailiffs to appear again before him, to show cause why the said Ralph and Peter should not receive their Expenses as aforesaid.  M. 
I will consider further of this Argument; for I must ingeniously confess I never heard or understood so much of this matter before: But pray proceed to the rest of your Authorities.  F. 
But that it was not only the Opinion of the Burroughs of St. Alban, and admitted by the King and his Council, but that also that it was the belief of succeeding Parliaments, that the Commons were part of the great Council of the Kingdom long before the 49th of Henry III. for proof of which, I desire you to call to mind that King john in the 14th of his Reign made himself and Crown tributary to the Pope. 
P.R.C. p. 24. Vide Mat. Paris anno 1213. Rot. Parl 40. Ed. 3. n. 7, 8.   
But Anno 40 Edw. III. when the Pope demanded the Arrears of this Tribute from the King, the Prelates, Dukes, Count Barons and Commons, upon their full deliberation in Parliament, resolved with one accord, that neither the King, nor any other could put the Realm, nor People thereof into such subjection, sanz assent de eux, without their assent; viz. as well of the Commons, as of the Lords; and that it appeared by many Evidences, that if he had so done, it was done, sanz lour assent, and contrary to his Coronation Oath, etc. Now what can be more plain than that above three hundred years ago there was not the least dispute that the Commons of England, (of which the Citizens and Burgesses were then undoubtedly a part) ought to have been present in the Commune Concilium Regni, or Parliament of King John's Reign, and to have assented to that King's Resignation, to make it legal, and valid, as well as the Prelates, Earls, and Barons.  M. 
As for this Argument I need trouble myself no further than to give you the Dr's. Answer in his own words; 
B.A.P. p. 70.  viz. All that the Resolution of this Parliament in this case proves, is that King john could not subject himself, his Realm or People, without their Assent, but proves not, who they were that in such Cases at that time gave, or denied their Assent, or how they did it, or whether 153 years before this Resolution, the Commons were represented by Knights, Citizens', and Burges●es as at this day. The Prelates, and Barons gave their Answer first, that such a Subjection could not be made without their Assent, and then the Commons were asked what their Thoughts were, and they answered in the same manner, and in the same Words, the Barons had done, and when they answer altogether, They do it in the same form of Speech conceived first by the Barons, without any Consideration, whether the Commons were the same Body of Men, at the time of Executing the Charter of King john's Subjection, etc. as at that present, or no.  F. 
I must freely tell you, I am not at all satisfied with this Reply of the Drs. for if there is no heed to be taken of the House of Commons Answer to the Pope, given in so solemn a manner as this was, there is no Credit to be given to any thing they could say, if they are once supposed to speak like Parrots by Roat, and only as they were taught by the Lords without any Consideration of the Truth or Falsehood of what they averred. And though the first Proposal of this matter was by the King to the Lords, yet the Pope then threatening to Excommunicate the King, and put the whole Realm under an Interdict; it was certainly the Interest as well of the Commons as the Lords to avoid the blow by a wary and true Answer to the Pope's demands; for had their Answer been so idle and frivolous, as you would make it, it had been advantage enough for the Pope to have returned in answer to this Letter, (had what the Dr. alleges been true) that the upstart House of Commons had nothing to do to meddle or treat of any such matter, since they were none of the parties to the agreement, nor one of the Estates, at that time when King john resigned his Crown, and made himself and Kingdom Tributary to his Holinesses Predecessors, nor was the space of an hundred fifty three years from the time of King john, to the 40th of Edward the 3d, so far beyond the memory of man, as that so memorable a Transaction could not be well known to the Pope, as well as to the House of Commons then in being, since the making them a 3d Estate, fell out but in the time of all their Grandfathers at farthest, so that it is scarce possible that the memory of so remarkable a Transaction of which the whole World than rang, should be lost in two or three Generations.  
But I shall now proceed to show you, that as it was the express Judgement both of the Lords and Commons, that King john could not make the Kingdom Tributary to the Pope without their Consent in Parliament; so was it the Judgement also of the whole House of Commons in the 2d of Henry the 5th, 
P. R. C. p. 39  and admitted by that Noble Prince and the House of Lords, that they had ever been a member of Parliament, and that no Statute, or Law could be made without their Assent, as appears by a Petition or Protestation presented by the said Commons to the King in Parliament, a Copy of which I shall now read to you, as far as it concerns the matter in Question; Our Sovereign Lord, your humble and true Liege's, 
Rot. Part. 2. H. 5. Ps. 2. n. 22.  that been come for the common of your Lond, bysechin unto your riht twissness, that so as hit hath ever be their Liberty and Freedom, that there should no Statute, no Law be made, of less than they give thereto their Assent, considering that the common of your Lond, the which that is, and ever hath be a member of your Parliament▪ been as well Aslentirs as Petitioners, that fro this time forward by Compleint of the common of eny Mischief, ask remedy by Mouth of their Speaker for the Commons, other else by Petition written, that there never be no Law made thereupon and ingressed as Statute and Law, neither by Additions, neither by Di●●inutions by no manner of Term, ●e Terms, the which that should change the Sentence and the intent asked by the Speakers Mouth, or the Petitions by foresaid ●even up in 〈◊〉 by the foresaid without Assent of the foresaid common, etc. This Petition is so plain that it needs no Comment, therefore pray tell me what you think of it.  M. 
In the first place give me leave to tell you, that I do not find at all by the Kings Answer to this Petition, that the King allowed the matter of Fact therein set forth to be true, but rather the contrary, as you may see by the Answer itself in these words, the King of his Grace especial granteth, that fro henceforth nothing be enacted to the Petitions of his common that be contrary of their ask, whereby they should be bound without their Assent, saving always to our Liege, i. e. Royal Lord his Real Prerogaties to grant, and deny, what him lust of their Petitions, and askings aforesaid.  
And I shall farther give you the Drs. Answer to this Argument, which is to this Effect; 
B. A. P. p. 86.  The design of this Petition was not to set forth the Antiquity of their Existence, but their Right, that nothing might be enacted without their Assent contrary to their intent and liking; and to show that it was never done since the Commons were a third Estate, or (as they say) a Member of Parliament, therefore 'tis needless to prove that which no Body denies, that the Assent of the Commons was then and is now required to the making of all Statutes, and Laws, but pray give me leave to ask you (with the Dr) what'were the Commons of England as now represented by Knights, and Citizens, and Burgesses, ever an Essential Constituent part of the Parliament from Eternity, before man was created? Or have they been so ever since Adam? Or ever since England was Peopled? Or ever since the Britain's, Romans and Saxons inhabited this Island? Certainly there was a time when they began to be so represented, and that is the Question between us, concerning which, whether you or myself be in the Right, I durst leave to any impartial Judge.  F. 
But notwithstanding your Drs. Answer, I think under favour the King, and Lords did here allow the Substance 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 Parliament; and therefore that no Law, or Statute should be made without their Assents (which encroachment upon their Liberties, 〈◊〉 seems had been before endeavoured by the King and Lords) and therefore let me tell you, that the Answer of the King in Parliament, is rather a full Concession of the Truth of the Commons claim; otherwise it is not to be imagined that the King and Lords would have left such a Claim as of ancient Right without any denial or Protestation against it, but instead of this, the Kings and Lords allow the whole to be true; only the King reserved to himself his Negative Voice of granting, or denying what he pleased, which the Commons themselves do also allow him in the Conclusion to the Petition itself, as you may see if you please to read it at large. And father, that this Affirmation of the Commons was no other, than a Renovation, or Memorial of the Ancient Law of the Land in that Point is more fully explained, and Confirmed by a Petition to King Edward 2d in Parliament, 
P. R. C. p. 41. Ryleys Placit Parl. p. 619. Pet. Parl. 18. E. 2. n. 2.  of all the Bishops, Prelates, Counts, Barons, and others of the Commonalty, in the 18th of his Reign about an 100L. years before this of 9th Henry the 5th, setting forth that they held their Manors of the King Capite, as well within the Forests as without, to which Manors they held Gasz. (i. e. Wast.) Appendent, and of which the Seignories had been rent out by the Acre, half Acre, and Rude in improving their said Manors, and that thereupon the Officers of the King had made Seizure thereof, because they had not the King's Licence so to do, and therefore pray that they may improve their said Manors, etc. to which Petition it was answered by the King and his learned Council in Parliament; that this could not be done without a new Law, to do, which the Commonalty of the Land will never Assent, and concludes, Infra coram Rege, from whence I make these Observations that the King and his Council do here declare it, (as the ancient Custom of England,) that no new Law could then be without the Assent of the Commons or Commonalty of the Land; and also that this Commonalty was a distinct Body from the Commonalty of the Tenants in Capite, before mentioned.  
And besides this, I can show you divers precedents to the same purpose and particularly, a Declaration, or Protestation to Edward 3d. by the Commons in Parliament, 
Rot. Parl. 81. Ed. 3. m. 56.  that they would not be obliged to any Statutes, or Ordinances, without the Assent of the said Commons; which is also farther confirmed by another Petition of right or a Protestation of the Commons to King Richard the 2d. as it is to be found in the Parliament Rolls of 6th Richard 2d. (Pt. 1. m. 52.) wherein they pray against a pretended Statute made by the King and the Lords, against those who in the Statute of Henry the 4th are called Lollards in which they set forth that the said Statute was never assented to by the Commons; and therefore pray, that it be annulled: and pray observe the Reason, for that it was not their intent, to be justified, nor to oblige themselves, or their Successors to the Prelates, more than their Ancestors have been in times passed.  
From all which, we may observe that the Commons do by all these Petitions and Protestations make as strong a claim by Prescription for themselves, and their Ancestors not being bound by the Acts of the Bishops and Lords, as the King could make for himself, and his Ancestors, touching his own Prerogative by Prescription. But as for your Queries on this Petition, since they are not your own, give me leave to tell you, I look upon them as impertinent, for who ever supposed that the Commons claimed a right by Prescription ever since the Creation, or ever since the first Peopleing of this Island, since any Body may see, that this Word ever is to be understood according to the Nature of the Subject in hand, viz. from the first Institution of the Saxon Government in this Island, now pray give me leave to put you a Case; suppose you should affirm, that the Crown of England hath ever been Successive, and not Elective, would it not be mere Cavilling to ask you, Whither it was so, pure Divino ever since Adam? but as you will leave it to any impartial judge, who is in the Right, you or I, so shall I likewise leave it to them to consider, which is most likely, that yourself, your Dr. and some of our Modern Antiquaries, should make the House of Commons no ancienter than about the latter end of Henry the 3d, or middle of Edward the 1st Reign, or the constant Judgement of both Houses of Parliament, with the Assent of the King, and his Learned Council, who have insisted upon the Consent of the Commons, as their ancient and undoubted Right beyond all time of Memory.  M. 
I must confess you have proved it plain enough, that it was the constant opinion of more than one Parliament; that the Commons had been before the 49th of Henry the 3d, Members of the great Council of the Nation: But how long before that they do not set forth: but since Parliaments, are no more infallible than general Councils, I hope you will pardon me, if I do not give absolute Credit to their Testimony, since in an illiterate Age, as that was in which the Commons make this Petition; it might happen that not only they but the King Himself, and his Council at that time might not certainly know, how long, or how little a time the Commons had been summoned to Parliament, therefore since all the Writs of summons to them before the 49th of Henry the 3d are lost; I pray show me from this general Right of Prescription, you so much talk of, that there must have been any Commons summoned to Parliament before that time; for I have now somewhat very Material out of Mr. Prins Parliamentary Register to Object against Mr. Lambard's Argument from the Plea of the Tenants in ancient demesne being exempted by Prescription, from paying to the wages of Knights of the Shires; (as you told me at our last Meeting but one) but first let me hear the rest of your Arguments from this Prescription of Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses appearing in Parliament, before the 49th of Henry the 3d; for since you have now proved they were there by an undeniable Record in the 11th of Edward I. I shall now confine myself to Sir Henry Spelmans and Sir William Dugdales (as well as the Drs. first) Term of 49th of Henry the 3d.  F. 
I shall observe your desires, and in performing of which, I shall pursue this Method; I shall first give you a general Definition of Prescription, and shall then prove that the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses have always claimed to appear in Parliament by virtue of this general Right of Prescription. Now the Terms of the Law tell us, That Prescription is, when a man claimeth any thing, for that he and his Ancestors and Predecessors, whose Estate he holds, had, or used any thing in all Times whereof no memory is to the contrary; now pray let us see to what time this is limited, that shall be said to be within Memory, and what was anciently counted beyond time of Memory in a Prescription, which may be best learned from a Petition of the Commons to King Edward the 3d, 
Rot. Parl. 43. E. 3. n. 16.  in the 43d of his Reign, which is to be found in the Parliament Rolls of that Year, wherein among other Petitions of the Commons, this is one, which I shall render and abridge out of French. Item, because the whole time of King Richard I. is held for temps de Memory, that it would please the King farther to limit this time; so that it do not pass the Coronation of King Edward's Grandfather to the King that now is; (but mark the Kings Answer to this Petition.) Let the Law continue as hath been hitherto used, until it be otherwise Ordained; so that since there has been no Alteration in this Point from the Reign of Edward the 3d, than the Time beyond Memory, or whereof there is no Memory to the contrary, continues still beyond the time of Richard the I. for Littleton tells us, 
Lib. 2. Sect. 170. p. 115.  that all the time of Richard I. is time of Memory; and therefore Sir Edward Cook in his Comment upon him, says, That this was intended from the first year of his Reign, for (from that time) being indefinitely doth take in all the whole time of his Reign, which is to be observed.  
Having fixed the certain time of a general Prescription beyond Memory, I shall now proceed to show you, that the Claim of the Commons appearing at the Common Council or Parliament of the Kingdom is beyond that time; which since I cannot do directly, (by reason of the loss of the Records of Parliament of those times) any farther than has been already in the Case of the Burgesses of St. Alban (which alone is, I think, sufficient to satisfy any reasonable man) we must therefore make use of such Collateral Proofs, and Records, which though they not directly, 
Inter Communia in scaccario penes Rememorat.  yet by undeniable Consequence will prove the Point in Question, I shall therefore in the first place make use of a Writ in the Exchequer of the 34th Edward 1 directed to the Barons thereof, reciting, that whereas the Men of Coventry set forth in their Petition to the King, that the said To all is not a City, Burrough, nor Demesne of the Kings, so that the Townsmen were not wont to be taxed as Citizens, and Burgesses, or Tenants in ancient demesne, in any Taxes granted to the King, and his Progenitors, but only with the Community of the said County of Warwick, and yet that the Taxers and Collector; of the said County have endeavoured to levy a 30th of their Goods (towards an aid granted by the Communities of the Cities and Burroughs to the King) to their Damage and Impoverishment; and therefore pray remedy: the King therefore Orders, that the Rolls be searched concerning, such Taxations in the said Town; and if it evidently appear by them, that it is as they set forth; and that the said men were always taxed with others without the Towns, Burroughs, and Manors aforesaid; in all payments of this sort, that then they should not permit the said Taxers, and Collectors to distrain the said Inhabitants to pay the King by reason of the said Concession of a 30th otherwise, quam in totis temporious retroactis in hujuscemodi casu fieri consueverit, etc. from which Record we may draw these Conclusions, First, That this Town of Coventry did not hold of the King, and yet was a Burrow, and as such sent Members to Parliament, in the 26th, 28th, and 30th of Edward I. as appears by the return of Writs of that Year. 
Vi. Prins Parliament Regist. Part 2d. p. 40.55.  Secondly, That yet it prescribed, Totis temporibus retroactis, in all times passed to be taxed with the Body of the County, and not with the Communities of the Cities and Burroughs in all Taxes granted to the King and his Progenitors; which plainly shows, that the Cities and Burroughs granted Taxes by themselves in the times of his Progenitors, that is, in the time of King john at the least. Lastly, That the King order the Rolls to be searched, which had been idle direction, had it then been known, or believed, that the Cities and Burroughs never gave any Taxes for themselves in Parliament before the 49th of Henry the Third, but little above forty years before the date of this Writ.  
I shall show you a like Writ (which is to be sound in the same place) for the Townsmen and Tenants of Beverly in the County of York, in 8vo. of Edward the Second, setting forth in their Petition, that altho' they had been Taxed to to the 20th lately given to the King per Communitates Comitatuum, by the Taxers and Collectors of a Subsidy of the 20th in the said County, altho' they and their Ancestors had been accustomed to be Taxed to all Aids, as well to the King, as to his Propenitors, granted per Communitates Comitatuum ejusdem Regni, with the Community of the County, and not with the Communitates Civitatum & Bargorum; yet that the Taxers and Collectors of the 15th, lately granted by the Commons of the Cities and Burroughs do grievously distrain them to their great damage, and therefore pray Remedy; whereupon the King commands that the Rolls be searched of such like Taxations, and if it appear that the said Town has always been hitherto Taxed, as they in their Petition set forth, that then they shall be discharged from the said 15th.  
From which Record we may conclude that this Town of Beverly, tho' an Ancient Burrough, (and as such was summoned to send Burgesses to Parliament in the 26th of this King) yet did not hold o● the King in Capite, 
Vide Prin's Parliam. Reg. part 2. p. 46.  nor in Ancient Demesne. Secondly, That Aids had been given the King and his Progenitors per Communitates Comitatuum, i. e. by the Commons of the Counties, which could not be done but by their Lawful Representatives, and that in Parliament; but how far these Progenitors must extend, I need no repeat to you; the ground of which Petition being admitted by the King in Parliament.  M. 
These Authorities, tho' material, yet do not in my Opinion reach the point you were to prove; viz. That the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses appeared in Parliament, before the Reign of Richard I. for both these Authorities, (tho' admitted for good) yet reach no higher than King John's time, which is within memory, as yourself have now set forth, since the word Progenitors need not be extended any further than the time of that King, who was great Grandfather to Edward the First and Second, to whom these Petitions were made by these Townsmen, and so do not clearly amount to your full time of prescription; viz. before the Reign of Richard I.  F. 
Well, pray remember, that if you grant this, you have lost your Cause, since certainly the Reign of King john is long before the 49th of Henry III. but since you will be so over-critical, I will show you some Claims by prescription beyond all time of memory, made by the Tenants in Ancient Demesne, from being Taxed to contribute to the wages of Knights of Shires; and if they thus prescribed, it is plain there must have been Knights of Shires chosen, against paying whose wages they prescribed to have had this privilege: Now this prescription must be very Ancient, since, as Mr. Lambard shows us in the place I have quoted, there has been no new Tenants made in Ancient Demesne, since the time of William I. But pray see the Writ itself in the Old Register of Writs, which is there put down only as a Form for drawing of all other Writs of this kind there to be found for other Towns, 
Fol. 261.  (and particularly the Tenants of Odiham in Hampshire) whenever there was occasion; and therefore it is not to be wondered that neither the Name of the King, nor of the place be expressed in words at length. The Writ itself is not very long, therefore I shall give it you in Latin as far as is material: Rex Vicecomiti L. salutem monstraverunt nobis homines, & Tenente● de Manerio de F. quod est de Antiquo Dominico Co●one. Angliae ut dicitur quod licet ipsi & corum Antecessores Tenentes de eodem Manerio a tempore quo non extat memoria semper hactenus quieti esse cousueverunt de expensis Militum ad Parliamenta nostra & Progenitorum nostrorum Regum Angli●e pro Commanitate dicti Comitatus venienium, etc. and then proceeds that whereas the said Sheriff distrains the said Tenants to contribute to the Expenses of the Knights that came to the last Parliament, to their great damage, otherwise than totis retroa●tis temporibus fieri consuevit; therefore commands him that he desist from his said Distress, and do not compel the said Tenants to contribute otherwise quam omnibus temporibus retroactis. And now tho' this Writ be without any King's name or date, yet it appears at the bottom it was issued by G. L. E●●rope then Chancellor, and William de Holston, Clerk of the Chancery; and this must have been before the 15th of that King, because it appears by the close Rolls of that year, 

Rot. Claus. 15. E. 2. m. 37. dorso in Scedula.  
Rot. Claus. 2. Ed. 3. m. 33. dorso.   that in December the great Seal was delivered to William d' Ayremyn, under the Seals of William de Clyffe, and the said William de Herlston, Clerks of Chancery, who are often mentioned in our Records to have been Keepers of it pro tempore, till the Second of Edward the Third, when the said William de Herlston had the sole custody thereof committed to him.  
But there is yet a perfecter Writ of this kind in the 50th of Edward the Third extant on the Rolls directed to john de Cobham, 
Claus. 50. E. 3. p. 2. m. 19 dorso.  and four other Knights therein named, reciting that whereas Simon Archbishop of Canterbury claims as well for himself as his predecessors, and their Tenants hitherto, à tempore quo non extat memoria, for certain laud's held in Gavel-kind in the County of Kent, which ought to be free from the Expenses of Knights coming to our Parliaments, as well as those of our Progenitors; and concludes with a Supersedeas to the said Sheriff not to molest the said Tenants until such 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 premises; from both which Writs we may draw these Conclusions; First, That there was at the time of the granting these Writs a Claim by prescription time out of mind allowed for all Tenants, holding of the Archbishop in Gavelkind to be exempted from contributing to the wages of Knights of the Shire, or else these Petitions, and the Writs upon them had been idle and ridiculous.  
Lastly, That this Claim of being thus exempted time out of mind (which as I have already proved, extend, beyond the time of Richard the First) is allowed by the King himself for good in both these Writs, only in the last the King will be informed whether they are Tenants in Gavel kind or not; so that the Conclusion must be, that if these Tenants in Ancient Demesne, and Gavel-kind were always exempted from paying to the wages of Knights of the Shires beyond memory, i. e. by prescription, then certainly those Knights must have been chosen time beyond memory. I could give you several other Writs of like nature, but I will not over charge you. Now certainly if the Knights of Shires were thus Elected time beyond memory, the Citizens and Burgesses must have been so too, since in Scotland where there were for a long time no Commissioners for the Shires, yet the Cities and Burroughs ever sent Delegates to Parliament, as your Dr. himself allows.  M. 
I must beg your pardon if I cannot come over to your Opinion, concerning this prescription of Knights of Shires, Citizens and Burgesses appearing in Parliament before the 49th of Henry the Third; since Mr. Prin in his second and third part of his Parliamentary Register has proved; 
Vide Observations on Writs of Summons, part 2. p. 173. & part 3. § 8. per totum.  1. That all the words you insist upon to prove this prescription, are to be understood in another sense than what you would now put upon them; so that tho' Mr. Lambard and others of great note lay the Original Title and Right of all our Countries, Ancient Cities and Burroughs Electing and sending of Burgesses to Parliament, and to be by prescription time out of mind long before the Conquest; yet against this Opinion Mr. Prin argues thus (whose Arguments I shall contract because it would be tedious to recite them all verbatim.) First, That as for the wages of Knights of Shires (which is the principal thing you insist on in this last Argument) the Ancientest Writs extant for their wages, 
Part 2. p. 175.  are those of 28th and 29th of Edward the First, and no Records or Law-books I have seen derive their Title higher than the Reign of Edward the First: 
Cap. 12.  The first Statute concerning them is that of the 12th of Richard II. which only enacts that the Levying Expenses of Knights shall be as hath been used of old time. 
Cap. 1.  The next Statute is of 11 of H. 4th, and enacts that Knights of Shires unduly returned, shall lose their wages of the Parliament of old time accustomed, not at, or before the Conquest accustomed: Yea no man can prove there were any Knights for Counties Elected, and sent to Parliaments by the King's Writs before the 49th of Henry the Third, not to the Reign of the Conqueror, or before the Conquest, as Mr. Lambard would strain it. Now as for the words Antacessores & Progenitores in the Writs you have cited, the former may very well signify the Ancestors of those Inhabitants of Burroughs or Towns, and the latter the Predecessors of the King that then was, which in the time of Edward the Second, and Edward the Third, when those Writs were granted, need extend no higher than the 49th of Henry the Third; and as for the other words in these Writs, as totu timporibus retroaclis; and a tempore quo non ixtai memoria, they must have the like interpretation, or what is equivalent to it; viz. in all times passed, or time out of mind, i. e. before there were any Knights Elected for the Countries, they were always free from contributing to their wages, so that this prescriptions need not extend higher than the 49th of Henry III. above mentioned; since which time it is true (as they there set forth) that they and their Ancestors in all times, or time beyond memory, have always used to be quit from such Expenses of Knights: Now there were many Prescriptions and Customs in use in Edward the Third's time, and since, which may be well said to be 〈◊〉 out of mind, yet certainly had their Original not before, but long since the Conquest, as you may read in Brooks, Fitzherbert, and other Law-books, Title, Custom, and Prescription, and Cook's first Instit. My Lord Hobard in his Reports; 
Fol. 58.113.  That which hath been used, or 〈◊〉 but two, or three Ages only, or out of the memory or mind of men then being, is reputed a Legal Custom, 
P. 117, 118, 198, 199.  or Prescription 34 Henry VI Brook 's Tit. Prescription, therefore this Prescription of Tenants in ancient Demesne to be exempted from contributing to Knights wages, will no ways warrant Mr. Lambard's Conclusion from it; Ergo, There were Elections of Knights of Shires before the Conquest. I am certain that at this day Tenants in Ancient Demesne can plead that both they, and their Ancestors, time out of mind, never were accustomed to pay Excise for any thing for which Excise is now paid; will it therefore follow, ergo, all other places, now subject to pay Excise, were liable to it before the Conquest, when it is a duty imposed but since the late Wars. So that Mr. Prin here proves, that your, and Mr. Lambard's Argument from the Tenants in Ancient Demesne, and Gavel-kind, not paying in all times passed, or time beyond memory to the wages of Knights of the Shires, is altogether fallacious, and inconclusive.  F. 
Pray Sir give me leave to reply to your Answer before you proceed to speak of Borroughs. First, let me tell you, Mr. Prin very much forgot himself when he here says, that the first Writs for wages of Knights of Shires are but of the 28th, 
R.A.P. 141.  or 29th of Edward the First, since you know better; for your Dr. has printed the Writ of Expenses for the Knights of Shires that served in this Parliament of the 49th of Henry III. and you yourself have urged it to me, that this was the first time, that these Knights had their Expenses allowed them, because there was no Clause of, prout in Casu simili, expressed therein; which I told you might be only through inadvertency of the Clerks, since the Dr. there gives us another Writ of the 42d of that King, whereby it appears that the four Knights of Counties who had appeared before the King and his Council at the foregoing Parliament, were ordered their Expenses, for going, returning, and staying at the said Parliament, which shows that these Writs were no new things, and if so be these Knights had their Expenses allowed them only for their Attendance at a Parliament, it is much more reasonable and likely they had their Expenses allowed, when they made a part of it.  
But to put this out of all doubt, Mr. Prin himself has cleared this point not only by printing this very Writ in the 4th part of his Parliamentary Register, but by declaring in the very first 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 Edward I. yet they were constantly Issued but at the end of every Parliament held after the 49th of Henry the Third, till the 28th of Edward the First (being 35 years' space) as this Clause in the Writs of 28, 29, and 33th of Edward I. prout alias in Casu consimili fieri consuevit assures us; but all the bundles of Writs from the 49th of H●nry the Third till the 29th of Edward the First, being lost, and no Writs of Summons from 49 H. 3 entered in the Clause Rolls till 22 E. 1. tho' returnable into Chancery, no wonder that these Writs de Expensis (not returnable at all) were not enroled till 28 E. 1. after which they were usually endorsed on the Clause Rolls till the Second of Henry the Fifth. So that by Mr. Prin's own confession, the loss of the Writs from the 49th of Henry 3. till 28 Ed. 1. is no Argument at all to prove that there were no such Writs before the 49th of Hen. 3. unless you could prove to me that the Writs and Records of all those Parliaments had been so well preserved, that there are none lost or embezzled, which Mr. Prin acknowledges to the contrary; for if they were lost after the 49th of H. 3. pray give me a reason why the like Writs of Summons and Expenses, might not be lost as well before that time.  
Having, I think, sufficiently answered Mr. Prin's Argument from the not finding any Writs of Expenses before the 28th of Edward 1. from what he himself sold afterwards upon better consideration; I shall now proceed to reply to that other part of his Argument from the equivocal use of the words, old times accustomed, and in a tempore quo non extat memoria; which he will have to signify a space of time only beyond the memory of any man living, whereas the words custom and accustomed, when used of any general custom or usage all over the Realm is still to be taken in much larger acceptation, as all our Law-books will teach you: But I shall not dwell upon this, but show you that those Authors whose works you have read, had no true notion of this expression in our Ancient Records and Plead; viz. a tempore cujus contraii memoria non existit; which has been always understood (as Littleton here tells you) for a time beyond the Reign of King Richard I. So that wherever you find these words, totis temporibus retroactis, or de Temps dont momorie des Homes ne curg● all contrary, in any Records, they are always to be understood of a time older than that now mentioned; you may prove a contrary usage if you can; but before that time no Deed can be given in Evidence, nor Custom alleged beyond it: And that this is not the sense of Littleton alone (who indeed makes a query about this time beyond memory) I appeal to all our Year-books, and if you please to see all the considerable Law-Learning at once about this Point, pray consult rolls Abridgement (or Commonplacebook) Title, 
P. 269.  Prescription, where he gives you these Conclusion, from the Year-books which I shall here read to you in English.  
1. It is clear enough, that there was a certain time called Time of Memory in a Prescription, and for this he citys the Year-books of 19 H. 6.75. per Newton 1 E. 4.6. B. 9 H. 7.11.14 H. 7.1.  
2. The said Time of Memory in a Prescription was from the time of King Richard I. 20 H. 6.3. D. Mar. 119.5.3.4.9. B. the time of K. john is within memory, Lit. Sect. 170.34. H. 6.36. B. 47. So that the said Time of Memory was from the beginning of the Reign of K. Richard I. (who was Brother to King john, who was Father to Henry the Third) for the whole time of his Reign was within Time of Memory, 20 H. 6. per Newton again, 13 H. 4.9. B. where the Seisin of King Richard is allowed for a good Title, and so a Warranty in his time.  
So it seems by these words a tempore cujus contrarii memoria non existit, is properly and generally intended for all the time before that; and before the Statute of Limitation, was meant of that against, which no proof could be made to the contrary either by Testimony, or Evidence in any time before, without any limitation of time, the 34 H. 6.36. B. 37, seems to prove this: So that the time of all Prescription was in those days the same with the time of Limitation of Seisin in a Writ of Writ, as Littleton tells us. And since you have not as yet brought any considerable proofs (but only bare negative ones which have been answered,) against this Prescription of the Election of Knights of Shires time beyond memory; what you have said to the contrary is little to the purpose; for all the Modern as well as Ancient Law-books are against this notion of Mr. Prin's; for in Judge Telverton's Reports, 
P. 31, 32.  Gibson and Holcrose's Case you will see, that whereas unity of Possession is by the Statute of the Dissolution of Monasteries a good discharge of Tithes; yet if the Monastery were founded deins Temps de Memoire (as this Abbey of Vale Royal was in the time of Ed▪ I.) a constant Unity, since the Foundation was held by the whole Court for no good discharge of Tithes by Prescription as the Plaintiff had laid it; for the Defendant showing that the said Abbey was founded since time of memory (tho' above three hundred years old) was a sufficient confessing and avoiding.  
So that Mr. Prin's Arguments whereby he would have the words, all times passed, and Time of which no memory is to the contrary to signify a much less space of time in these Writs I have now cited; and to be restrained within the 49th of Henry the Third, will not signify much: since they are expressly against all our Law-books, neither doth he cite any Cases for his Opinion out of Brook or Fitzherbert, tho' he quotes their Titles; but as for this Quotation from Cook's first Institutes, 
P. 113.  there is nothing there to countenance his notion, more than he tells us that from Bracton, and Fleta, 
P 113.  (upon the words de Temps doubt memory, etc.) docere opertet longum tempus & longum usum; viz. qui excedit memoriam hominum, tale, enim, tempus sufficit pro jure; but without telling us what was then understood by this memoria hominum, and a little after upon these words, Ascun proof all contrary; for it there be any sufficient 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; First, By knowledge by proof, as by Record or sufficient matter of writing. Secondly, By his own proper knowledge, and for this he citys divers. Year-books in the Margin: But as for all that, long Quotation Mr. Prin has here given us, I know not whence he had it; for there is not any thing in Hobart's Reports to that purpose in the places he has cited: And as for the Year-book of 34 Henry the Sixth, and Brook, they are both directly against his notion, as you may see by what Rolls has been already quoted from the same places: And tho' it is true in Prescriptions of ways, & Commons, and other such petty thing, laid time beyond memory, the Judges, or Jury are not so exact as to make the Plaintiffs prove their Prescription beyond the time of any man then living; yet if they prescribe for never so long, it is still in the power of the Defendant to prove that there was no such Prescription, and this as high as before Richard the First, but no higher; and thus high we assert the coming of Knights of Shires to Parliament: for I do not pretend to lay it as high, as the Conquest or before, as Mr. Lambard does; if it prove beyond the time now specified, it is sufficient to disprove Mr. Prins Notion.  
But to let you see, I am a fair Adversary, I will admit for once that this time beyond Memory, shall be taken in a sticker, literal Sense, for only as far as is beyond the Memory of any man living. Now pray see what you will get by it, if you remember that the Writ I but now cited from the Register for the Tenants in ancient demesne their being discharged from Contributing to the wages of Knights of the Shires, was laid, a tempore cujus contraii memoria non existit, and these Writs are proved also to have been issued within the 15th of Edward the 2d. and if so, pray reckon onwards, and see if the 49th of Henry the 3d. (when you suppose Knights of Shires to have been first chosen) does not fall within the memory of most men then living, for Henry the 3d reigned somewhat more than seven years, after this 49th, to which seven years, if you add the almost 35 years' Reign of Edward I. It makes 42 years, then add these 15 years of Edward the II. and (if you please) see if whole makes above 57 years; which certainly was within the Memory of many Men then living, and it had been a senseless thing for the Chancellor and Clerks of Chancery that then were, to have granted these Writs of Exemption for a time beyond Memory, when they themselves might have remembered when wages for Knights of Shires first began.  M. 
As for what you have said for this Prescription of Knights of Shires, I will not dispute it farther with you, since it is a Point of your Common Law, (in which I confess myself but meanly skilled) but I shall take farther time to advise with those that know better; in the mean time, as for the Cities and Burroughs let them have appeared when you will, their coming to Parliament, could not be so ancient as before the time of Richard I. much less the Conquest, as you suppose; since Mr. Pryn hath in the same second part of this Parliamentary Register traced the summoning of the Burroughs to their very Original; and proved it could not be ancienter than the 49th of Henry the 3d. I shall here contract his Arguments, and give you them, as I did the former. First, 
Part 2. p. 214.  He here proves that there were never but 170 Cities and Burroughs, who sent any Members to Parliament; of which 170 (in his Catalogue) nine of them never had but one or two Precepts, and others but four Precepts of this Nature sent them, upon none of which Precepts the Sheriffs made, any returns of Burgesses, as these Ballivi Libirlatis nullum mihi dederunt responsum, or nihil inde secerunt, attest; whereupon they never had any more Precepts of this kind sent them to this Day, Christ-Church in Hampshire only excepted, which of late years hath sent Burgesses to Parliament, so that in Truth there were only 161 Cities and Burroughs in England, that ever sent Members to Parliament, during all the precedent King's Reign, viz. From the 26th of Edward I. to the 12th of Edw. the 4th. Secondly, That 22 more here named of these 161, never elected and returned Burgesses but once, and no more during all the said time. Thirdly, That many more of these ancient Burroughs here named never sent Members, 
Ibid. p. 225.226.  some of them more than twice, others thrice, others four, others five, others six, others seven, others eight times and Lancaster has but 13 Elections and Returns of Burgesses, and no more during all the above mentioned Reigns. Fourthly, That although some of these Burroughs here named, who seldom sent any Burgesses, though they were summoned by the Sheriff's Precepts to Elect Burgesses without any great intervals of time to six or seven Succeeding Parliaments, yet most of them had along discontinuance of time, some of above 200, others above 300 years' distance between those few respective Returns, of which he here gives you several Instances, and refers you to his precedent Catalogue of Returns for the proof of it. So that there were but 112 Cities and Burroughs (taking in the Cinque Ports, and all) who sen● Members to Parliament in the Reign of Edward I. seven of which made only one return, and no more, for aught I can discover before or after Edward 1st Reign, till of very late Years.  
Yet that in Edward the 2ds Reign, there were Precepts issued by the Sheriffs and returns of Burgesses for 19 new Burroughs here named, 
Ibid. p. 227.228.  which (for aught I can discover) never elected any Burgesses before. Fifthly, That under this long Reign of Edward the 3d. there were Sheriffs Precepts issued to 19 new Borroughs returns made upon them to serve in Parliaments or great Councils who never sent any Members before; and Precepts to more, that made no returns at all thereupon; as for the Cinque Ports of Dover, Romney, Sandwich, Winchelsey, Hastings, H●the and Rye; though there be no Original Writs for, or returns of their electing and sending Barons to Parliament now extant, before the Reign of Edward the 3d, yet it is apparent by the Clause Rolls, that they sent Barons to Parliament in 49th of Henry, and during the Reign of Edward 1st and 2d. of which more anon. Sixthly, That King Richard the 2d, Henry the 4th, and Henry the 5th, created no new Burroughs at all, neither were there any Writs or Precepts issued to, or Election of Citizens, or Burgesses by any new Cities or Borroughs, but such as elected them before their Reigns. Seventhly, That about the midst of King Henry the 6th long Reign there were Precepts issued to, and returns made by five new Burroughs and no more, which never sent Burgesses to Parliaments before, viz. Gatton, in Surrey, H●ytesbury, Hyndford, Westbury, and Wootton Basset all in Wiitshire, yet very poor inconsiderable Burroughs, though they elect Burgesses at this day. That during Edward the 4th Reign, there was one new Burrough, (here named) which began to send Burgesses to Parliament under him, though it never sent any before.  F. 
Well but how came this about, that so many new Burroughs were made in some King's Reigns, and few or none in others ● and so many omitted, that had served before in other Parliaments.  M. 
Pray read on and you will see, this Author gives us a very good account of that; and impures it to two Causes. First, The Partiality, and Favour of the Sheriffs, and the Ambition of the Neighbouring Gentry, who desired to be elected in such new Burroughs. Secondly, The mere Grace, and Favour of the King, who by divers Charters to new Corporations have given them the Privilege of sending Burgesses to Parliaments. For Proof of which, pray see what this Author here farther says. It is evident by the precedent Sections, and Catalogue of ancient Cities, 
Ibid. p. 228.229, 234.  Burroughs, Ports, and their returns of Writs and Election, before specified with these general Clauses after them, Non sunt aliae, or ullae Civitates nec Burgi in Balliva mea, or in Comitatu praedicto, praeter, etc. as you may see by the return of the Sheriff of Bucks, Anno 26 of Edward ay where he denies there were any Cities or Burroughs, in his whole County, and yet the very next Parliament but one, within two years after, the Sheriff of Bucks returns no less than three Burroughs, viz. Agmundesham, Wycombe and Wendover, with the Burgesses Names that were returned, so that the 78 new Burroughs here named were lately set up in the Counties, since Edward the 4ths' Reign by the Practice of Sheriffs, and the Ambition of Private Gentlemen seeking to be made Burgesses for them, and Consent of the poor Burgesses of them, being courted and fe●sted by them for their Votes without any Charters from the King; and are all me in poor inconsiderable Burroughs set up by the late Returns and Practices of Sheriffs.  
And though others may conceive, that the Power of our ancient Burroughs or Cities Electing, 
Ibid. p. 230.  and sending Burgesses, and Citizens to our Parliaments proceeded originally from some old Charters of our Kings heretofore granted to them, and to which Opinion I once inclined; yet the Consideration of the new discovery of the old Original of Writs for Electing Knights, Citizens and Burgesses I found in Caesar's Chapel, hath rectified my former mistake herein and abundantly satisfied me that neither bare ancient Custom, or Prescription before or since the Conquest, not our King's Charters but the Sheriffs of each Counties Precepts and Returns of Elections of Burgesses and Citizens for such Burroughs and Cities, as they thought meet by Authority and Power, granted to them in, and by this general Clause in the Writs of Summons issued to Sheriffs, for every County before every Parliament enjoining them in these Words, Tibi praecipimus firmiter injungentes, quod de Comitatu praedicto duos milites, & de qualibet Cititate duos cives, & de quolibet Burgo duos Burgesses at discretioribus, 
Ibid. p. 231.232.  etc. sin● dilatione Eligi▪ & eos ad nos ad dictos diem, & locum venite facias, etc. By virtue of which general indefinite Clauses used in all Writs of Summons ever since 23d of Edward I. without designing what particular Cities, or Burroughs by Name within each County, the Sheriff should cause to Elect▪ or send two Citizens or two Burgesses, but leaving it wholly to each Sheriff's Liberty and Discretion to send the Writ directed to him to what Cities and Burroughs he pleased; thereupon every Sheriff used a kind of Arbitrary Power in the Execution of this general Clause, according as his Judgement directed or his Assertions, Favour, Partiality, Malice, or the Solicitations of any private Burroughs to him, or of Competitors for Citizens or Burgesses places within his County swayed him; this is most apparent by some Sheriffs in several Counties returning more Burroughs, and Burgesses then their Predecessors, others fewer, some omitting those Burroughs returned by their Predecessors, others causing Elections, and Returns to be made for such new Burroughs, which never elected or sent any before, nor after their Sherivalties, as is evident from the Returns, Annis 28.33. E. 1. and 34. of E. 3. for Div●n. Anno 26. E. 1. for Yorkshire. Anno 33, E. 1. for Oxfordshire. Anno 28. of E. 1. for Hampshire. Annis 33. and 34. of E. 3. for Somerset. Annis 25.27. and 28. H. 6 for Wilts, etc.  
So that the first Writs or Memorials of any extant on Record for electing Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses to come to Parliament are those of 49th of Henry 3d, but these Writs only commanded that the Sheriff's cause to come two Knights, etc. of each County; and the like Writs were directed to the Cities of London Lincoln, and other Burroughs of England to elect two Citizens and two Burgesses for each of them, and the rest of the Cities and Burroughs in England; the like Writs were also issued to Sandwich and the rest of the Cinque Ports; without expressing their Names, or Number in each County; and this form I conceive (says Mr. Pryn) continued till 23d of Edward I. when the aforecited general Clause authorising, and intrusting every Sheriff to cause two Citizens, and two Burgesses to be elected, etc. out of every City and Burrow in his County; was first put into the Writs, by Authority and Colour whereof every Sheriff sent Precepts to what Cities and Burroughs of his County he pleased.  F. 
I have with Patience heard this long History of Mr. Prins concerning the Election of Citizens and Burgesses, from which I must notwithstanding make bold to differ, for though I own him to have been a man of great Learning and Industry in matter of Records, yet I doubt he was often too quick in taking up of Opinions upon slender grounds; therefore for the answering of him, I shall first show you the improbability of his Suppositions, and in the next place shall make use of no other Confutations then what his own Book will afford us, as to the Writs of Summons, Returns and other things he lays so much stress upon; in the first place, for the Notion of Sheriffs sending Precepts to what Cities and Burroughs they pleased; and consequently making as few or as many send Members to Parliament as they would, that this was not so at first; is evident from those very Writs of 49th of Henry the 3d, by which it appears that they were not then directed to the Sheriffs, for any more than to the Counties; but as for the Citizens and Burgesses, and Barons of the Cinque Ports, they were then directed to themselves; and he also confesses, that this continued so from that time till the 23d of Edward I. so that all this while (being about 28 Years) it seems the Nomination of what Cities and Towns should send Members to Parliament did not depend upon the Will of the Sheriffs, but upon somewhat else; and I have asked you once (though without receiving any answer) what Rule Simon Montfort went by to tell what Cities and Burroughs, were to send Members and what not; since the Words are only in general, de quolibet Burgo, etc. and therefore pray answer me now if you can.  M. 
I conceive in the first place, as for the Cities, Simon Montfort sent to those that were anciently esteemed so, viz. such as had Bishops Sees annexed to them, such as London, Lincoln, and particularly named in these Writs and others of the same rank, and as for the Burroughs, though we have not the returns of them left us; yet I suppose they were such Walled, or other Towns; as were of some considerable Note in England; such as he thought were most proper for his turn.  F. 
That this could be no Rule, appears by this clear Proof, First▪ That neither Coventry and Litchfield, though the Sees of the Bishops, were not counted Cities in the time of Edward the first nor long after; nor yet Ely, for it appears by the Lists, that Mr. Prin hath given us, that it never sent Burgesses, but only once and that to a great Council till of late years. So that the Sees of the Bishops was it seems no general rule to make Places capable of sending, or not sending of Citizens to Parliament.  
And in the next place as to Burroughs, that is pure Imagination, that none but considerable or walled Towns sent any Burgesses at first; whereas in the first List of returns, which Mr. Pryn has here given us of the 26th and 28th, of Edward I. which are the first extant (for aught I know, except those of 23d, which I have never yet seen) besides the Shire Towns of the Counties, there are returns of a great many small Burroughs, which never had any Walls, nor yet (for aught as we can find) had any thing remarkable to make them be pircht upon to send Burgesses more than others; but of these I shall speak more by and by, only shall remark this much, that there must have have been some other Rule besides Montforts own Will, for all this; and what this rule could be, unless an ancient Prescription in those Towns to send Members, I desire you or your Dr. would show any good Reason, or Authority to the contrary.  
And after the 23d of Edward the I. when Mr. Prin supposes that the Sheriffs by this general Clause in the Writs began to take upon them, this new Authority of sending Precepts to, and making Burroughs of what Towns they pleased; this could not in the first place extend to such as were before that Counties of themselves, such as London, York, Bristol, etc. nor yet such as were Ancient and opulent Cities, such as Canterbury, Lincoln, Exeter, etc. who were not made Cities by having Bishops Sees annoxt to them, but were such long before Christianity was preached to the English Saxons, as I have already proved▪ nor could this Power of the Sheriff extend to the Cinque Ports, whose Rights of sending two Barons for each Port was sure very well known and settled in the 49th of Henry the 3d, as appears by these general Words at the foot of the Writ, similiter mandatum est singulis Portubus pro se, without naming them in particular; so that if it had not been sufficiently known what Ports were thus to send, all the Sea Port Towns in England might have had Precepts sent them, as well as the Cinque Ports; who had at first their Summons directed to the Barons and Baylifts in general; nor is there any Writ found directed to the Warden of the Cinque Ports to Summon each of them to send Burgesses, 
Ibid. p. 246.  till the 17th of Edward ad, as Mr. Prin here shows you, so that in all these Elections and Returns (being above 20) the Sheriff could have no Power; and therefore did not depend upon his good Will and Pleasure alone, as this Author would have it.  
But to come to that, which Mr. Prin chiefly insists on, viz. the putting in and leaving out divers of the smaller Burroughs in so many King's Reigns, and which he attributes wholly to the favour or partiality of the Sheriffs. I shall first argue against the improbability of the Notion, and then shall Confute it by plain proofs from Mr. Prin himself. First, It is not at all likely, that the King should ever trust the Sheriff with this great Prerogative of making what, or as many Burroughs as he pleased in a County: Since that could not be then done without some particular Writ or Charter, for otherwise this had made the Power of the Sheriffs more Arbitrary than that of the King himself, it he had in those Reigns, you treat or, no other Rule to go by than his own humour, passion, or interests nor would the King have ever endured such an Innovation, since it would have been in the power of the Sheriff● to have made as many Burroughs as they pleased, and to have increased the House of Commons to an unreasonable bulk, wineh was against all Rules of Policy for him to suffer. Lastly, Neither would the House of Commons themselves have suffered this Encroachment; for since most of the Cities and Burroughs of England sent Members in Parliament before this Innovation of the Sheriffs began, they would never have quiet●● permitted new Men to be sent in among them from obscure places they never heard of, without either turning them out themselves, or complaining to the King in Parliament of so great an Abuse.  M. 
But what can you say against direct matter of fact? has not Mr. Prin here plainly proved to you, that the Sheriffs did in those times exercise an Arbitrary Power in this matter, 
Vide Parliam. Reg. Sect. 8.  returning some Towns out of ill will only, to charge them with Electing Burgesses, to make them liable to the payment of wages to them, omitting others also out of spite, as appears by this Petition of the Townsmen of St. Alban you have now cited; a great many of which were so long omitted, that they came at last to lose all right of sending any more, 
Ibid. 238.  till it came to be again revived of late years (as in the Case of divers Burroughs whose names Mr. Prin has here given us) who by Orders of the Long Parliament in 1640. again sent Members to Parliament after some Age's intermission. Pray now tell me what other satisfactory account can be given for the making of so many new Burroughs, and omitting so many old ones, but the Arbitrary power of the Sheriffs, who then took upon them to do what they pleased in this matter, as appears by so many Instances he has here given us?  F. 
Well, since the improbability, (I may say impossibility of the thing) will not satisfy you, I doubt not but to show you that tho' the Sheriffs might sometimes abuse the trust committed to them in sending Precepts to the Burroughs that were not liable to them, yet that for all this they never exercised that Arbitrary Power you fancy of making and unmaking. what Burroughs (and consequently as many Parliament-men) as they pleased. Now to prove this from Mr. Prin's own Instances and Authorities, I shall reduce all the Causes of this Abuse to these Heads: 1. The Favour, or Malice of the Sheriffs. 2. The Ambition of the Neighbouring Gentlemen who desired to get to be Elected at such Burroughs. Or lastly, from the desire of those Towns themselves to get this privilege among them of Electing and Returning Members to Parliament. To begin with the first of these, it could never proceed from the Favour of Sheriffs to such Towns, because the charge of wages to the Burgesses was then so 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 imposed upon them, unless it were some few who were very large, and in a rich and flourishing condition, and those always sent Burgesses to Parliament before the Sheriffs had this power committed to them, as you supposed by that general Clause in the Writ of sending Summons to the Cities, and Burroughs; nor could the Sheriffs (if they would) have long continued to lay this burden upon any Town out of Malice; for if such Towns could not afford this extraordinary Charge of sending Burgesses to Parliament, they might have 'scaped it whenever they would, either by making no Returns at all to their Precepts sent them, as Mr. Prin here shows in the Lists he has given us of Returns, very many of them did; or else they might have taken that Remedy against it, 
Ibid. p. 233.  which (as this here Author expressly acknowledges) divers Towns did, who being maliciously charged by the Sheriffs to send Burgesses, when both unwilling, and unable; and who upon their refusal to Elect, returned Burgesses for them against their wills, whereupon they complained to the King or Parliament of the Abuse, and so were eased of this Charge and Trouble, or else eased themselves; other Burroughs growing very poor, and unable to send Burgesses to Parliament, and defray their Expenses, were thereupon discharged by the Sheriffs who made special Returns in their Favour (and of these he gives you several Instances in his Collection of Returns for the County of Bucks, 
Ibid. p. 233, 236.  or else for Poverty, as in the Case of Lancaster) others procured perpetual, or else temporary Exemptions from the King, or the King and his Council from sending Burgesses to future Parliaments; and upon some one, or more of these Precedent grounds they quitted, waved, or lost their Ancient Privilege of sending Burgesses, which they rather reputed a charge, burden, and oppression, than an honour; and of this he gives as a remarkable Instance in Toriton in Devonshire, 
Ibid. p. 239.  which after having Elected and Returned Burgesses to no less than thirty two Parliaments, 

Rot. Pat. 42. E: 3. part 1. m. 8.  
Ibid. p. 241.   yet in the 42d of Edward 3. upon their Petition to the King in Parliament obtained a Patent to be exempted for ever, which he here gives us, as also a temporary Exemption from King Richard the Second to the Town of Colchester for five years in regard of their great Charge in building their Town-walls; which shows that the Burgesses wages was then a great burden upon Towns tho' rich and flourishing in Trade, as appears by Colchester, which was then able to Wall their Town at their own Expense: And I could show you more such Exemptions as these, were it not too tedious; and I doubt not but there were many more such than what are entered upon the Rolls.  
Now that we may apply what Mr. Prin has here said to our present purpose, it is plain, that tho' the Sheriffs might sometimes oppress some Towns by sending Precepts to them to Elect, which ought not have sent Members to Parliament at all; yet that he could not make new Burroughs without the Inhabitants consent is plain by his own showing, since they could be eased of that Charge whenever they pleased: And I desire you, or any oneself, to show me any City, or considerable Town in England, that thus began first to send Citizens, or Burgesses to Parliament by the Sheriffs Arbitrary Power; not but that some Towns might complain of this Abuse of the Sheriffs without any just cause, as in this Petition of Toriton now mentioned, 
Vide the Patent of Exemption, Parl. Regist. part 2.  where they set forth, quod villa praedicta ad mittend. aliquos homines pro dicta villa ad Parliamenta nostra onerari non debtat, nec aliquos homines praedicta villa, ad Parliamenta nostra vel Progenitorum nostrorum miserit, nec mittere consueverit ante annum Regni nostri vicesimum primum, etc. Now, tho' this Petition was false in matter of fact, since it appears by the Returns that they had sent Burgesses to Parliament long before, in the Reigns of Edward the First and Second; yet the ground of their Petition was right, that they ought not to send any Men to Parliament, unless they had been accustomed so to do in the time of this King's Progenitors, which had been a vain Plea, if it had been in the Sheriff's power (as of right) to have summoned what Towns they pleased to Parliament, since then there could have been no Custom pleaded against it.  
This being once granted by Mr. Prin, or proved from the nature of the thing, we shall now come more particularly to give an account how several Towns might come to be put in or lest out of the Sheriff's Lists of the Burroughs without granting them this Arbitrary Power of making what Burroughs they pleased. Now these 170 Cities and Towns Mr. Prin has given us, and which have had Precepts sent them at any time, may be divided by him into these three ranks; the first is of those (being nine in number) which he says never made any Returns to the Precepts seen them, 
V. Parl. Regist. part 2. p. 224.  and so continue to send no Members to this day (except Christ-Church.) Now these nine Towns either had a right to send Burgesses to Parliament in the King's Reigns, in which they received those Precepts, or they had not; if they had such a right, the Sheriff's did but their duty to send them Precepts as well as to the rest of the Burroughs of the County, for sure they had some Rule for doing it, more than their own private fancies, since the very Writs of Summons (from whence you would deduce this power to the Sheriffs) only recite a● qualibet Civitate, etc. & de qualibet Burgo, etc. which had been mighty uncertain if it had not been then very well known what Towns were then Cities, and what Burroughs; and sure these nine Towns must have then been Burroughs (in Reputation at least) or else they could never have had one, two, or more Precepts sent them (as Mr. Prin here owns they had) and they might have had many more such for aught we know, had all the Sheriff's Precepts, and the Returns upon them been preserved, as most of them are lost, or mislaid, as I shall show more at large by and by: Or if these Towns had no right at all to send Burgesses to Parliament, it was not in the Sheriff's power to impose it upon them, since they might have refused it if they pleased; and so take it either way, nothing can be argued from the loss or omission of the Returns for these Burroughs, that they either had, or had not any former right to Elect, since this might happen from the negligence of the Bailiffs, or Constables of the Town, or else from their own desire to be excused from the Charge. Thus in the 28th of Edward I. the Sheriff returns that the Bailiffs of St. Alban had made no Return of his Precept; 
Ibid. p. 201.  neither is there any Returns of such Precepts to this Burrow all the Reign of this King; does is therefore follow, that this Town had no more. Precepts sent them in all his Reign, when I have showed you the contrary by the Writs of Expenses in the 35th of Ed. I. or that they had no other right to appear in Parliament as a Burrow, but what the Sheriff's Precept first gave them, when you see they claimed by their Petition to Ed. the 2d. to send Burgesses to Parliament in the Reign of this King and his Progenitors.  
The second Rank of Towns are such for which are found for some one, for some three, and for others more Precepts, with Returns of Elections made thereupon, and yet those that have made most Returns do not amount to during the Reigns of Ed. 1, 2, and 3. Rich. 2. Henry's the 4th, 5th, and 6th, to above thirteen Returns. Well, granting all this, will it therefore follow, that they had no other right than the Sheriffs good will and pleasure; since if they had a right, and were willing to preserve it, they might have petitioned the King in Parlialiament against this Abuse of the Sheriffs? and if they were willing to give up their right by reason of the great charge and trouble of sending their Members, volenti non sit injuria, does it therefore follow that no others liad any other right to Elect, but what the Sheriff's Precept gave them? only forsooth, because no more Returns appear either in the loose Bundles of Returns, or upon the Clause-Rolls; or that therefore there were never any more Elections and Returns made than what Mr. Prin has here given us; which is a very fallacious Argument, considering how imperfect those Bundles of Returns are, out of which he has extracted them, a great many of the Precepts and Returns being no doubt lost and broke off the Files in the removing of the Records from one place to another; besides the whole Bundles of Returns of several years in divers Kings Reigns, that are quite lost, or so mislaid, that no body can find them. And for the truth of this Appeal to Mr. Petyt, who assures me he found the Returns of the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses to Parliament of the 23d of Ed. I. in an old Chest in the Exchequer among other things of a quite different nature, which Mr. Prin never saw, or else certainly he would have given in the Returns to this Parliament, 
Parl. R●gist. part 1. p. 33.  as well as he does the Writs of Summons to it; and yet that even these were not always entered upon the Clause-Rolls, but lay scattered up and down the Chapel of the White-Tower; Mr. Prin himself confesses (in his Introduction to his third part of his Parliamentary Register) that he found no less than ninety five loose Original Writs for Elections and Returns of Knights, Citizens and Burgesses to Parliaments and great Councils in the Reign of Ed. 3. which were never entered on the Clause-Rolls, and lay there until he found them buried in dust and rubbish, as well as oblivion in a confused Chaos scattered from each other, and intermixed with many hundred thousands of other Writs and Records of various kinds. Now what if these Writs and Returns had never been found? so that by his own showing it is no ways certain that there were never any such Writs issued, or Returns made for the Counties, Cities and Burroughs, than those he had before sound and published; and he himself also here confesses, that by reason of the negligence of Record-keepers, there are more Writs and Returns of Elections extant from some Counties than for others, tho' all had the like Writs sent them: And if this was so as to the Counties, it was likewise so as to the Cities and Burroughs; the returns of which are commonly endorsed on the back of the Precepts; and where they were not so endorsed, were much more likely to be lost; and farther that the Clause Rolls are no exact Rule, for the Summons of Knights or Barons of the Cinque Ports and Burgesses, 
Parl. Regist. 3 d. Part. p. 243.  appears by Mr. Prins own showing, viz. That there are no Writs of Summons to the Cinque Ports entered on the Clause Rolls; for most part of the Years of Edward 1, 2, and 3d. in the List he has here given us of those Years; now if so many considerable Burroughs, as the Cinque Burroughs, could be thus omitted, what can we expect for most of the smaller, and most inconsiderable Burroughs in England.  
To conclude this Head, if by Mr. Prins own Confession, the Entries of Elections, and Returns upon the Clause Rolls are so very imperfect; and that the loose Bundles of Summons, Precepts and Returns are far more imperfect (so many of them being lost) pray tell me, how can Mr. Prin or any one else can frame any Argument from these that remain, that there were never no more Precepts and Returns from any Burroughs than those he has published us.  
But to come to his third Rank of Burroughs, viz. such as for whom their appear no Precepts nor Returns till the Reigns of Edward the 2d. Edward the 3d. and other succeeding Kings; 
Ibid. p. 227.  all which Burroughs he therefore supposes to have been all newly made in those King's Reigns, because there are no Precepts or Returns from them sooner; it must there follow that the Sheriffs made all these Burroughs at their Pleasure; but Mr. Prin has done well here to add, that they never elected or returned any before, for aught he can find to the contrary, since it might appear to the contrary (for aught he could tell) if the returns of the Sheriffs in the Reigns of the former Kings had not been so many of them lost, since he here confesses, there are no Original Writs and Returns for the Cinque Ports to be found before the Reign of Edward the 3d, who yet sent Members to all Parliaments in former King Reigns; or how can he tell, but divers of these Towns might have been created Burroughs by the King's special Writs or Charters though now lost; or perhaps unknown to this Author, who could not be supposed to understand the Original of all the Burroughs in England their sending Members to Parliament; but that he is certainly mistaken in making several Burroughs to have been but new, because no Returns are to be found from them before the Reign of Edward the 2d, may appear by these, for Example, First, Litchfield which was long before that time a Bishops See; and sure then if not a City, yet an ancient and considerable Burrough. Secondly, Old Sarum, which was in the Reign of Henry the 3d, a Bishops See (till it was removed) and so consequently by your Rule New Sarum, aught to pass for a City, and if not, was certainly a very ancient Burrough; and as such sends Burgesses by Prescription to this day, though the Town be quite destroyed; the like I may say of Gatton in Surrey, which tho Mr. Prin will have but to be a new Burrough, because no Returns appears to have been made for it, by the Sheriffs till the Reigns of Henry the 6th, yet this is no certain Rule; since it was a very old Burrough and had anciently been so Considerable as that we find several great Councils held at it in the Saxon Times; though it be certainly now reduced to a small Hamlet of half a score Houses; now I will leave it to yourself to judge, whether the Sheriff, would have pitched upon so small and inconsiderable a place as this, to make a Burrow of, had it never sent any Burgesses to Parliament before that Time. And I doubt not, but those Gentlemen that know the rest of the Towns, he has there mentioned with Gatton; could say as much for the Antiquity as Burroughs, if you please to inquire about them.  
But I have held you too long upon this Head, and therefore shall proceed to those two that remains, viz. The Ambition of Neighbouring Gentlemen to make as many Burroughs as they could, that they might be chosen at them; and the desire of such Towns to be made Burroughs to receive the advantages of the Money spent among them at such Elections; the first of these in the Times we are now speaking of, could be no cause of their sending Members to Parliament; since it is certain that before the Reign of Henry the 8th, none were Elected for any City or Town, but Persons free of, or actually Resident in such Cities and Burroughs, as appears by the Statute of 1 Henry the 5th, which does but recite and confirm this ancient Custom, so that this Trick of choosing Members for Bee● and Ale, has been introduced but of late Ages, viz. Since the time of Henry the 8th, when Gentlemen began first to be chosen for Cities and Burroughs; and if that is so, the last cause falls off itself, viz. the desire of such small Towns to Elect, since if they could get nothing, but rather lose by their sending Burgesses to Parliament, and paying them their Wages (as they must do as long as they chose from among themselves) it is unreasonable to believe, that they ever should desire this as a Privilege; and therefore it is only, since the neglect of this good old Law for Wages, that so many Burroughs (which Mr. Prin hear mentions to have had Precepts again sent them of late Years to Elect Members after some Age's Intermission) desired to have this Privilege renewed to them; as was done in the Case of those Burroughs he here mentions; which yet certainly had been very gross, 
Ibid. p. 238.  and contrary to all common Right, if the House of Commons had not then believed those Burroughs to have a had higher Right by Prescription than the Sheriff's Precepts gave them; as for the last Rank, viz. those Burroughs created by the Writs or Charters of our Kings, I need say but little, since this Author here grants such Creations to have been good before the Statute of 5th of Richard the 2d, but not since though I cannot see any Reason for it; why he should give the Sheriffs such Power of making new Burroughs after this Statute, in the time of Henry 6th, as he does in the Case of Gatton, and those other Burroughs he there mentions with it; and yet deny this King the like Prerogative. But yet for all this, as I will not say there were none; so are there but very few Examples of Charters, that confer upon any City, or Burrough a Power to send Members to Parliament, who had it not before by Prescription, though I grant that Privilege may be mentioned in the Charter, and so put it in the Power of the Major, and Aldermen to Elect for the future, when it was the whole Populace, or all the Inhabitants of that Town that were to Elect before.  
But to show you from the very Statutes themselves, that Mr. Prin has here cited, that the Right of the Cities and Burroughs to appear in Parliament, was not anciently looked upon to have had no other Original than the Favour of the Sheriffs. Pray read these Clauses of the Statutes he has here quoted; 
P. 240, 241.  the first is that memorable Statute of the 5th of Richard 2d. 2d. Parl. c. 5. (now mentioned, and which I have already cited) which expressly Enacts, That all, and singular Persons and Commonalties which from henceforth shall for time to come have Summons of Parliament shall come from henceforth as before to Parliaments, in the manner as they be bound to do; and hath been accustomed within the Realm of England of old time, and whatever Person of the said Realm; which from henceforth shall have the said Summons (be he Archbishop, Bishop, Abbot, Prior, Duke, Earl, Baron, Banneret, Knight of Shire, Citizen of City, Burgess of Burgh, or other singular Person or Commonalty) do absent himself and come not at the said Summons, (except he may reasonably, and lawfully excuse himself to our Sovereign Lord the King) he shall be amerced, and otherwise punished according as of old times hath been used to be done within the said Realm in the said Case; and if any Sheriff of the Realm be henceforth negligent in making his returns of the Writs of the Parliaments, or that he shall leave out of the said Returns any Cities, or Burroughs which be bound, and of old Times were wont to come to Parliament, he shall be punished in the manner as was accustomed to be done in the said Case of Old Time, in the French (d' ancient) From which Statute we may draw these Conclusions. First, That the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses; are as supposed by this Statute to have a like Right to have Summons to Parliaments as hath been accustomed of Old Time, as well as the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal here mentioned. Secondly, That by these Words have been accustomed of Old Time (or d' ancient) we are to understand a general Custom of the Realm; Time out of Mind, that is by Prescription; so that if the Bishops, Abbott, and Temporal Lords, are here acknowledged to have had a Right to sit in Parliament by Prescription; so have the Commons likewise by the same Words equally applied to all the Orders here mentioned; Lastly, That if the Sheriffs shall neglect in making Return to any such Cities and Burroughs, which were thus bound to come to the Parliament of Old Time, he shall be punished, as hath been accustomed to be done in all time past (or d' ancient) now pray tell with what colour of Justice, the Sheriffs could be thus punished, if there had been no certain rule to know what C●ties and Burrough were bound to come to Parliament of Old Time, but it had been wholly left at the Sheriff's Discretion, which they should Summons, and which they would omit; let us next compare this with the Statute of 23d of Henry 6th, c. 15. (which Mr. Prin has here also given us) reciting, That divers Sheriffs of Counties have sometimes returned none of the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses lawfully chosen to come to the Parliaments; but such Knights, Citizens and Burgesses have been returned; which were never duly chosen, and other Citizens and Burgesses than those which by the Mayors and Bailiffs were to the said Sheriffs returned, and moreover by no Precepts to the Mayors, and Bailifts, or to the Bailiff or Baili●●i, where no Mayor is, for the Electing of Citizens and Burgesses to come to the Parliament; and then appoints the Penalties, for the said abuses and neglects.  
Now pray let me ask you, whether this bare Abuse of the Sheriffs, and neglect of the duty of their Office here condemned by this Statute (and for which the former Statute of Richard II. declares them punishable at Common law, (as this Act makes them liable to it by Statute Law) could give them such an Arbitrary Power, as this Author fancies. much less can serve to corroborate his Opinion (as he here supposes it does) concerning the true original, continuance, discontinuance, reviving and antiquating Parliamentary Cities and Burroughs, not by Charters, and Patents from the King, or Prescription time out of mind, but by the Sheriffs Arbitrary Power and Returns, by the forecited general Clauses in the Writs?  
But since I confess I have dwelled too long on my Answer to Mr. Prin's Arguments, I shall conclude with only giving you one Record, which I hope will sufficiently satisfy you, that not only St. Alban, but several other Ancient Burroughs claimed to send Burgesses to Parliament by Prescription, which appears by a Writ or Commission, reciting a Pe●ition of the Town of Barnstaple to King Edward the Third, and his Council in Parliament, which is to be found in the Patent-Rolls of the 17th of this King, 
Part. 1. m. 20. dorso.  setting forth that the said Town had been a Free Burrough à tempore c●jus contrarii memoria non exis●it; and as such enjoyed divers Liberties, and Free Customs by a Charter of King Athelstan, and this among others, ac quod ad singula Parliamenta n●stra, & dictorum Antecessorum nostrorum, (among which the said King Athelstan must certainly be reckoned for one) duos Burgenses pro Communitate ejusdem Burgi mittere solebant; and therefore that Charter being lost, they desire a Confirmation of it from the King, whereupon He by this Commission directs a Writ of Enquiry to several Gentlemen and others therein mentioned, to inquire if the said Burgesses had enjoyed all those Liberties so granted by the said Charter of King Athelstan, or not; which would have been ridiculous if the King and Council had been satisfied that no Cities and Burroughs' scent any Members to Parliament under the Saxon Kings, and not before the 49th of Henry the Third; and this Authority is the more remarkable, because Bar●staple is one of Mr. Prin's Modern Burroughs, for which he can find no Precepts or Returns earlier than the 26th of Edward the Third, tho', no doubt, (as appears by this their Petition) in the 17th of this King, it had sent Burgesses to Parliament many Ages before, tho' the Precepts and Returns upon them be all lost. And that not only the Cities and Burroughs do thus claim by prescription, but that the Knights of Shires have always claimed the same Privilege, may appear by another Petition of the Commons House extant on the Parliament-Rolls of the 51th of Edward the Third, 
M. 5. n. 45.  which I shall contract and put into English out of French, reciting thus, because of Common Right (in the Roll de Commune d●oit) of the Realm there are, and shall be Elected two from every County of England to come to Parliament for the Commune of the said Counties: And also the Prelate's Dukes, Barons, Counts Barons, and such as hold by Barony, which are, and shall be summoned by Writs to come to Parliament, except the Cities and Burroughs who ought to Elect from among themselves such as ought to answer for them.  
Whence we may conclude, that the Commons than claimed to come to Parliament of Common Right, (that is, by Common Law, or general Custom of the Realm, time out of mind) as much as the Bishops, Abbots and great Lords. 2. That neither the Bishops, Lords, nor Tenants in Capite had any Authority to impose Taxes, or make Laws for the Commons of the Counties, or these for the Cities and Burroughs, without their consents, because they had each of them Representatives of their own Order to answer for them in Parliament.  M. 
I must confess this would have been absolutely convincing, could we have seen this Charter of K. Athelstans'; but since the Townsmen of Barnstaple do only in their Petition (among others) set forth this privilege of sending Burgesses to Parliament; now who can tell whether there was any such thing in their Charter or not, since they confess they had lost it? Or granting it was as they set forth, yet is will sufficiently evince that the right of Cities and Burroughs to send their Representatives to Parliaments, was not, as you suppose, as ancient as the Government, but had its Original from the Grants and Charters of former Kings.  F. 
As to these Objections, we can have but all the proof that this Subject is capable of at such a distance of time; but if I were a Juryman in this matter I should rather believe that the Town of Barnstaple had such Charter not long before they made this Petition to King Edward the Third; and that there was such Clause therein as they here set forth, than that these Townsmen should be so impudent as to desire a new Charter of Confirmation from him of all their privileges (of which this of Electing Burgesses was one) if there had never been any such Clause in it at all. But as for the other Objection, that if it were so, than it appears that all the right of Cities and Burroughs sending Members to Parliament, is derived from the Grants and Charters of former Kings, it is very fallacious; as you will find if you consider and compare the Ancient right of the Bishops, and Abbots; as also of all the Temporal Nobility to come to the great Council of the Kingdom, which as to the first of them I proved to be as Ancient as Christianity itself, among the English Saxons: And as for the Priesthood and Nobility in general, to have been as old as the Institution of the Government itself. Now, tho' you grant that long before the Conquest our Kings had the nomination of Bishops, and Abbots, and also the making of Aldermen, Earls and Thanes, who made the Temporal Nobility in those great Councils; will it therefore follow that because our Kings were thus entrusted by the people with this prerogative of naming and investing Bishops and Abbot's per Annulum & Baculum, and also of creating those great Men now mentioned, that therefore all the right either Order had to appear at those Councils, not only proceeded from, but depended wholly on the King's good will and pleasure; and that he could have chosen whether he would have named any Bishops, or Abbots to vacant Sees, and Abbeys, or made any Aldermen, Earls, and Thanes, or not, but have changed the whole frame of the Government into an Absolute Despotic Monarchy, by destroying the great Council of the Kingdom; whether you believe the Clergy, Nobility and People would have suffered any of those Kings to have made such an Innovation? Apply this to the right of the most of Ancient Cities and Burroughs in England; and see if it do not exactly agree with this parallel Case of the Bishops, Abbots, and Temporal Nobility; since as there were Priests and Nobles, who from the very first Institution of our great Councils did not owe their Original to the King, but brought it with them out of Germany, and to whose Suffrages the first Saxon Kings owed their Elections; so no doubt were there divers Cities and Towns in England so considerable from the time of the Expulsion of the Britain's, that it was thought ●it to pitch upon them as most able to send Representatives to the great Councils of the Nation, that so they might imitate their old Government in their own Country, in which the great Cities and Towns had always a considerable share, as they have in the Germane Diets to this day; tho' the King might then (as he is now) be entrusted with the Prerogative of making new Cities and Burroughs with like privilege, with the old ones; tho' this was but rarely practised till the Reign of King james I. The two Universities, being some of the first Corporations on which he conferred this privilege by Charter, of Electing and sending two Burgesses to Parliament; which power has, I confess, been exercised even to a grievance in the Reigns of his Son, and Grandsons; so that it were to be wished, that there was a Law passed, that no New City or Burrow should be made for the future without an express Act of Parliament.  
Now I would very gladly hear what you can further say to so many weighty Authorities, which I have now given you; for evident it is, that if they are compared and considered in series of time, that neither Edw. 2d or 3d, nor their Judges or Learned Council, no nor the Parliaments of their, and succeeding times, had ever heard any thing of Dr. Brady's Annus Mirabilis, or 49th of Henry 3d. which was but 43 years before the Reign of Edward 2. his Grandchild, and little above 60 years before that of Edward his great Grandson.  M. 
Well, notwithstanding all this, whosoever will reflect upon what the Doctor hath writ, may suspect that the Judges (nay Parliaments) were very ignorant in the History of this Nation, 
B.A.P. p. 13.  or that they spoke out of design. And it is a great Argument that the Lawyers studied and knew only Popular and Lucrative Law, and not the Constitutions of the Nation before their own time. And tho' I must confess what you have now said may seem to me to carry some weight with it; yet since I do not easily change my Opinion, upon the first hearing of a new Argument, or Authority; give leave better to consider what you have said; but in the mean time, since you have now mentioned the Germane Diets, pray Sir, before we leave off, show me what you undertook to prove at the first entrance on this Subject; viz. that in all the great Councils, or Assemblies of Estates in Europe, which are derived from the Germans and Goths, there are found Representatives for the Plebeians or Commons distinct from the Clergy, and greater, and lesser Nobility.  F. 
I readily agree to your desires; but since my own Notes concerning this matter are very long, and that I have them not about me, pray give me leave to make use of the Authority of Dr. Heylin an Author, you have no reason to look upon a● partial, since he was not only remarkable for his great skill in History, but also (as being a great Friend and Disciple to Sir Robert ●ilmer in Politics) was a vehement assertor of Absolute Monarchy, and an utter Enemy to the Power of Parliaments; yet this very person in his Treatise called, The Stumbling of Disobedience and Rebellion, etc. printed 1658. in his 5th Chapter (I have already quoted for the Inferior Clergy's being anciently a part of the great Council or Parliament of the Kingdom) proves the Uniformity of the three Estates to have been the same in all the Christian Kingdoms on this side of Europe, he runs through them all, beginning with Germany; which I shall contract, because he there says a great many other things not so material to our present purpose.  
And first beginning (as of right) with the Germane Empire, Thuanus gives this Note in general, 
August. Thuan. hist. lib. 2.  Imperium in tria omnino membra dividitur, that the Empire is divided into three Estates, over all which the▪ Emperor is the Head or Supreme Prince. Of these the first Estate is ex sacro Ordine, of the holy Hierarchy, composed of the three Spiritual Electors, together with the residue of the Arch bishops and Bishops, and many Abbots, Priors, and other Prelates. The second is of the Nobility consisting of the three Temporal Electors, the Dukes, Marquesses, Lan●graves, B●tgraves, Earls and Barons, of which there is no determinate number; the Emperor having power to add daily to them, as he sees occasion. The third Estate is of the free or Imperial Cities, in number sixty, or thereabouts, who represent themselves at the General Di●ts, by such Commissioners or Deputies as are authorized to that purpose.  
Next pass we over into France, and there we find the Subjects marshaled into three Estates, whereof the Clergy is the first. Rex coactis tribus Ordinibas, Sacerdotio, Nobilitate, Plebe, subsidia rei pecuniariae petiit. So Paulus Aemilius doth inform us: Out of these three are chosen certain Delegates or Commissioners, some for each Estate, as often as the King's occasions do require their meeting, the time and place whereof is absolutely left unto his disposing; and these thus me: do make up the Conventus Ordinum, or L' Assemblie des Estates, as the French men call it, in form much like the English Parliament; [and of the meeting of these three Estates, not only this Author, but all the other French Historians; and in particular Phil. de Commines make frequent mention.]  
Pass we next over the Pyren●●s, to the Realms of Spain, and we shall find in each the same three Estates, whose meeting they call there by the name of Curia. 
Bodin. de Repub. lib. 3.  the Court, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by way of eminency; consisting of the Clergy the Nobility, and the Commisioners of the Provinces and most Ancient Cities. For proof of which we need but look into the General History of Spain translated out of French by Grimston, and we shall find a Court of Parliament for the Realm of Arragon, consisting of the Bishops, Nobles, and Deputies of Towns and Commonalties, having place in the said Estates convened by K. james at Saragassa Anno 1325. for settling the Succession, 
Gen. Hist. of Spain. l. 14.  and declaring the right Heir. Also for Castille, we find a Parliament of Lords, Prelates, and Deputies of Towns summoned at Toledo by Alfonso the Noble, Anno 1210. upon occasion of an Invasion made by the Moors; 
Id. lib. 10.  another before that at Burgos, under the same King, Anno 1179. for levying of Money on the People to maintain the Wars: Also that great Convention of the States held at Toledo by Ferdinand the Catholic 1479. for swearing to the Succession of his Son Don john, 
Id. lib.  in which the Prelates, the Nobility, and almost all the Towns and Cities which sent Commissioners to the Assembl●, are expressly named. Thus finally do we find a Meeting of the Deputies of the three Estates of Navarre at the Town of Tosalla, Anno 1481. for preserving the Kingdom in obedience to King Francis Pl●eo●s, being then a Minor, under age: 
Id. lib. 22.  and for Portugal that the Deputies of the Clergy, Nobility, Provinces and good Towns of Portugal, assembled at Toma●a, Anno 15●1. to acknowledge Philip the second for their King, 
Id. lib. 30.  and to settle the Government of that Kingdom for the times to come.  
Now let us take a view of the Northern Kingdoms, and still we find the People ranked in the self same manner, and their great Counsels to consist of the Clergy, the Nobility, and certain Deputies, sent from the Provinces and Cities, as in those before. In Hungary, before that Realm received the Gospel, 
Bonfinius in hist. Hungar. Dec. l. 1.  we read of none but Nobiles & Plebeii, the Nobility and common People who did concur to the Election of their Kings; but no sooner was the Faith of Christ admitted, and a Clergy instituted, but instantly we find a third Estate, Episcopos & Sacerdotum Collegia, 
Id. ibid. Dec. 2. l. 2. Id. Decad. 2. l. 3.  Bishops and others of the Clergy super added to them, for the Election of the Kings, and the dispatch of other businesses which concerned the public, as it continueth to this day. In Danemark we shall find the same, if we mark it well. For though Pontanus seem to count upon five Estates, making the Regal Family to be the first, 
Pontan in Doriae discript. Id. in histor. Rerum Danic. l. 7.  and subdividing the Commons into two, whereof the Yeomanry makes one, and the Trade's man or Citizen the other: yet in the body of the History we find only three, which are the Bishops, the Nobility, and Civitatum delegati, the Deputies or Commissioners of Towns and Cities: For Sweden, it comes near the Government and forms of Danemark, and hath the same Estates and degrees of People as amongst the Danes, that is to say, Proceres & Nobiles, the greater and the less Nobility, Episcopi & Ecclesiastici, the Bishops and inferior Clergy, Civitates & Vniversitates, the Cities and Towns Corporate (for so I think he means by Vniversitates) as T●uanus mustereth them. 
Id. lib. 131.  [To which we may also add (though here omitted by this Author) the Delegates of the Rustics or Husbandmen, who make a fourth Estate in the Assembly of Estates of this Kingdom.] And in this Realm the Bishops and Clergy enjoy the place and privileges of the third Estate (notwithstanding the Alteration of Religion) to this very day; the Bishops in their own Persons, and a certain number of the Clergy out of every Sochen (a Division like our Rural Deaneries) in the name of the rest, having a necessary Vote in all their Parliaments. [And this Swedish great Council is the more remarkable▪ because it comes very near our Constitution in England, in which I proved the Inferior Clergy; and the Commons (not excepting the meanest Freeholders) anciently had their Representatives.  
So that it had been the strangest thing that could have been observed in all the Political Constitutions on this side of Europe, if that of England, though descended from the same Gothick Original; and founded according to the same model should have had no Representatives for the Commons or Plebians in their great Councils, or Parliaments. The Dr. here concludes with Scotland and England, the former of which since you agree to have had from all times, Citizens and Burgesses in their great Councils or Parliaments, I need not repeat what is there, since it is no more than what you yourself have granted; and as for England he owns, (as appears by the Passages I have already cited out of this Chapter, 
Page 193. ) that the Clergy, Nobility and People were called to a Parliament held under Henry the ad. at Clerk●nwell.  M 
I will not deny, but there were Representatives of the Cities, and great Towns in the great Councils or Assembly of Estates of all those Kingdoms you have now mentioned out of Dr. Heylins' Treatise; yet whether they were there from the very first Institution of those Governments is much to be doubted. But since I have not now leisure to inquire into the Original of all these Kingdoms; nor at what time each State began to come to these great Councils; give me leave in the mean time to remark, that all these Kingdoms (except Sweden) came nearer to that Constitution; which we suppose to have been anciently in England, and Scotland, and also other Kingdoms where feudatory Tenors were observed, and consequently none but the Chief Lords or Barons by Knight's Service, 
B. A. P. p. 96.  and that held of the King; so that all those Foreign Councils, or Dye●s, etc. at first were all the same, as consisting of Emperors or Kings with their Earls, and Barons, Bishops, and great Officers, as is evident from all the old Germane, and French Authors, and since Cities sent Deputies in Germany, and Italy, 
Vi. Recoldus Discursus Polit. p. 126.  they were only from Imperial Cities; the like I believe would be found in France, and those other Kingdoms you have now mentioned; but you cannot show me, (unless in Sweden) any Representatives elected by the Common People, or Rustics distinct from the Nobility and Gentry; like our Knights of Shires in England. So that I still doubt, whether all the Representatives of the great Lords, and other Nobility that appeared in the Councils of these Kingdoms were not all Tenants in Capite and no other.  F. 
That this is a mere surmise of yours, I think I can easily prove; for in the first place, as for the Bishops, Abbots, and Clergy, who still made the first Estates in all these Kingdoms; nothing is more certain, than that they never any of them held of the King by Knight's Service, and therefore could not 〈◊〉 in their great Councils by that Tenure▪ that Institution being for aught as I know peculiar to England, and introduced by your Conqueror, as you yourself acknowledge; and as for the Temporal Nobility, you will find, that in France not only those Noblemen, that held of the King by Military Service, but those who held in libero Alodio without any such Service, at all, had places, either by themselves or their Deputies in the Assembly of the Estates, so likewise for the Cities and Towns that sent Deputies to it: I believe you will not find that any of them held of the King in Capite: and to come to Germany; you are likewise as much mistaken in fancying, that all the Imperial Cities were Subject immediately to the Emperor before they became so; for Hamburgh and Lubec were Subject to their own Princes, the former to the Duke of Holstein and Sleswic, and the latter to Earls of its own; till at last they either purchased their Liberties they enjoy from their Princes; or else cast them off and were after received into the Body of the Diet by the Bulls or Charters of several Emperors; 
Vi. I. Angel. We●denhagen de Rebus Hans●aticis, cap. 2. p. 30.  and so likewise Brunswick was always a f●●e City, till it was united to the Empire by its own Consent: I could show you the like of several other Cities, now called Imperial, who held anciently not of the Emperor, but either of their own Earls, or Bishops, though I grant it was the Charters of the Emperor with the Consent of the Diet, that gave them a place in those Assemblies: and though it is true, that in all the rest of these Kingdoms, the mere Rustics or Paisants have no Representatives in their great Councils; yet this makes no Alteration in the Case, if you please to consider it, for the Nobility and Gentry are the only true and proper owners of the Lands, of those Kingdoms, all the Rustics or Paisants being mere Vassals, and in France almost Slaves to their Nobility, and Gentry who (as I have already said) had all alike Votes in their Assembly of Estates, as well those who held of the King in Chief by Knight's Service, as those that did not; whereas it was always far otherwise in England, where the meanest Freeholder was always as free as to his Person, and Estate as the greatest Lord of whom he held, and hence it is, that we have had from all Times those of the degree of Yeomen, so peculiar to England, as Fortiscut in his Treatise de Laudibus Legum Angliae, takes notice, who if they lived on their own Lands, had no more dependence on the Noblemen, and Gentlemen than they have now; and therefore it was but Reason, that these should have their Representatives in Parliament; as well as the Inhabitants of the Cities and Burroughs, who had most of them a far less share in the Riches; and real Estates of the Kingdom. Secondly, Pray take notice, that in the rest of the Kingdoms of Europe, except England and Scotland, 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; such as had the Titles of Dukes, Marquesses, and Counts; and simple Gentlemen, whereas in England it has been always otherwise (at least since the Conquest) and the Earls, and Barons, had by 〈◊〉 Tenors Places, as Lords or Peers in the great Council of the Kingdom, and so made a distinct Body from the rest of the People; whereas in other Country's, the higher Nobility and Gentry are reckoned as all one Estate, and therefore it was but Reason, that the rest of the Inferior Nobility or Gentry should have their Representatives in this great Council or Parliament, or otherwise they would have been as very Vassals as to their Estates, to the great Barons, and Tenants in Capite, as the Boors in Germany, or the Paisants in France were to their Lords, by whom they were taxed a● their Pleasures; which they never were in England, as we can find either from History or Records. So that though I grant that it is the municipal Laws of each Kingdom, or Nation, that must determine what are the governing part of the People in those Country's; yet though that was not absolutely the same in all of them as it is in England, yet we find it so in the main; and the Representatives of the Cities and Towns do sufficiently assert the Right of the Plebians or Common People, who make the 3d Estate in those great Councils. But I must here except Sweden in which it is certain that the mere Rustics or Boors had always their own Deputies in their Diets, as well as the Cities and Towns; and if Sweden had this privilege, I cannot see why the English Gentry, and Yeomanry (who make but one body of Commons) might not have had the like, till you can show me more sufficient proofs to the contrary.  M 
Well Si●, I shall consider of what you say, but since it grows late, that we may wind up this Conversation as fast as we can, give me leave to tell you, that tho' I should admit all that you have hitherto averred for truth, and that we should grant the Commons 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 question between us. viz that of Nonresistance of the King upon any account whatsoever? or how can you justsfie those of the Clergy, Nobility, and Gentry of the Church of England, for taking up Arms against the King, and contributing so much as they have done to the driving him away and in bringing things to this confusion they are now in? since, let your Constitution of great Councils and Parliaments be never so ancient, let us also for once suppose them (as you do) to have a share in the Legislative Power of the Nation, yet how can this authorise them (much less any private persons out of Parliament) to take up Arms against the King, or those commissioned by him, since the whole current, both of Common as well as Statute-Law runs directly against you, and all with one consent assert that the disposal of the Militia, or Military Force of the Kingdom has been even so absolutely in the King's power, and at his disposal, that no man can without being guilty of Treason, take up Arms (whether offensive or defensive) without his Commission to authorise him to do it; so that no Government in the World is more averse to all forcible Resistance than our own, the King having been even from your time beyond memory so fully possessed of the whole Militia, or power of raising offensive or defensive Arms in this Kingdom, that it is expressly forbid by the Statute of the 7th Ed. I. against coming to Parliaments and Treatises with force of Arms, in which the King sets forth, That in the last Parliament the Prelate's Earls, Barons, and the Commonalry (in Latin Communitas or Body of the Realm) have said that to us, (i e. to the King) it belongeth, and our part it is through our Royal Seigneury to defend (that is, in old French, to forbid) force of Armour, and all other force against our Peace, at all times when it shall please us, and to punish them according to our Laws and Usages of our Realm, and hereunto they are bound to Aid us as their Sovereign Lord as oft as need shall be. From whence you may observe, that it is the King's Prerogative to forbid all manner of Arms or Armed force within the Realm; so that no man can lawfully Arm himself without his Authority: And this is further confirmed by the Statute of 25 Ed. the Third, concerning Treasons, wherein it is declared (without any excepted Cases to the contrary) That to Levy War against our Lord the King in this Realm, or to be adherent to the King's Enemies in his Realm, giving them Aid or Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, is Treason. And Sir Edward Coke upon this Statute saith thus, That this was High Treason before by the Common Law, for no Subject can Levy War within the Realm without Authority from the King; and if any man Levy War to expulse Strangers, to deliver men out of Prisons, to remove wicked Councillors, or against any Statute, or to any other End, pretending Reformation on their own heads without Warrant, this is Levying of War against the King, because they take upon them Royal Authority. From which Statute, as also from your own Oracles (Sir Ed. Coke 's) Interpretation of it, you may observe that it is not only Treason to make War against the King's Person, but to take Arms to make any Reformation or Alteration in Church, or State, without the King's Authority; nor can any Subject of England justify the taking Arms upon any account whatsoever, unless it be by the King's Commission; and therefore all the Judges of England in the Case of Dr. Story, 
Vide Dyer's Reports.  who was Executed for Treason in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, did with one consent agree, that the very Consultation concerning making War against the Queen, shall be interpreted a making War against her Person, and supposes a design against her Life: So that nothing seems plainer to me, than that by the Ancient as well as Modern Laws of England, all defensive as well as offensive Arms are expressly forbidden and condemned.  F. 
I think I shall be able to make out, notwithstanding what you have now said, that all Resistance of the King, or those commissioned by ●im, is so far from being Treason, as you suppose, that it is every man's duty to oppose him in case he goes about to set up, instead of a Legal Monarchy, a Tyrannical Arbitrary Power in this Nation, since this is but to preserve the Original Constitution of Parliaments, which in some cases cannot be maintained without such a Resistance be allowed. But to proceed to the Authorities you bring from our Statutes; as for the first, you urge from that 7th Edward the First; I think that can by no means do the business for which you design it; for in the first place, this is only Declaration of the Bishops, Lords and Commons of the Land, that it belongs to the King to defend (i. e. forbid) all force of Arms; but mark Sir, what force? sure it is only meant of such Force as belongs to the King's Prerogative to forbid; viz. force of Arms against the Public Peace, and such as he might punish according to the Laws and Usages of the Realm; and therefore the Statute expressly declares▪ that (as Subjects) they are hereunto bound Aid him their Sovereign Lord the King at all times when need shall be; but does this Act any where say, that he hath an Irresistible Power to disturb this Peace by his own private Illegal Commissions, or that any men are bound to assist him in it; or because (for example) he hath Authority to punish all men according to Law that shall come to Parliaments with force of Arms, that therefore he hath an unlimited power of raising what Forces he would, and in prisoning or destroying the whole Parliament if he pleased, and that no bod● might resist him, if he had gone about so to do. The like may be said, if the 〈◊〉 should notoriously, and insupportably by force invade all the Civil Liber●●●● and Properties of his Subjects by Levying Taxes, and taking away the●r Estates by downright Force, contrary to Law, now can any body in his senses believe that the Act of 25th of Ed. 3. was made to prevent all Resistance of su●h Tyrannical Violence and that the Resistance of those Forces (whether foreign or domestic) that might be sent by the King's private Commissioners to murder or enslave us, is making War against his Person, or that it comes within any of the Cases expressed in that Statute, and therefore cannot fall within the compass of Sir Edw. Coke's Comment upon this Statute, all the offences therein specified being Treas●ns at Common Law before that Statute was made; nor is the Reformation there mentioned, to be understood of a just and necessary Defence of our Lives, Liberties, Religion, and Properties, as settled and established by the Laws of the Land, to be looked upon as making War against a weak or seduced King, but is rather in defence of him, and the Government, by opposing Tyranny, which will certainly bring both him and us to Ruin at last; so the Reformation he there mentions is only to be be understood of such Insurrections and Rebellions as have been made under the mere pretence of Religion, or obtaining greater Liberties for the common sort of People than they had by the Law of the Land, such as were the Rebellions of Wat Tyler in King Richard the Second, and Mortimers in H●●ry the 6th Reigns, not to mention the other Rebellions raised by the Papists in the times of King Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth's Reigns; all which being begun by Seditious or Superstitious men, were certainly rank Rebellions, and so are and aught to be esteemed by all good Subjects.  M. 
I grant these pretences seem very fair and specious, yet notwithstanding this your pretended right, or a necessity of Resistance of the King, or those commissioned by him in case of Tyranny, has been still looked upon as Rebellion in all Ages, and the Actors dealt with accordingly where ever they were taken.  F. 
I do not deny but as long as Arbitrary and Tyrannical Princes could get the better of it, and keep the Power in their own hands, they still Executed for Traitors whosoever opposed or resisted their wicked and unjust Actions, tho' they were never so near Relations to them; thus both Edward and Richard the Second put their Uncles the Dukes of Lancaster and Gloucester to death merely because they joined with the rest of the Nobility and People to prevent their designs. So that it is not the Execution of the Man, but the Cause that makes the Traitor, since Princes are seldom without a sufficient number of Judges and Jurymen to condemn whomsoever they please to fall upon.  
But that the Clergy, Nobility and People of England have always asserted this right of Self-defence in case their Liberties and Properties were unjustly invaded by the Tyrannical or Arbitrary Practices of the King, or those about him; I think I can prove by giving you the History of it in so many Kings since your Conquest, as will render it indisputable, if you please to give me now the hearing, or else to defer it till the next time we meet.  M. 
I confess I was so weary of sitting up so long at our last Conversation, that I made a Resolution not to do so any more; and therefore since it grows late, let us leave off now, and I promise to meet you here again within a night or two, and then I will hear how well you can vindicate your right of Resistance from Law or History; but if you have no better proofs for it than the Rebellion of the Barons in King john and Henry the Third's Reigns, you will scarce make me your Convet, since Impunity does never sanctify a wicked action, or render it the more lawful; and you have already given it me for an Axiom, that a facto ad Ius non valet consequentia.  F. 
I accept of your Appointment with thanks; but pray do not forejudge my Arguments till you hear them; and as for the Axiom, I allow it for good, provided I may urge it in my turn; but in the mean time I shall wish you good night.  M. 
And I the same to you.  
FINIS.   

Bibliotheca Politica: OR A DISCOURSE By WAY of DIALOGUE, Upon these Questions; Whether by the ancient Laws, and Constitutions of this Kingdom, as well as by the Statutes of the 13th and 14th of King Charles the II. all Resistance of the King, or of those commissioned by him are expressly forbid, upon any pretence whatsoever.  
And also, Whether all those who assisted his present Majesty King William, either before, or after his coming over, are guilty of the breach of this Law.  
Collected out of the most Approved Authors, both Ancient and Modern.  
Dialogue the Ninth.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, near the Oxford Arms; where also may be had the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, six, Seventh and Eighth Dialogues. 1693.   

Authors chiefly made use of in this Dialogue, and how denoted in the Margin.  

Dr. sherlock's case of Resistance. S. C. R.  
Mr. johnsons' Reflections upon it. I. R. S.  
Dr. Hick's answer to julian: Entitled jovian. H. I.   
I desire the Reader to remember, that whenever I make use of the word People in this, or the following Discourse: I mean thereby the whole diffusive body of the Nation, consisting of the Clergy, Nobility, and Commons.   

The PREFACE TO THE READER.  
I Must beg your pardon, if I have exceeded my intended design, (in the Preface to the first of these Dialogues) of reducing what I had to say on the Subjects there laid down into eight Discourses; Since being obliged to vindicate the Ancient Constitution of Parliaments, from the Cavils of some late writers; there was a necessity of considering what Dr. Brady had with so great industry heaped together against the House of Commons, being anciently a constituent part of our Parliaments, before the 49th of Henry the III. in the doing of which, if I have proved too prolix, I can only say I could not avoid it, without baulking those Arguments the Doctor has made use of to support his opinion.  
But having already treated in the third and fourth Dialogues, upon the Questions of Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance, as a Moralist, and a Divine; I come now to handle the same Question as a Lawyer; and to examine whether by the ancient Laws, and Constitutions of our English Government, and by the late Statutes of the thirteenth and fourteenth of King Charles the II. all taking up of Arms against the King, or those Commissioned by him, be absolutely forbidden, and declared Treasonable; in the doing of which I can assure you, I have not failed impartially to set down, whatever I have either heard or read materially urged for one or the other opinion, and I have also consulted some of the wisest and most judicious Members of the long Parliament of King Charles the II. to learn what was then the sense of both Houses of Parliament, concerning the words of that Oath; but whether I have any ways mistaken the sense of those August Assemblies; I humbly submit it to the judgement of this present Parliament. For cujus est condere, ejus est interpretari: and I hope for the like ingenuity from those, who give a different and stricter interpretation to the words of those Statutes, and the Oath therein contained; which tho' it be now no longer enjoined, yet since it may still be thought to bind such as have taken it, it was very necessary to inquire what was the true intent of those that imposed it; that is indeed, what is the legal sense of the words of that Oath.  
But as to the inconveniencies, and mischiefs that may arise from the People's judging what Commissions of the Kings are Legal, or Illegal; and either resisting them: or yielding obedience to them, as they shall see cause: I have only this to say, that I desire those of the contrary opinion, seriously to consider all the inconveniencies and mischiefs that may happen on the other side; if the King is invested with an absolute irresistible power not only to issue what commissions, but to whom and to what ends he pleases, tho' never so illegal, and arbitrary: and that the whole Nation must yield an active obedience, or at least a passive submission to them without the least resistance, no, not so much as to assist any Foreign Prince, who should come in to their assistance▪ as his Present Majesty (when Prince of Orange) generously did: And when any man has without prejudice and passion considered consequences; I shall freely leave it to him to embrace which side he pleases, since I hope it is neither Heresy, nor Treason, to be of either; and therefore I only desire the Reader to peruse this discourse without passion, or prejudice, and then it is indifferent to me what party he takes; since I think men may be honest and, conscientious who believe either way; and I do not expect, nor desire any man to be of this, or that opinion, farther than his reason shall guide him in which if he be mistaken he has no body to blame but himself; since he is not sit to judge who is to be trusted with arguments only for that, which he already believes to be the right side.  
I have no more to mind you of at present, but to suppose these Papers to be written before their present Majesties were declared King and Queen;) and in a time when every body not only thought, but spoke freely.   

THE Ninth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman, AND Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian.  F. 
SIR, I am glad to see you again so soon, for I was just now looking over some of our Old Historians, that lie here upon the Table, to rub up my Memory for sufficient Instances and Authorities, that it hath been always the received and constant Custom and Practice of the Clergy, Nobility, and People of this Nation, to defend the Ancient Government of this Kingdom by general Councils or Parliaments, as also their just Liberties and Properties, not only by Remonstrances, and Petitions to, but by Force too, against the King's and those commissioned by him, in case they found them evidently, and violently invaded, beyond what any fair, or gentle means, and intercession were able to redress: And for proof of this, I shall go as high as the Times of the Kings of the West Saxons, from whom all the Kings of England before the Conquest were descended, after the Kingdom of the West Saxons had prevailed over all the rest. I shall therefore begin with the Reign of Sigehert King of the West Saxons, who, as I told you in your Sixth Conversation, breaking the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom, and Tyrannising over all form of People, was in a general Council of the whole Kingdom deposed, and expelled into the Forest of Audredswald, where he was afterwards slain by a Hogheard. As the Saxons Annals under the Year 755. as also Huntingdon, and Mal●sbury relate. I shall not mention the Deposition of King Edwin, by the Mercians and Northumbrians, and their choosing his Brother Edgar in his stead, because not done by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom; and that also for slight, and insufficient grounds.  
Therefore since the Times before the Conquest do afford us no more examples of this kind among the Kings of the West Saxon Race; (to which I only confine myself) since those Kings being for the most part at Wars with the Danes to the Time of Edward the Confessor, had somewhat else to think on than the making themselves Absolute, or Tyrannising over their Subjects; but indeed, there is scarce to be found in History a Succession of more mild, just and valiant Princes, than Egbert the First King of all England, and his Descendants.  M. 
Pray Sir tell me to what purpose you cite these Instances of the Nobility and People of England deposing and casting off their Kings in the Times before the Conquest; is it that you would justify that Commonwealth Principle, that the Parliament hath the like Power to depose the King at this day in case of any Infringement of the Fundamental Laws, of the Kingdom, or breach of the Original Contract (as those of your Party now term it?) if you do, pray speak plain, and then I shall know what Answer to give you.  F. 
Tho'l assert it (as undeniable in matter of fact) that the English Saxons did often exercise that Power they had reserved to themselves, of Electing and Deposing their Kings, when they became insupportable for Tyranny or Misgovernment, as appears not only in the Kingdom of the West Saxons, I have now instanced in, but in almost all the other Kingdoms of the Heptarchy; in which there are to be found many more Instances of the Deposition of their Kings, tha● what were in the West Saxon Kingdom▪ & this wa● then very just and necessary, since these Kingdoms were all Elective; and none of them Hereditary; and that the general Meeting of the great Council of the Nation was always at set, and constant Times; and did not depend upon the Will, and Pleasure of the King, either to call or dissolve them, as I have already proved; and that this Power was no unusual thing; I appeal to all the Ancient Kingdoms of Europe founded after the same Model as ours; and which I mentioned at our last Meeting; so that nothing is more frequent in their Histories and Annals, than the Deposing of their Kings for the abovementioned Crimes of Tyranny, or Misgovernments▪ But that some of these Gothick Kingdoms, as Denmark, and Sweden▪ whilst they continued Elective, have exercised this Power even till of late, is so notorious in matter of fact, that it needs no proof, since the Kings of those Kingdoms held their Crowns at this day by that Title, and on those Conditions, which the Nobility and People gave them, after the Deposition of their Predecessors.  
But though this were so anciently also in England, it does not therefore follow that it must be so now, for since the Crown of this Kingdom became Hereditary, and that the Calling and Dissolving of great Councils or Parliaments came to depend wholly upon the King's Will; I must allow, that the Case is quite altered and that the Two Houses of Parliament have now no power to depose the King for any Tyranny or Misgovernment whatsoever. The first Parliament of King Charles the Second in the Act for attainting the Regicides have actually disclaimed all Coercive Power over the King; and yet for all that, the Nobility▪ and People of England may still have a good and sufficient Right left them of defending their Lives, Religion, and Liberties against the King, or those commissioned by him in case of a general, and universal Breach and Invasion of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, or Original Contract, (if you will call it so) and not to lay down those Defensive Arms till their said just Rights and Liberties are again restored, and sufficiently secured to them: So that tho' I will not bring the Custom of the English Saxons as a precedent for the Parliament's Deposing of the King; yet I think I may make use of it thus far, that this Nation has ever exercised this necessary Right of defending their Liberties, and Properties, when invaded by the King, or his Ministers, either by colour of Law, or open Force: And that this hath been the constant practice from almost the Time of the Conquest down to later Ages, I think I can make out from sufficient Authorities, both from Histories and Records.  M. 
Tho' your Doctrine is not so bad as I expected, yet it is still bad enough; and I never knew this Right of Resistance carried home, but that it always ended in Deposing, and Murdering of the King at the last; as we have seen in our own Times: But let the constant practice have been as it will, I am sure such Resistance hath been always condemned by our Ancient Common▪ Law, as well as Modern Statutes, as I shall prove farther to you by and by; and therefore pray give me leave to tell you, that the never so constant practice of an unlawful thing, can no more justify the doing of it, than that constant usage, time out of mind, for Thiefs to Rob between London, and St. Alban; not that I fore-judge you, or refuse to hear any Instances and Authorities from Histories or Records to make good your Assertion.  F. 
I thank you for your patience; what therefore if I prove that such Resistance has been not only actually exercised by the Clergy, Nobility and People in former Ages, but that it hath been also allowed by our Kings, and approved of by great Councils or Parliaments in those Times for lawful, and the Actors in it wholly indemnified and saved harmless, nay, a power given them, and that by the King himself, to resist him, and defend themselves in case he broke his Charters, and Agreements made to, and with his Nobility and People, or else with some Foreign Prince; may appear from this remarkable Instance of King Henry TWO at the end of whose Reign Hoveden in his Annals, 
Pa●●● Poster.  gives us the Conditions of the Peace made in the last Year of this King between him, and Philip King of France, with the Consent of their Bishops, Earls, and Barons, where among other Articles you will find this for one, particularly relating to the Barons of England, who were also to swear to the Peace, in these Terms, Et omnes Barones Angliae jurabunt, quod si Rex Angliae noluerit has Conditiones tenere, quod ipsi tenebunt cum Rege Franciae, & Comite Richardo, & eos adj●vabunt pro posse contra Rege● Angliae, etc. Whence we may without doubt conclude, that the Resistance of Subjects in some cases against their Kings, was then allowed of, even by the King himself, and thought not inconsistent with the Allegiance they bore him, tho' it might suspend it for a time.  M. 
I confess this Instance would be of some weight, were it not for the Critical Time when this Peace was made; viz. when Richard Earl of 〈◊〉, the King's Eldest Son, had Rebelled against his Father, and taken part with the King of France; and had drawn over a great many of the Norman, and Pictavian, and English Barons to his Party; which when King Henry perceived, this very Author you have quoted here, tells you, Quod Rex Angliae in arcto positus Pacem fecit cum Rege Philippo; that is, was constrained to make Peace with him; so that King Henry being in this straight, the King of France, and Earl Richard, with the Barons of his Party, forced King Henry to sign what Conditions they pleased; for there it no such Clause so much as mentioned for the French Barons.  
But make the most of it, it is but a Temporary Relaxation of Allegiance from King Henry to his Barons, and the King might surely thus release them if he pleased: But it is plain, they could not have acted thus without this Condition had been expressly inferred.  F. 
Well, supposing King Henry to have been never so much constrained to the making of these Conditions, and that it was his own Act that rendered it lawful, it still proves, as much as I urge it for, viz. that neither the Kings of France, or England, then thought this Resistance absolutely unlawful; for then the King's own Act could never have dispensed with it.  
But to show you farther, that the People of this Nation have ever maintained this Right of Resistance, even with the allowance of our Kings themselves; and for the doing of this, I shall proceed with the earliest Instances of this kind after the Conquest; viz. in the Time of King Richard the First, during whose absence in the holy Land, he had committed the Government of his Kingdom to William Bishop of Ely, 
Vi, R. Hovedens Annal, part posterior. 399.  who abused his Power by an Arbitrary and Insolent Carriage, affronting and oppressing john Earl of Morton, the King's own Brother, and Geoffry Archbishop of York, the King's base Brother, whereupon they rose up against him; and having the Bishops, the Earls and Barons of their side, appointed the said Bishop a day to answer to his Crimes in the King's Court, or great Council of the Bishops, Lords and Tenants in Capite, then called Curia Regis, where when he refused to appear, they all with one consent came to London, and fought with the Followers and Adherents of the said Chancellor by the way; when they came to Town, Earl john, with the Arch-Bishops of York and Roven, with all the Earls and Barons, together with the Citizens of London, met in St. Paul's Churchyard, and there it was proposed, that the said Chancellor should for his Evil Government he deposed and banished the Kingdom, and so he immediately was by the general Consent of the Common Council of the Kingdom; so that you see the Nobility, Clergy and People, had then no notion of an Irresistible Power in the King; and those put in Commission by him, when they found their Power to grow Tyrannical, and Insupportable.  M. 
But if I forget not, you omit one material Circumstance in this Aff●ir, which seems to make against you, which is, that Archbishop of Roven, and William the Earl Marshal did at that time produce the King's Letters, signed with his 〈◊〉, wherein he had appointed that they two should be associated in the Government with the Bishop of Ely, and that he should do nothing without their privity and consents; and of those associated with him in the business of the Kingdom; and that if he offered to do otherwise, he should be deposed: So that it seems what they now acted, was not so muchin opposition to the King's Commission as to the Bishops, who had refused to obey his Commands.  F. 
I confess it was as you set forth; yet this makes nothing against my Opinion; since it is apparent that Arms were taken, and this Resistance made by the major part of the Bishops, Earls and Barons, together with the Londoners, before ever it was known that such Letters were written by the King: And so it seems they would have done much the same thing if there had been no such Letters sent by the King at all. You may also remember that all these proceedings also were approved of, and confirmed by the King himself.  
But that I may proceed in my History of Nonresistance, I come to the Reign of King john his Brother, who when he had refused the Archbishop of Canterbury, and all the Bishops, Earls and Barons of the Kingdom, to confirm the great Charter of King Henry the First, 
Mat. Paris, A.D. 1215. p. 252. & dein.  they, together with the rest of the great Men and People of the Kingdom, of all degrees and conditions, took up Arms, and made a vast Army, resolving never to lay them down, till he had new granted, and confirmed the Charters of Liberties, and Forests; till at last the King finding himself almost quite forsaken, so that he had scarce five Knights left about him; he was at last forced to meet the said Bishops, Earls, Barons and People at Runne-Mead, and there to grant them that great Charter, which has been the Subject of so much discourse between us; so that you see here that the Church of England in those Times (if the Bishops and Clergy are the Representatives of this Church) had then no notion of this Doctrine of Passive Obedience to the King's Absolute Will and Commands.  M. 
I cannot deny the matter of fact to be as you say, but yet you may remember that the same Author tells us, that the Pope thought the King, 
Ibid. p. 166.  hardly dealt withal in this matter, so that he gave Audience to the King's Ambassadors concerning the Rebellions, and Injuries, which the Barons of England had committed against their King; and that upon a solemn hearing of the whole business, and after a consultation with his Cardinals, he did as Supreme Lord of Eng●and, (after King John's Resignation of his Crown to him) by his Bull then published make void the said great Charters of Liberties, and Forests; and condemn all the Barons proceedings, as against their Duty, and Allegiance to the King their Sovereign Lord; so that it seems this was not approved of any where but by the Actors, the Pope thereupon Excommunicating the Barons, and Suspending the Archbishop of Ca●terbury for joining with them.  F. 
I believe you will make nothing of this Objection; 
Ibid. p. 230.  for it appears from the same Author, that the Pope had before this Excommunicated the King; and as far as lay in his power, deprived him of his Kingdom, and absolved all his Subjects of their Allegiance; so that it is plai●, it was not out of any true Principle, or hatred of Rebellion, and Resistance in Subjects, that the Pope had thus acted; but purely to gratify the King at this juncture of time, and to defend him in his Tyranny▪ and breach of his own Charters, because he was then become his Vassal, and so he cared not how much he oppressed his Subjects, because he was thereby the more able to pay him the Tribute, before promised; and he could also expect the more securely to extort Money from the whole Kingdom: But that this Bull of the Popes was contrary to the King's own Express Act and Agreement, appears plainly by that Clause, which is still to be found in a Charter under the Seal of this King; and which seems to have been the Heads of the great Charter, (according to which it was drawn into the Form we now find it in Mat. Paris) in which it is expressly provided, and granted by the said King, that in case he should go about to break or infringe any Clause in the said Charter, and shall not amend it within the space of forty days that then I●li Barones cum Communia totius Terrae distringent & gravabunt nos modis omnibus quibus poverint, aut (scil.) per captionem Castrorum, Terrarum, possessionum, & aliis modis quibus potuerint, donec fuerit emendatum secundum arbitrium eorum, salva Persona nostra & Regin●e nostra, & Liberorum nostrorum, & cum ●uerit emendatum intendent nobis sient prius fecerunt. So that you see here in the Judgement even of the King himself, they might freely resist, and take up Arms against him, till he made good every Article of these Charters, if violated; and were not to return to their Obedience till it was amended; and the like Clause almost word for word is also to be found in the conclusion of the great Charters published in Mat. Paris. 
P. 261.   M. 
I grant the Clause is there as you quote it; yet I much doubt whether it was of any validity, being no doubt drawn up by the Barons then in Arms, and which the King durst not at that time refuse, and so he was indeed under a kind of duress when he did it. And besides, pray mark the conclusion of this Clause▪ this Resistance was to be Salva Persona nostra & Reginae nostrae, & Liberorum nostrorum, cum fuerit emendatum, intendent nos sicut prius fecerunt. Now how this Security here reserved for the King's Person could consist with that open War the Barons made afterwards against his very Person, and casting off all their Allegiance to their Natural Prince, and calling in Prince Lewis, Son to the King of France, I cannot understand.  F. 
I think all this may very easily be solved,: For in the first place, K. john was no more compelled to agree to this Clause, than he was to the Charters themselves; and if those were lawful, and reasonable, so was this Resistance too, since there was no other way or means lest to preserve them, in case the King should go from his own Acts, and break through all he had done; so that if the ends were lawful, the means to preserve it must be so too; or else those Charters would have signified nothing any longer than the King pleased: As for the other part of the Objection, that this Resistance was still to be, saving the Person of the King and Queen, etc. and that this did not consist with the Barons, after making War against his Person, and casting off all Allegiance to him: It was not their faults, but the King's, if they could not perform this Agreement, since the King by making War upon the Clergy, Nobility and People, by his open, and notorious breach, and recalling of these Charters, calling in Strangers to his assistance, and declaring he would no longer govern according to Law, had made it absolutely unpracticable to preserve their Allegiance to him any longer; so that they never cast off their duty as Subjects, till he had cast off his duty as a King, and then what was there else left to be done but to provide for their own safety, by calling in a Foreign Prince to their Assistance, as soon as they could? since there was no other way left them to defend themselves against those Troops of Strangers the King had invited over; and though many of them with their Captain Hugh de Boves, had been cast away, and drowned in a Tempest at Sea, yet more were daily expected: So that if Tyrants should suffer nothing for the breach of their own Charters, and Oaths, they would be in a better condition, by their violation, than the observing of them; ●or by the making them, they for the present quiet the Minds of their discontented Subjects, and when they please may break them all again, when they have got power, if no body must presume to resist them; or not think them as much Kings when they destroy, and oppress their People, as when they protect, and preserve them by governing according to the Laws of the Kingdom. But pray what have you to say against that general Resistance that was made by almost all the Bishops, Barons, and great Men of England against his Son Henry the Third, about the frequent and notorious violations of the great Charters which his Father and himself had so often sworn to, and confirmed, and for which he had received such great Benevolences and Subsidies from the Nation?  M. 
Before I answer this Question, pray take notice that I am not at all satisfied with your Arguments; that when ever Subjects shall think themselves injured, and oppressed by their Sovereigns, that then they may cast off their Allegiance to them; if they cannot have the Remedy they desire; since this were to make them both Judges and Parties too in their own Cause; which is altogether unjust, and unreasonable, between private Men, much more between Kings and Subjects. But passing by this at present, I shall tell you my Opinion of this Resistance of Simon Montfort, and the Earls and Barons his Adherents, that it was downright Rebellion, and tended only to dethrone the King, and make him a mere cipher, and to devolve the whole Government upon themselves; as appears by the Oxford Provisions recited by so many Authors of that Age; and which were afterwards condemned, (and consequently those violent means by which they were obtained) by Lewis the Ninth King of France, who in an Assembly of his Estates, upon a solemn hearing of the whole difference between King Henry the Third, and his Barons, declared these Oxford Provisions null, and void. So far was this good and pious King from countenancing any Rebellion (or Resistance, as you term it) of Subjects against their lawful Sovereign.  F. 
For all this, I cannot find that the King of France did then at all condemn this defence the Earls and Barons had before made of the Liberties granted them by the great Charters; for tho' he restored the King to his former Power, by avoiding the Oxford Provisions, yet at the same time when this was done, 
P. 992.  (as the Continuator of Mat. Paris tells us) he expressly excepted the Ancient Charters of King john, Vnivers●li [seil. Angliae] concessae, and from which per illam sententiam in nullo intendibat pen●tus derogare; and if he did not in the least intent to derogate from them, he could not with any Justice condemn the only means the Barons had to maintain them; after so many Trials, and fresh Promises and Oaths of this fickle inconstant King all broken, and laid aside; so that you may as well or better allege the Pope's shameful Absolution of this King from this Oath he had made to observe the great Charters, as an Argument why they should not be any longer bound by them, nor the Barons obliged to defend them; as this Sentence of the King of France to render the Resistance the Barons had made in defence of the great Charters to be unlawful: And that King Henry himself did afterwards allow this Resistance for good and lawful; Pray see the Agreement which was not long after made in full Parliament, 
Rot. Pat. 49 H▪ 3. M. 5.  in the 49th between the King, the Prince, and all the Prelates, Earls and Barons of England; whereby he obliged himself to observe all the Articles and Ordinances which had been before agreed upon at London in the 48th Year of his Reign: And then follows this Clause in the Record (which the Doctor himself has printed in his Appendix at the end of the first Volume of his Introduction to English History) which I shall here translate out of French, because it is very old and obscure, it is thus: And if our Lord the King, or Monsieur Edward; (viz. the Prince) shall go against the Peace and Ordinance aforesaid, or shall grieve the Earls of Leicester or Gloucester, or any of their Party by reason of any of the things aforesaid; that then the great Men, and Commons of the Land, (in French hauz Homes, & Comun de la Terre) shall rise against them to grieve them to the utmost of their power, and shall be obedient to them in nothing, and in doing all things as if they were bound to them in nothing, until these things shall be amended and maintained according to the Ordinance of the Peace aforesaid; and to this our Lord the King, and Monsieur Edward, and the great Men of the Kingdom, have sworn upon the holy Gospels, to keep and maintain the things aforesaid. And with this Record agrees this King's Latin Charter, much to the same purpose recited in the Annals of Waverly, 
P. 217.  An. 1264. only the words there are more general, that if the King or Prince should break the said Peace by hurting or falling upon any of the said Earls of Leicester, or Gloucester, or any of the Persons abovementioned, Liceat omnibus de Regno nostra contra nos insurgere, & ad gravamen nostrum, opem & operam dare juxta posse, ad quod ex praesenti praecepto nostro omnes & singulos volumus obliga●i, fideliter & homagis nobis, facto non obstante. So that you see here, that by the Judgement of the King himself, and the whole Parliament, this Resistance might be exercised notwithstanding 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 Sheriff of Yorkshire, to be seen upon the same Roll, 
Rot. Claus. 49 H. 3. m. 5.  and in the same Membrane) unanimi consensu & voluntate nostra, & Edwardi filii nostri Primogeniti, Praelatorum, Comitum, Baronum, & Communitatis Regni nostri, etc. which Doctor Brady thought fit to conceal, and not publish with the former Record, because the word Communitas did not at all suit with his Notions in this place.  M. 
I must confess this so solemn an Agreement upon the Record would have been very considerable, had it been made, whilst the King and Prince had been free, 
R.A. P. 135. & dein.  and in their own power: whereas the Dr. has made it plainly appear, that the King and Prince were at this time in the power of Simon Montfort, and his Adherents, who called that famous Parliament of the 49th, to which we suppose the Commons were first summoned; 
Ibid. 143.  and therefore the Prince was not delivered at this time (any more than the King his Father) out of their power, and was only taken out of Dover Castle, and made a Prisoner at large under a Guard (as his Father was) until he made his escape from his Keepers at Hereford Castle: So that I do not at all value this Agreement, because made by duress; tho' I confess the words of the Records are express, that it was de unanimi co●sensu & voluntate nostra, etc. Edwardi Filii nostri. But it appears plainly, that by this Agreement the King had discharged himself of all Royal Power, and confirmed this Agreement, whereby the whole Government of the Kingdoms, and Nomination of all the great Officers of the Crown was put into the hands of Nine Earls and Barons.  F. 
At this rate no Act that a King can do when he hath the worst of it, tho' confirmed by a Solemn Oath (as this was upon the holy Gospels) can ever be binding; for it is but alleging that it was done by duress, and it is sufficient to render it null and void: But be it as it will, this was certainly the general Consent, Act and Declaration of the whole Nation assembled in Parliament, and that owned by the King himself, and his Son the Prince, and all his Party. And farther, that this Resistance of the Earl of Gloucester (who was one of these Barons) was not after counted for Treason, or Rebellion, appears by that Pardon of the said Earl which we have before cited to have been made by this King, 
Rot. Pat. 51 H. 3. m. 161  with Assent of the King of Almain (his Brother) and the Counts and Barons, and Commons of the Land, in which he pardoned the said Earl, and all his Company, (and also all the Londoners) all rancour and ill-will; and in the same manner as the King quits and discharges the Earl, and his Company; so does the said Earl hereby for himself, and all his Company, remit to all those that were of the Party of the King, any thing done since that moment (that is, that Civil War in which the Earl of Gloucester, had so great a share) so that you see this Resistance of the Earl of Gloucester was within two years after the Battle of Evesham so far from being looked upon as Rebellion, that the Pardon is made mutual, not only for the Earl, and those that followed him, but also for those that had taken the King's part.  
But I shall come now to his Son, and Successor, King Edward the First, where we shall find this Doctrine of Resistance asserted more than once, not only by private men, but by the whole Parliament, as appears by those Letters that were written by the King's command or (permission at least in the 29th of his Reign) in the name of all the Earls, 
Vide Mat. Westminist. Anno 1301. p. 436.  Barons, & tota Communitas Angliae, to Pope Boniface the Eighth, in vindication of the King's Superiority over Scotland; to which you will find this remarkable passage, Nec etiam permittimus, nec permittemus, sicut non possumus nec debemus praemissa tam insolita, indebita, & praejudicialia, & alias inaudita, praelibatum Dominum nostrum Regem, etiam si vellet facere, modo quolibit attemptare: Which restraint of the King's Will must certainly mean some what more than a bare Remonstrance or Declaration against it; since we have seen in our own Times, Kings make nothing of mere verbal Declarations of the Two Houses of Parliament, if they had a mind to do a thing they thought belonged to their Prerogative, tho' the Parliament declared against it. And to let you farther see that this Doctrine was at this time generally believed, and practised all over Europe, you will find almost the same Clause in the Letters which were written in the Reign of Philip the fair King of France, Anno 1203. (which falls about the 30th of our King Edward the First) and were sent to the same Pope Boniface, upon the occasion of his manifold Usurpations upon the Church of France, in the name of the whole Clergy of that Kingdom; 
Prin's second Vol. of Pap. Usurpations, p. 954.  whereby it not only appears that this was done in a general Assembly of Estates, viz. of the Clergy, Barons, etc. & Communitates Villarum; but they also there declared, expressius, viva voce, Quod si praesatus Dominus Rex (quod absit) tolera●●, v●l dissimulate veilet, Ipsi (scil. Episcopi, & Barones, &c.) nullot●nus sustinerent. So that here you see not only the Temporal Estates, but the very Clergy declare, that they would by no means suffer the King to act thus no not) if he would.  
But the Barons and People of England, did actually put this Doctrine in Execution, some few years before this Letter, I now mentioned, was writ to the Pope; which transaction I shall give you almost verbatim out of Mat. of Westminster, and Henry de Keyghton, in Anno 1297. (being the 26th of Edward the First) when the King having extorted a great sum of Money from the Clergy, and People, contrary to Law, and being then going into Flanders, he called a Parliament at Westminster, where most of the Earls and Barons refused to appear, until such time as their Petitions for the ease of their Country were heard; and that the King would again confirm Magna Charta: Yet nevertheless the King upon his confession of his Male Administration, which he made before all the People, with Tears in his Eyes, and promise of amendment, then obtained of the Commons an Aid of the Eighth Penny of their Goods: But as soon as the King was gone over, the Constable, and Earl Marshal, with other Earls and Barons, went to the Exchequer, and there forbade the Judges to levy the said Tax upon the People by the Sheriffs, because it was done without their knowledge, without whose consent no Tax ought to be exacted, or imposed; so that the said Earls and Barons being thus gathered together, and the greater part of the People joining with them; at last Prince Edw. then Lieutenant of the Kingdom, was forced to call a Parliament; to which the Earls and Barons came attended with great multitudes, both of Horse, 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 passed the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo; both which were afterwards again confirmed by the King his Father some time after his Return.  
And this will serve to explain the last Article in this Statute, which comprehends the King's Pardon or Remission to Humphrey Earl of Her●ford and Ess●x then Constable, and Roger Bigot Earl of Norfolk Marshal of England (the two principal Leaders in the late Resistance) with all other Earls, Barons, Knights, and Esquires of their Party, all Leagues and Confederacies; as also all Rancour, and Ill-will, with all other Transgressions against them, & And pray see Sir Edward Coke's Comment on these words, 
2d Instit. 1. p. 536.  you compare our English Histories with this Act of Parliament, the Old saying shall be verified, That Records of Parliaments the truest Histories. The King had conceived a deep displeasure against the Constable, Marshal, and others of the Nobility, Gentry, and Commons of the Realm, for denying that which he so much desired; yet for that they stood in defence of their Laws, Liberties, and Free Customs, etc. (I suppose he refers to the Resistance but now mentioned) whereupon he did not only restore the same to them as aforesaid, but granted special Pardon to those against whom he had conceived so heavy a displeasure, etc. and such a one as you will scarce read the like; and after a short gloss upon the words Rancour and Ill-will, he thus comments on these words, etiam transgressiones si q●as fec●in●; here the words, si qua● sic●i●t, were added, lest by acceptance of a pardon, they should confess they had transgressed. So careful were the Lords and Commons to preserve their Ancient Laws, Liberties, and Customs of their Country; so that it is plain that Sir Edward Coke then thought the Lords and Commons had not transgressed in thus standing up, tho' with force of Arms, for their just Rights and Liberties; and which sufficiently proves that this Author did not conceive such a Resistance to be making War against the King, and so Treason at that time at Common Law, and consequently not to be afterwards Treason by the Statute of 25th of Edward the Third (as you would have it) since that Statute d●es not make any other Overtacts to be Treason, but what had been so by Common Law before this Statute was made.  
But in the Reign of this King's Son Edward the Second, there were much more pregnant, and fatal proofs of the exercise of this Right of Resistance by the Earls, Barons, and People of England against Peirce Gaveston, whom having been before for his Misgovernment of the King, banished the Realm by Act of Parliament, and coming over with the King's Licence, but without any reverse of the said Act; Thomas Earl of Lancaster, the King's Uncle, with the rest of the Earls, Barons, and Commons of the Land, took up Arms against him: And tho' he raised some Forces by the King's Commission, yet they fought with him, and took him Prisoner, and beheaded him, near Warwick. Some years after which the said Thomas Earl of Lancaster, with Humphrey de Bohun Earl of Hereford, together with divers other Earls and Barons, took Arms, and spoiling 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 banish the said Spencer's out of the Kingdom, tho' they quickly returned again; against whom when the said Earls above mentioned, and divers other Barons and Knights again took Arms; but being failed by some of their Confederates, were overpowered by the King's Party, and the Earl being taken Prisoner, was attainted, and beheaded at Portfract; yet was the this Judgement against the Earl; and those of his Party afterwards reversed in Parliament, in 1 more. Edward the Third, and their Heirs restored in blood; as also to the Lands of their Fathers; as besides the Act it still to be seen upon the Rolls, appears more plainly by a Writ of this King's reciting; 
Rot. Claus. 1. E. 3. p. 2.  that whereas at a Parliament at Westminster, among other things it was agreed by the King, the Prelates, Earls, Barons and Commons of the Kingdom, that all those who were in the Quarrel with Thomas E. of Lancaster against the Spencers, should have their Lands and Goods restored, because the said Quarrel was found, and adjudged by the King, and the whole Parliament, to be good and just; and that the Judgements given against them were null and void, and therefore commands restitution of the Lands and Tenements now in the Crown to the Executors of the said Earl; and the like Writs are found for the other Lords and Gentlemen that had been of his Party.  
And further, that not only this Resistance made by this Earl, and the rest of his followers, but also that which this King himself made together with Queen Isabel his Mother against the Misgovernment of the King his Father, through the evil Counsel of the two Spencers, appears by the Act of Indemnity passed in the first Year of this King, in the preamble of which there is recited a short History of the wicked Government and Banishment of the Spencers, Father and Son; and also how Thomas late Earl of Lancaster, was by their procurement pursued, taken, executed, disinherited; and how the said Spencers, and Robert Baldock, and Edmund Earl of Arundel, by the Royal Power they had usurped, had caused the King that now is, and the Queen his Mother, to be utterly forsaken 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 so great Jeopardy in a strange Country, and seeing the destructions, and disinherisons which were notoriously done in England, upon holy Church, the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and the Commonalty of the same, by the said Spencers, Robert Baldock, and Edmund Earl of Arundel, by the Encroachment of Royal Power to themselves; and seeing they might not remedy the same, unless they came into England with an Army of Men of War, and have by the Grace of God with such puissance, and the help of the great Men and Commons of the Realm vanquished and destroyed the said Spencers, etc. therefore our Sovereign Lord the King, by the Common Council of the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other great Men, and of the Commons of the Realm have provided, and ordained &c. as follows; That no great Man, nor other of what Estate, Dignity or Condition soever he be, that came in with the said King, that now is, and with the Queen in Aid of them, to pursue their said Enemies, and in which pursuit the King his Father was taken and put in Ward, etc. shall be impeached, molested or grieved in person, or in goods, in any of the King's Courts, etc. for the pursuit, and taking in hold the body of the said King Edward, nor for the pursuit of any other persons, not taking their goods, nor for the death of any Man, nor any other things perpetrated, or committed in the said pursuit, from the day of the King and Queen's Arrival, until the day of the Coronation of the said King.  
This Act of Indemnity is so full a Justification of the necessity, and lawfulness of the Resistance that was then made against King Edward the Second, and his wicked Councillors the Spencers, that it needs no Comment: And tho' King Edward the Third took warning by the example of his Father, and was too wise then to follow the like Arbitrary Courses; yet Richard the Second his Grandson, being a wilful, hot headed young Prince, fell into all the Errors of his great Grandfather, and found the like, if not greater Resistance from his Nobility and People; for when he had highly misgoverned the Realm by the Advice of his favourites, Alexander Archbishop of York, the Duke of Ireland, and others; a Parliament being called in the 10th Year of his Reign, the Government of the Kingdom was taken out of their hands, and committed to the Bishops of Canterbury, and Ely, with Thomas Duke of Gloucester, the King's Uncle, Richard Earl of Arundel, and Thomas Earl of Warwick, and nine or ten other Lords and Bishops; but notwithstanding this, the King being newly of Age, refused to be governed by the said Duke, and Earls, but was carried about the Kingdom by the said Duke of Ireland and others, to try what Forces they could raise, and also to hinder the said Duke and Earls from having any Access to him: But see what followed these violent, and arbitrary courses, as it is related by Henry de Knighton, who lived and wrote in that very time, and is more exact in this King's Reign than any other Historian; 
Col. 2697.  he there tells us, that when Thomas Duke of Gloucester, and the other Bishops and Earls now mentioned, sound they could not proceed in the Government of the King and Kingdom, according to the Ordinance of the preceding Parliament, through the hindrance of Mich. de la Poole, Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, Nich. Brembar, and Robert tresilian Chief Justice, and others, who had seduced the King, and made him alienate himself from the Council of the said Lords, to the great damage of the Kingdom; whereupon the said Duke of Gloucester, and the Lords aforesaid, with a great Guard of Knights, Esquires, and Archers, came up towards London, and quartered in the Villages adjacent; and then the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Lovat, the Lord Cobham, the Lord Eures, with others, went to the King in the name of the the Duke, 
Ibid. 2700.  and Earls, and demanded all the persons abovementioned to be banished as Seducers, and Traitors to the King; and all the Lords than swore upon the Cross of the said Archbishop, not to desist till they had obtained what they came for; the conclusion of this Meeting was, that the King not being able to withstand them, was forced immediately to call that remarkable Parliament of the 11th Year of his Reign, in which Mich. de la Poole, and the Duke of Ireland were attainted, and tresilian, and divers other Judges sentenced to be hanged at Tyburn upon the Impeachment of the said Duke of Gloucester, and the Earl of Arundel, for delivering their Opinions contrary to Law, and the Articles the King had not long before proposed to them at Nottingham.  
I shall omit the Resistance which Henry Duke of Lancaster made after his Arrival by the Assistance of the Nobility and People of the North of England against the Arbitrary Government of this King, being then in Ireland; not only because it is notoriously known, but because it was carried on farther than perhaps it needed to have been, and ended in the Deposition of this King. Only in the first Year of Henry the 4th, there was the same Act of Indemnity almost word for word, passed for all those that had come over with that King, and had assisted him against Richard the Second, and his evil Councillors, as was passed before in primo of Edward the Third. I shall not also insist upon the Resistance of Richard Duke of York, in the Reign of King Henry the 6th, who took up Arms against the Evil Government of the Queen and her Minion the Duke of Suffolk: because you may say, that this was justifiable by the Duke of York as right Heir of the Crown; nor will I instance in the Resistance made by the Two Houses of Parliament, during the late Civil Wars in the time of King Charles the First, since it is disputed to this day, who was in the fault, and began this Civil War, whether the King or the Parliament: Only thus much I cannot omit to take notice of, that the King in none of his Declarations ever denied but that the People had a right to Resist him in case he had made War upon them, or had introduced Arbitrary Government, and expressly owned in his Answer to one of the Parliaments Messages, that they had a sufficient power to restrain Tyranny, but denied himself to be guilty of it; and still asserted that he took up Arms in defence of his just Right and Prerogative, to the Command of the Militia of the Kingdom, which they went about to take from him by force.  M. 
I have with the greater patience harkened to your History of Resistance in all the Kings Reigns you have mentioned, because I cannot desire any better Argument to prove the unlawfulness of such Resistance, than those Acts of Pardon, and Indemnity: You cannot but confess, have still followed it even when the Barons proved most fortunate, as in that of Henry the Third, to the Earl of Gloucester, and those of his Party; and that of Edward the First, to the Constable and Marshal, and their followers; nay, after the former Kings had been unjustly deposed, we still find the Actors and Complices of such wicked Actions, did not think themselves safe till they had an Act of Indemnity passed to them, of all the Robberies and Murders they had committed in the War, as yourself have recited in the two Acts of Parliament in the Reigns of Edward the Third, and Henry the Fourth. Now if these Resistances had not been downright Rebellions in the Eye of the Law, to what purpose were these Acts of Indemnity passed, since no man needs a Pardon, but rather merits a Reward for defending the Government Established according to Law?  F. 
In answer to this Objection (for which I am already prepared, since I foresaw you might make it) pray give me leave to ask you whether you can find the words Treason, Rebellion, Robbery, or Murder, in any of these Acts of Pardon? and if you cannot, whether you think Treason, or Murder, could be pardoned by general words or not; and the reason why I ask this Question, is, because if they could not, than the consequence will be, that none of these Parliaments supposed that the Resistance that had been made, or all the other Acts performed in pursuance of such Resistance, were looked upon by those that had done them, no nor by the Parliament itself, to be Treason, Rebellion, or Murder, since certainly those that were Actors in such Resistances, and taking up of Arms, having the power in their hands, would not have failed to have had those words inserted into those Acts of Indemnity, if they had supposed themselves guilty of those Crimes.  M. 
I cannot say that the words Treason, and Rebellion, or Murder, are expressly mentioned in these Statutes, since even the Actors in them did not think it for their Credits to own themselves to have been guilty of any such Crimes; yet all the particular words and expressions in these Acts amount to the very same thing, for the taking up Arms with one that is not King, against him that is, & the actually seizing upon his Person, and keeping him in hold, was Treason at Common Law before the Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third; and is not taking men's Goods by force, and destroying their Persons in time of Peace, Rebellion, and Murder at Common Law? So that if these were the Facts, they had been guilty of; and if these Acts were Treason, Rebellion, Robbery, and Murder, then certainly all Treasons, Rebellions, Robberies and Murders are likewise pardoned by those Statutes: And tho' 'tis true, the Law is now, that no pardon of Treason or Murder shall be good, unless those Offences are particularly named; 
Stat. 2. chap. 1.  yet this was so ordained by the Statute of the 13th of Richard the Second, by which it is particularly provided, that no pardon shall be allowed before any Justice for the death of a Man, etc. Treason, etc. unless the same Murder, Treason, etc. be specified in the said Charter, before which Statute Sir Edward Coke in his second Instit. tells us, 
P. 236.  that by the pardon of all Felonies, Treason was pardoned, and so was Murder, etc.  F. 
I cannot deny but that these Facts you mention were Treason, in strictness of Law, before the making that Statute; yet does it not follow that even these may be in some cases justifiable (as well as binding a King, when he is out of his Wits) if the public Peace of the Kingdom, and preservation of the Government according to the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom require it: Thus for example; suppose King john, after he had made actual 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 secured his Person to prevent his making a new War upon them? and yet this by the Letter of the Law had been Treason. Now there are many actions, which in strictness of Law are Treason, yet being for the public defence and security of the Nation, deserve a pardon of course: Thus if Foreign Enemies should Land in England, and a Neighbouring Nobleman or Gentleman, who has no Command over the Militia of the Country, should raise on the sudden such a Force of his Tenants and Neighbours, as were sufficient to make ahead against them till the Militia of the Country could come in to their Assistance; tho' this taking up of Arms without an Express Commission for it, be a high Misdemeanour; (●ay Treason, according to your Principles) yet I suppose you will not deny but that the persons engaged in it, do not only deserve pardon, but thanks for their Courage, and so speedy Assistance of the Government. And I remember I have read a famous Instance of this kind, that when the Traitors concerned in the Powder-Plot found themselves discovered, they fled into Warwickshire, and thence into Worcestershire, and were pursued and taken by the High Sheriff of that County in Staffordshire; which tho' a great Misdemeanour, since no Sheriff can justify carrying the Posse Comitatus out of the County; yet this was so well taken▪ that King james the First rewarded him, and (as I take it) Knighted him for his pains.  
But to apply this to the matter in dispute, tho' it is true, taking, and imprisoning the King's Person is Treason in the Eye of the Law; yet (as in the case of Edward the Second) if the Government could not be restored to its pristine State without that extremity, it must, and will ever deserve a pardon; and therefore you see the Parliament in the first of Edward the Third, not only pardons, but justifies the doing of it, because done for that end. So likewise the Statute of the 11th of Richard the Second, Chap. 1. not only indemnifies, but justifies the Duke of Gloucester, the Earls, Lords, and all others of his Party, for taking up Arms against the persons abovementioned, tho' maintained and backed by the King himself, 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 against the King, and imprisoning his Person; so that if taking up Arms for the safeguard of the King, and Salvation of the Kingdom, were just, and necessary to be done, the consequences of it, viz. the taking of men's Goods, and killing of these that resist them, cannot be Robbery, or Murder, because done in a State of War; which can never be carried on without such Acts of Hostility: And therefore you see in the Act of Pardon to the Earl of Gloucester, and to the Londoners granted in Parliament of the 51th of Henry the Third (which I have now cited) those that took part with th● King are as expressly pardoned, as those that were with the Earl; and in the like pardon to the Constable and Marshal in the time of Edward the First (which I now also quoted) those Lords would not own they had transgressed; but the words are only, etiam transgressiones si quas fecerit: So that since such Reformations could not be brought about without violence and bloodshed; and some Irregularities, which in times of Peace could not be justified by the strict Letter of the Law, it was but reason, that for the quieting of men's minds, and their future security, they should be indemnified for what they had done with so good an intent, and for the common good of the Kingdom: But that such Acts of Pardon do not relate to the Titles such Kings had to the Crown, but only to their being Kings in the Eye of the Law, appears by a like Act of Pardon passed in Parliament in the first of Henry the Seventh to pardon, and save harmless all those that came over with the King, and all that helped him to recover his just Right to the Kingdom against King Richard the Third, there called, that Usurper: So that you may see such Acts of Pardon do not concern the just Titles of Princes, nor the Justice of the War, but are to quiet men's minds under the new Government; whereas those that took part with the Usurper, were not pardoned, but left to the Law, since the present Government would not take care for their security that had obstructed its settlement. So the Act of Oblivion of the second of Charles the Second, tho' it pardons Treasons expressly, yet it as well pardons the Treasons of them that had Commissions from King Charles the First or Second, as well as those that acted by Commissions from other pretended Authorities: So that you see in the Judgement of this so modern a Parliament, men might be supposed to be guilty of Treason, tho' they had taken part with the King, and had acted by ●is Commission, if the things commanded were illegal.  M. 
I confess you have taken a great deal of pains to justify taking up Arms against, nay, Imprisonment of our Kings, when that which you call the preservation of the Government requires it; that is, when there is a ●action in the Kingdom strong enough to make a disturbance; for it was very well said by Tacitus in the speech he makes for Otho to the Soldiers, to take up Arms, and kill Galba, than Emperor, that it was in vain to speak more for the justification of that Action; quod Laudari non potest nisi peractum: Treasons, if successful, have never wanted a sufficient Party in the Nation to make up a Parliament to countenance them, and to pardon, nay justify all those that have been Actors in them; as we may see by those Acts of Indemnity you mention; and therefore I am not the more convinced, that such Resistance was lawful, notwithstanding those specious Declarations of Parliament, of their being made for the public good, and preservation of the King and Kingdom.  
But you have done very warily to pass by without any Justification, the Deposition of King Edward the Second, as also, that of the Resistance (as you call it) of Henry Duke of Lancaster against King Richard the Second; as also his Deposition, tho' done in Parliament; since all the proceedings against this King were repealed in Parliament, in the first of Edward the 4th, as appears by the Parliament Rolls of that King's Reign, wherein the taking up Arms against King Richard by Henry Earl of Derby, is said to be done contrary to his Faith, 
Rot. Parl. 1 Ed. 4. m. 9 etc.  and Legiance, and his taking the Crown called Usurpation, and the kill of King Richard his Sovereign Lord, termed (as it justly deserved) Murder▪ and Tyranny, which does (tho' not directly, yet) by consequence, condemn his Deposition too, since he is after that here called King; and you do as warily pass by the late Rebellious War of the Long Parliament against King Charles the First, as also his horrid Murder before his own Gates; because you know cry well, that this Doctrine of Resistance seldom stops with a bare Reformation of what is amiss; but commonly ends with the Murder, or Deposition of the King, or else driving him from his Throne, as we now find it by woeful experience in the Person of our Unfortunate King, who was so lately forced to quit this Kingdom for the security of his Person; and therefore to put an end to this part of the Dispute, the Parliament of the 13th of King Charles the Second were so sensible of the great Mischiefs that attended this Rebellious Doctrine, as having been the destruction of one of the best Princes that ever Reigned, and the occasion of the loss of so many brave Men; besides the ruin of so many great and Noble Families, that they were resolved to do their utmost to prevent it for the future; and therefore the King and Parliament in the 13th and 14th of King Charles the Second, passed those remarkable Acts concerning the Settlement of the Militia in the King and his Successors, to take away all dispute about it, tho' they declare it to have been his Ancient Right; and therefore to take away all pretence for taking up Arms either by the Two Houses of Parliament, or any other person whatsoever; they, in preamble to both these, 
13 Car. 2. Chap. 6.  that these Acts thus expressly declare, Forasmuch as within all His Majesty's Realms and Dominions the sole Supreme Government, Command and Disposition 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 over was the undoubted Right of His Majesties and His Royal Predecessors, King and Queens of England; and that both, or either Houses of Parliament cannot, nor aught to pretend to the same, nor can lawfully raise, or ●evy War offensive or defensive, against His Majesty, His Heirs▪ or Lawful Successors; and yet the contrary hereof hath of late been practised almost to the ruin and destruction of this Kingdom; and during the late Usurped Governments, many Evil and Rebellious Principles have been distilled into the minds of the People of this Kingdom, which unless prevented, may break ●orth to the disturbance of the Peace and Quiet thereof, etc.  
And in pursuance of this Statute, it was likewise ordained by the Authority aforesaid, in the 2d Statute for the Militia in the 14th year of the same King, 
Chap. 3d.  wherein not only the same preamble is recited verbatim, as before in the former Statute, but it is also Enacted, That no person, (no not a Peer of the Realm) shall be capable of acting as Lieutenant, Deputy Lieutenant, Officer, or Soldier, by virtue of this Act, unless after the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy they take this Oath following; viz. I A. B. do declare and believe, that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against the King; and that I do abhor that Traitor's Position, that Arms may be taken by his Authority against his Person, or against those that are Commissioned by him in pursuance of such Military Commissions; and it is also to be noted, that all Mayors of Cities, or other Corporations, were obliged by a former Statute of the 13th of this King to take the same Oath: From both which Statutes, and Declaration, we may draw these Conclusions; First, That the Militia (i. e. the Command of all Military Forces and Warlike Affairs) are declared to be wholly in the King. Secondly, That either, or both Houses of Parliament cannot make any War offensive or defensive against him, etc. Pray mark that. Thirdly, That the contrary practice hath tended almost to the destruction of this Kingdom, and that many evil and Rebellious Principles (whereof this without doubt is intended for the chief) have been instilled into the minds of the People, etc. And lastly, That in pursuance thereof, all person's abovementioned were not only obliged to renounce taking up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever; but also against any that shall be authorised by the King's Military Commissions, without any Exceptions. And it is farther Enacted, That all Clergymen should be obliged to take this Oath as well as the Laity; and it is likewise there ordained, That all Clergymen who were to enjoy any Livings or Preferments in the Church, were likewise for the space of Twenty Years next ensuing, obliged to subscribe this Declaration; so that it is no wonder if the Loyal Clergy of the Church of England, think themselves not only tied by the Express Rules of Scripture, but also by the Laws of the Land, strictly to observe this great Law of Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance: Now pray see here the Doctrine of Nonresistance in its full amplitude; 
jov. p. 219.  yea, this very Doctrine declared to be the Law of this Kingdom, and that by two express Acts of Parliament. And can you think the Two Houses were not in earnest when they made this Declaration; surely had they not been so, they had been very ridiculous to jest with all our Laws and Liberties, had they not been, I say, verily persuaded of the truth of this Doctrine by Law as well as by Scripture: So that I hope you must now be forced to confess, that even our own Representatives have solemnly renounced for themselves and the whole Nation, all right of Resistance, so much as defensive, against those Commissioned by the King, upon any pretence or occasion whatsoever; and we have left us nothing whereby to defend ourselves against our Kings, or those Commissioned by them (no not if they never so much abuse their power) but the old Primitive Artillery of Preces, and Lachryma.  F. 
As for what you have more than once said, that this Doctrine of Resistance, if carried home, always ends in the Deposition▪ and Murder of the King, tho' it hath I grant sometimes happened, yet that has not been always so, but most often to the contrary, as appears in those Resistances that were made in the Reigns of King Richard the First, Henry the Third, Edward the First, and divers times in Edward, and Richard the Second Reign, before things were driven to that extremity, as they afterwards were; and as I will not justify the Deposition of those Princes, tho' done by Parliament, yet will I not absolutely condemn them, since no Act of Parliament hath, as I know, ever done it: And tho' it is true, all the proceedings in Parliament against Edward the Second, are taken off the Rolls, yet was it not done by Order of Parliament, but by Richard the 2d alone, when he by his exorbitant courses feared to be served after the same manner; but that there was in those times some Ancient Law extant, which was also destroyed by that King, appears by that remarkable Declaration of the Lords and Commons in Parliament, sent by way of Message to the King (than wilfully absenting himself from the Parliament) by the Duke of Gloucester his Uncle, and the Bishop of Ely, who sure were too great to tell so notorious a Lie: 
Col. 2683.  The Speech you will find at large in Knyghton, beginning thus; Domine R●x. And after many Petitions, and good Advices, at last thus concludes; which I shall give you in Latin,— Sed & unum aeliud: de animo nostro superest nobis ex parte Populi vestri vobis intimare, habint enim ex antiquo Statuto, & de facto non longe retroactis temporibus experienter quod dolendum est habito, si Rex maligno Consilio quocunque, vel inepta con●●macia aut contemptu, seu protervae voluntate singulari, aut quovis modo irregulari se alienaverit à Populo suo, nec voluerit per jura Regni, & Statuta, & laudabiles Ordinationes cum salubri Consilio Dominorum, & Procerum Regni, gubernari, & regulari, sed captios● in suis in●anis Confiliis propriam voluntatem suam singularem proterve exercere, tunc licitu● est iis cum com●uni assensu Populi Regni, ipsum Regem de Regali solio abrogare & propinquiorem aliquem de stirpe Regis loco ejus in Regni solio sublimare.  
From whence you may observe, that the Lords here relate to an Ancient Statute or Law then in being, tho' the execution of it on the person of his great Grandfather Edward the Second, was but of times not long passed; and that King Richard might as well destroy the Record of that Law, being not then commonly known, or in private men's hands, as well as he did divers other Records, as appears in the 24th Article against this King, wherein it is set forth, That the said King had caused the Rolls of the Records touching the State, and Government of this Kingdom to be defaced and razed, to the great prejudice of his People, and the disinherison of the said Realm, etc. So that nothing is more certain, than that the Two Houses of Parliament, at that time, did look upon it as their undoubted right to Depose the King in case he violated the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom; tho' how this could consist with that Power which the King then exercised, of calling and dissolving Parliaments at his pleasure, I do not understand, since it can never be supposed that a King, if in full power, would permit a Parliament, called in his name to sit, to Depose himself for Evil Government.  
As for the Resistance made by the Two Houses against King Charles the First, I shall not undertake to justify, for the Reasons already given; as also because it it was not a War undertaken by the general consent 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 the Parliament; yet it is also certain, that the major part of the Nobility and Gentry of England fought for the King, and were so considerable a number, as to make an Anti-Parliament at Oxford; so that this War could never have happened, had not the King parted with the power of disobeying of the Parliament out of his hands; much less will I justify the Murder of this King, or of any others abovementioned, as being no necessary consequences of that Resistance I only allow for lawful, viz. that of the whole or major part of the Nation; nor were Edw. the Second, or Richard the Second put to death by any Act or Order of Parliament, but were murdered In Prison; and the Murderers of Edward the Second were afterwards attainted by Act of Parliament, and Executed as they deserved: But as for the Murder of King Charles the First, 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 Factious Rump or Fag-End of the House of Commons, who fate by the power of the Army; after far the major part of the Members who were for the King were shut out of doors, and the Lords Voted useless and dangerous.  M. 
I confess you have made as good an Apology for these Actions as the matter will bear; but that neither of the Two Houses 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 express Declaration of both Houses in the Statute of the 12th of Charles the Second, as also in those but now cited, in which they utterly disclaim all making War, whether offensive or defensive against His Majesty; much less can he be subject to any other Coercive or Vindictive Power, or ought any ways to be resisted by private persons; therefore supposing I should grant (as I do not) that the Parliaments had formerly a power of Deposing of their Kings, or that the Clergy, Nobility and People had formerly a right of taking up Arms against the King in case of notorious Tyranny, and Misgovernment; yet is all such Resistance expressly renounced, and declared unlawful by the Oath and Declarations now cited; so that tho' in the dark Times of Popery such Resistance might be counted lawful, not only by Laity, but also by the Bishops and Clergy, who ought to have taught the people better Doctrine; yet I think it had been much better for the Nation to have endured the worst that could have happened from the Tyranny of Kings, than to have transgressed the Rules of the Gospel, and the constant Doctrine of the Primitive Church by Resistance, and Rebellion against the Supreme Power of the Nation.  F. 
I shall not now maintain that the Two Houses of Parliament have any Authority at this day to Depose the King, or maintain a War against him, upon any account; yet that they have still a power to judge of the King's Actions, whether consonant to Law or not, and whether he has not broke the Fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom, is no where given up, as I know of: But that Resistance in some cases is not contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel, I have already proved, and that it was not directly contrary to the Laws of the Land before these Statutes, you do partly grant. But since the main strength of your Cause, lies in this Oath appointed by these Acts of Parliament, therefore if I can give a satisfactory Account of the true meaning and sense of these Acts, to be otherwise than you suppose, I hope you will grant that Resistance may still be lawfully made by the whole body of the people in the Cases I have now put, against any persons, who under colour and pretence of the King's Commission should violently assault their persons in the free exercise of their Religion, as it is by Law Established, or should go about to Invade● their Just Liberties, and Properties, which the Fundamental Laws of England have conferred upon every Freeborn Subject of it.  
And in order to the clearer proof of this, I shall make use of this Method: I shall first explain the Terms of this Declaration, and then I shall proceed to show you that in a legal sense all Defensive Arms, or Resistance of the King's Person in some cases, or of those Commissioned by him is not forbidden, nor intended to be forbid by these Statutes and Declarations: First then; By taking Arms against the King, is certainly meant no more than making War against the King, according to the Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third, which declares making War against the King to be Treason, and this is unlawful upon any pretence whatsoever. Secondly, The Clause by his Authority against his Person, is only to be understood of the King's Legal Authority; and by his Person is meant his Natural, and Politic Person when acting together, for the same ends, as I shall show you by and by: So that both these Statutes are but declaratory of the Ancient Common Law of England against taking up Arms, and making War against the King, and do not introduce any new Law concerning this matter; so that whatever was Treason by the Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third, is Treason by these Statutes, and no more; viz. all taking up Arms, or actual making War against the King in order to kill, depose, or imprison him, etc. as Sir Edward Coke shows us in his third Institut. in his Notes upon this Statute; yet notwithstanding after this Statute of the 25th of Edward the third, the Clergy, Nobility and People of England assembled in Parliament, did suppose it still lawful to take up Arms against those illegally Commissioned by the King in case of notorious Misgovernment and breach of the Fundamental Laws of the Nation, as appears by that general Resistance made by reason of the evil Government of the Duke of Ireland, and those concerned with him, in the 11th of Richard the Second, which, as I have already proved, was allowed for lawful by Act of Parliament, and consequently by the King's own consent, without which it could never have been so declared: The like I may say for that Resistance which was made in King Henry the Sixth's Reign by Richard Duke of York, 
Vid. Graston's Chronicle, p. 627.  and the Earls and Barons of his Party against the Evil Government of the Queen, and the Duke of Somerset, who governed all Affairs in an Arbitrary, and yet unsuccessful manner, by reason of the easiness and weakness of King Henry: But tho' this Resistance was also approved of in the next Parliament of the 33d Year of this King, yet I shall not so much insist upon it, because I know you will allege that this was made by the lawful Heir of the Crown against an Usurper, since the Crown was not long after adjudged to be his right, tho' King Henry was allowed to wear it during his life; yet however it shows the Opinion of the Clergy, Nobility and People of England at that time concerning the lawfulness of such Resistance, before this Declaration of the Estates of the Kingdom concerning the Legality of the Duke of York's Title was made in the Parliament abovementioned.  
Thirdly, That the Parliament by these Statutes of the 13th of Charles the Second for the Militia, never intended thereby to enable, or leave it in the power of that King or his Successors, to make this Kingdom an absolute Despotic Monarchy instead of a limited one, as they must have done, had they declared that the King, and those Commissioned by him, might do what they pleased with the Religion, Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People of this Nation, and that it was Treason to resist in any case whatsoever; sure they could not but remember that Commission of Sir Phelim Oneals, in the year— 41. whereby he pretended to be impowered, to drive the English Protestants out of Ireland, and to set up the Popish Religion in that Kingdom, and restore the Irish to their Estates; and sure divers of them could not be unmindful that this was to give away all right of Self-defence in case any future King should by his own innate Tyrannical Temper, or the evil Counsel of wicked men be persuaded to use Force upon the persons of the Lords and Commons, either whilst they were actually sitting, or in their passage to the New Houses, since by this Act or Oath, if understood in your sense, they must have barred themselves, and the whole Nation, of all right of Self-defence, in any case whatsoever, tho' of the greatest extremity; and therefore I doubt not, but the intent of this Parliament was to leave things as they found them; and as it was absolutely unlawful for the People of this Nation to take up Arms against the King, so it is also as unlawful in him, or those Commissioned by him, to make War upon the People, or to disseise them by force of their Religion, just Rights, Liberties or Estates; and if the King hath a right to defend himself, and his Crown and Dignity against Rebellion, so must the People of this Nation have a right likewise to defend themselves against Arbitrary Power, in case of an Invasion of any of the Fundamental Rights abovementioned; or else all bounds between a Limited and Despotic Power will be quite taken away, and the King may make himself as absolute as the King of France, or great Turk whenever he pleases.  M. 
I will not dispute with you about bare matter of fact, or that a prevailing Faction might not in turbulent times, and during the Reigns of weak and ill advised Princes, take upon them by force of Arms to remove Evil Counsellors, and to put the Government of the Kingdom in what hands they pleased, and then procure Acts of Parliament to indemnify themselves for so doing; yet I cannot allow that even such Acts could make it lawful to take up Arms against the King, or those Commissioned by him, upon any pretence whatsoever: So that tho' I grant that the intent of this Parliament of King Charles the Second, was not to make any new Law against Resistance, or taking up Arms against the King, yet was it their design so to explain the Ancient Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third, that none should for the future doubt in the least, that all taking up Arms, or Resistance of the King, or those Commissioned by him, upon any pretence whatsoever, was unlawful and treasonable; and for this we need go no farther than the very words of these Declarations, which the Parliaments of the 12th and 13th of Charles the Second have made concerning this matter; as first, in the Statute of the 12th of Car. 2. Cap. 30. for attainting the Regicides, that two Houses of Parliament expressly declared, That by the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom, neither the Peers of this Realm, nor the Commons, nor both together in Parliament, nor the People collectively, or representatively, nor any other persons whatsoever, ever had, hath, or aught to have any Coercive Power over the persons of the Kings of this Realm: Whereby not only all the Traitorous Examples of the Depositions, and Imprisonments of King Edward, and Richard the Second, are expressly condemned, but also all taking Arms to force the King to redress our grievances, whether he will or not: And farther, that all Arms, whether offensive or defensive, are expressly forbid. Pray mind that Clause in the Preamble to these Acts of the Militia I now mentioned, wherein that Parliament expressly renounces all taking up Arms, as well defensive as offensive, against the King; and the words of the Oath itself are yet more strict, that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever, to take up Arms against the King: Now can any thing be plainer than that all defensive Arms, tho' for our Religion, Lives and Liberties, or whatsoever else you please, are expressly declared to be against the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom.  
But as for the dreadful consequences of this Law, if never so strictly taken, they are not so bad as you are pleased to fancy; for as to your instance of Sir Phelim Oneal's pretended Commission from King Charles the First, you may be very well satisfied, that it was a notorious piece of forgery, since besides that good King's constant denial of any such Commission granted by him, Sir Phelim, when he came to suffer in Ireland, for raising that horrid Rebellion, did voluntarily at the Gallows acknowledge, that he had forged it himself, by putting the Seal of an old Patent which he had by him to that pretended Commission you now mention: Nor indeed can it ever enter into my head, that any King should grant a Commission to destroy or make War upon his People as long as they continue in their duty to him, tho' of a different Religion from himself; tho' perhaps he may think fit for some reasons, to disarm them, or deny them the public Exercise of their Religion, or render them uncapable of bearing any Offices of public Trust in the Kingdom; but if these should be lawful Causes of Resistance, why the Papists should not be allowed it as well as the Protestants, I can see no reason to the contrary. As for your other Instance, that the Parliament by renouncing all defensive Arms, must be supposed likewise to give up all right of Self-defence in case the King, or any Commissioned by him should use any violence to the persons of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, or in going thither, this is so unlikely, and remote a case, that it hardly comes under the consideration of a bare possibility: But however, let the worst that can be happen, I am very well satisfied that the Parliament was then so thoroughly convinced of the Mischiefs had befallen this Nation by this Republican Doctrine of Resistance, having been the cause of the destruction of the best Constituted Church and Government in the World; as also of the murder of one of the best Princes that ever Reigned, that they were resolved rather to trust to the Coronation Oaths, and innate goodness of our present and future Kings, than to suppose any War could be lawfully made against them, upon any account whatsoever, which would have been expressly contrary not only to the Doctrine of the Church of England, but the known Laws of the Land.  F. 
I do not deny but the persons of the Kings and Queens of this Realm, are, and aught to be sacred, and inviolable, and yet no man will therefore say, that they are irresistible too in all cases whatsoever; as if the King (for example) should attempt to ravish Women, or rob, or murder men upon the Highway, or in the Streets, as the Ancient Historians relate of Nero and Commodus the Emperors, and as is reported of the last King of Portugal, and which was one of the reasons of the Estates of the Kingdom removing him from the Government: And as our Henry the Fifth is related by our Historians to have robbed Men upon the Highway before he was King; so if he had gone about to continue the same frolic after he came to the Crown; I do believe his Person, and all those that Robbed by his Commission, had not been irresistible; nor would it have been Treason within the Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third, tho' he was then actually King, any more than it would have been Treason had the like happened when he was Prince, tho' he was expressly within that Statute, and yet this would not have contradicted the Parliaments Declaration in the 12th of Car. the 2d. That neither the Parliament nor the People having Coercive Power over the persons of the Kings of this Realm; since by Coercive Power must be here understood, his being subject to the penalties of the Law, or being called to an account by any ordinary Jurisdiction; but there is a vast difference between that, and Resistance for Self defence, since I may use this against the violence of my Father in the State of Nature, as I have already proved; tho' I cannot justify the punishment of my Father, or calling him to an account as his Superior; therefore it is only in the King's Politic Capacity that he can be said to do no wrong, since you see he may personally commit the greatest Crimes imaginable, tho' his person is unaccountable for want of a Superior Power to call him to an account; yet is it not so with those who act by his Illegal Commissions or Commands, since having delegated the Executive part of his Regal Power to his subordinate Ministers, and Officers; 'tis they that are accountable and punishable too by the Law of the Land in case they any way transgress, or violate it, by his illegal Commissions or Commands, as I shall prove more at large by and by. And as no War properly so called can be made against a single person, but against a Man as he is aided or assisted by many others: So this War against the King can only be interpreted of such Wars or Rebellion as are made against him in his politic capacity as he is King, and Supreme Governor of the Realm, and the Commander of all the Militia thereof to Legal intents, and for the defence thereof against Foreign or Domestic Enemies; nor was there any great fear according to the Ancient Legal Constitution of this Kingdom, that this could often fall out, or indeed he put in practice by the Kings of this Realm, if we consider the Ancient Form of ordering the Forces, or Militia of this Kingdom.  
For in the first place I desire you to observe, that by the Common Law of England before these Acts of the Militia, the King himself could not but in case of Invasion or Insurrection Levy or keep on foot any standing Forces in England, unless for Foreign Succours, which was usually by Contract with some great Lord or other Person, or by Tenure against the Scotch and Welsh; and as for the Militia, it was never reduced into Troops, Companies, or Regiments, till the Spanish Invasion, as will appear by all Acts of Parliament in the Statutes at large where Acts for the Assize of Arms were made only for Men, to provide and have in readiness such Horses and Arms, to show them before the King's Commissioners when they should be required to take view of them, a Regimented Militia, being of no elder date than Queen Elizabeth. King james the First did by Act of Parliament in the first year of his Reign repeal all former Acts for Assize of Arms, and never established any thing in 〈◊〉 thereof. So it stood till King Charles the Seconds time, that these new Acts for the Militia were made. And (to confirm this point beyond all dispute) in all the quarrels between the King and the Barons, and York and Lancaster, the Parliament still refused to meet unless the Forces were disbanded that were raised upon those occasions. Nor had any King standing Forces or Guards, till King Henry the Seventh● Time, when that of the Yeomen was settled by a special Act of Parliament; and what is most remarkable, the Commons in the Long Parliament of Charles the Second did by their Votes entered upon their Journals declare and assert, that by Law no Armed Force could be kept up in time of Peace, except the Militia; and as for Foreign Succours, they were obliged to be carried immediately to the Port of their discharge, and were not to exceed one Month at furthest from the time of their first Muster; as for Castles and Forts within the Realm, they were all supplied and defended by Tenors; but for the Militia, of old time, it was in the Sheriffs of the Counties to make use thereof for the Execution of the Laws, and defence of the Kingdom, except in the cases aforesaid; and it was Treason for any Subject to Levy Soldiers, except by the King's Commission, and in the cases aforesaid; or so much as to Ride or go Armed, as may appear by the Statute of Northampton, in the 2d of Edward the Third; much less was it lawful for them to take up Arms, unless in their own defence against Illegal Violence, and in such manner as the Law directs; and it was one of the Articles that was adjudged to be Treason in Parliament against Mortimer, 
Vide Parliam. Roll. 410 of Ed 3. de Reg. de Mort. Mar. Art. the 2d.  that he Rid Armed to Parliaments, and threatened the Prelates and Peers that did any thing against his will, and caused the King to make War on his Nobles, who advised the King to Levy War upon his Subjects. See Coke's 4th Institutes Title Council-board, where the 4th Article against the Spencers is, that they falsely and maliciously had counselled the King to raise Horse and Arms in destruction of the good People, against the Form of Magna Charta, and so by their Evil Counsel would have moved War within the Realm to the destruction of Holy Church and of the People for their proper quarrel; so that taking Arms by the King against his Subjects, and the Subjects against the King, was both alike against Law.  
2ly, That taking Arms against the King in construction of Law, is Levying War; but this by no means extends to defensive Arms in maintenance of the Law, which is allowed and enjoined; and that nothing else was here mean, is plain, since by the subsequent words in this Oath it is restrained to the taking Arms by his Authority against his Person, or those Commissioned by him▪ which shows that nothing here is intended to be forbidden, but taking up offensive Arms upon popular pretences without and against the Authority of the Law, which is further explained in another Test by the Authority of both Houses of Parliament.  
Thirdly, 'Tis observable, this is but a Test upon some 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 so much; the first part of this Oath requiring only that the party admitted into Office, shall so declare and believe,; and tho' the second Clause call it a Traitorous Position, yet this is restrained only to these two particulars, That Arms may not be taken up by the King's Authority against his Person, or those Commissioned by him, which can have reference to nothing but that distinction taken up in the late Times of Civil War, when the Parliament pretended to take Arms, and grant Commissions in the Name of King and Parliament, by virtue of that Authority which they supposed he left with them at Westminster; so that this Clause can by no means exclude any Arms made use of for Legal defence according to Law.  
Fourthly and lastly; Tho' the words against those Commissioned by him may seem to extend the matter further, and is mistaken by some, as if ●t required at least Passive Obedience to all Commissions of the King, tho' never so illegal; yet there is not the least colour for it, since nothing is a Commission but the King's Legal Command or Authority pursuant to some Law, and for putting the same in Execution, which is the Legal definition of a Commission; and when this Test was first brought in to the second Parliament of King Charles the 2d, and that the word Legal was offered to be added to the Bill; upon a long Debate it was only left out, because it was declared by all the Lawyers in the House, (even by Sir Hen. Finch, than the King's Solicitor) and agreed to by the whole House, that it was clearly implied, and could bear no other construction, but that all Illegal Commissions were Null, and void, and in no Legal sense could be called Commissions; so that taking up Arms in the defence of the Law, and pursuant thereunto, cannot in any wise be called a taking Arms against the King's Person, or those Commissioned by him; and farther that by the words, in pursuance of such Military Commissions are meant such as are warranted by that Act, & such as the King may issue, by his Royal Authority which is bounded by Law, and consequently cannot grant any Commissions, but what are according to Law; so that if these Commissions are granted to persons utterly disabled by Law to take them, as all are that will not take the Test appointed by the Act of the 25th of K. Charles the Second, entitled, An Act to prevent the dangers that may arise from Popish Recusants; as also all Commissions to do any Illegal, violent action, are absolutely void, and consequently may be resisted; or else our Magna Charta, with all the other Laws that establish Liberty and Property, as also our very Religion itself Established by Law, may be either undermined by the King's new Dispensing Power, or else subverted by open force; and every Commission▪ Officer in a Red Coat, will be as sacred, and irresistible as the King himself.  
But to conclude; That the Instances I have given, that the King's Commission may be abused to the destruction of the Nation, nay of the whole Parliament, are not so unlikely and remote as you imagine. Pray let me put you in 〈◊〉, that as for that pretended Commission to Sir Phelim Oneal, tho' it is true, it did prove afterwards to be forged, yet was it not known to be so till long after; and therefore having all the signs of a true Commission under the King's great Seal, the poor Protestants in Ireland were to have had their Throats cut according to this Oath, before ever they could be satisfied whether it were true or not: But that a Popish King persecuting and destroying his Protestant Subjects only for matters of Religion, is not so improbable a thing as you would have it; the French King's late Dragooning, Imprisoning, and sending to the Galleys all that refused to renounce Heresy, (as they call it,) and subscribe to the Articles of the Romish Religion, has given us but too sad, and recent an example; and how you can assure me that the King acting upon these very Principles, and being governed by like Confessors, will never do the same things, I should be glad to receive some better satisfaction than his bare word to the contrary. Nor yet is my other Instance of its being left according to your Doctrine in the King's power to make a violent assault upon the persons both of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, whenever he pleased, without any Resistance whatsoever, so remote and improbable as you are pleased to make it; since you may find it still upon Record among the Articles exhibited in Parliament against Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, Robert Tresilian Chief Justice, and Sir Nicholas Brembur in the Parliament of the 11th of Richard the Second, 
Vid. Rot. Parl. 11 Rich. 2. pars secunda.  (which I have already mentioned) the 15th Article of which was, That they by their false Council had caused the King to command the said Nicholas, being then Mayor of London, suddenly to rise with a great power to kill and put to death the said Lords; (viz. Thomas Duke of Gloucester, and the other Lords there named) and the Commons (viz. of the Parliament of the 10th of this King) who were not of their Party and Conspiracy; for the doing of which wickedness, the said grand Traitors abovesaid were parties and presents to the destruction of the King, and his Realm: So that if this Treason had not been discovered, and that no private persons might then resist those Commissioned by the King, it would have been Treason according to your principles, for the said Lords and Commons, to have resisted those that were thus sent to assault them, and take away their Lives; and what hath once happened, 'tis not impossible but it may happen again. And we may remember how about little more than 30 years since that the K. of Denmark shut up the Senators, and Nobility of the great Council of that Kingdom in Coppenhagen, and threatened them with Death, or Imprisonment if they refused to give up all their Liberties, and from an Elective King make him and his Successors absolute hereditary Monarches, as they are at this day by means of the Bishops and Clergy of that Kingdom, who then basely gave up, and betrayed the Liberty of their Country; and what they have now got by it, they best know; therefore this is a thing to be considered as a necessary consequence of your sense of this Oath: So that upon the whole matter, and considering the late Scene of Affairs, I dar'st leave it to the Judgement of any indifferent Foreiner, tho' a Papist, which was most likely before the unexpected coming of the Prince of Orange into this Kingdom, that the People should rise up in Arms, and expel the King from his Throne, or that he should by virtue of the pretended sense of this Oath, backed by your Doctrine of Passive Obedience, have enslaved this Nation, and set up what Government and Religion he pleased.  M. 
I must confess you have given a very cunning, and specious gloss upon the words of this Oath, and Declaration of the Parliament of King Charles the Second; but whether it is legal or not, I very much doubt, since I never heard of it before; and I could have wished, that if they designed not to lay a snare upon men's Consciences in this great point, that they would have been more clear in expressing all those Cases wherein it might be lawful for us to resist the King, or those Commissioned by him; as also who should judge when the King's Commissions are so illegal and violent as to require Resistance; for if every private Subject may judge of the legality, or illegality of the King's Military Commissions, and can raise a Party strong enough to make opposition against those that are Commissioned by them in the Execution of the King's Orders, a discontented Party of this Nation may soon find a pretence to raise another Rebellion, and Civil War as dreadful as the former; and notwithstanding your great care and concern for the King's person, which you grant to be sacred and inviolable, could it long continue so; for if the King himself appeared at the Head of his Men to command, and encourage them in their duty, it would be much worse, as long as the matter they took up Arms for, should be by them accounted a violation of the Laws. Thus we may remember, that tho' the Parliament of— 41. did pretend to take up Arms for defence of the King's person, and only to take away Evil Councillors; yet did they for all that, order their Generals and Officers to fight a● much when the King was personally present, as at any other place or time; so that His Majesty's person (had not God thought fit to order it otherwise) might have been as well destroyed in the Battles of Edg-hill, or Naseby, as his great Grandfather King james the Third of Scotland was in that Battle against his Rebellious Subjects headed by his own Son: So that according to your interpretation, instead of mending the matter, this Parliament of King Charles the Second had only left it far worse than they found it: For whereas the Long Parliament made themselves the sole Judges, and Redressers of the King's Violations of the People's Rights: Now according to your interpretation of this Oath, and Declaration of the Parliament of King Charle●'s the Second, every private Man may not only judge of the King's Violation of the Law by his Military Commissions, but also make Resistance against them whenever they think themselves able so to do; and then notwithstanding, that Parliament utter renouncing all Arms, whether offensive, or defensive, to be raised by themselves against the King, they would have still left a power in any part of the People strong enough to make this Resistance which they had renounced for themselves, who are their Lawful Representatives. Thus for example, supposing the last Civil War had begun upon the account of raising of Ship Money, which whether it was lawful, I will not now dispute; it was sufficient that all the Judges except two gave their Opinions for it; and if any County in England strong enough to make an Insurrection, had rose in Arms upon the Levying of this Tax (as it has several times happened even about Taxes granted in Parliament) this Tax (tho' small) yet being looked upon against Law, must have engaged the whole Nations in a Civil War, and also endangered His Majesty's person in case he had appeared in the Field with those Men he had raised to subdue that Rebellion; so that I am still satisfied that it is far better to suffer a mischief than an inconvenience; that is, it is better to trust to the King's Conscience, and Discretion, what Commissions to grant, tho' sometimes perhaps they may chance to be illegal, than to leave it in the power of the people to rise in Rebellion whenever they think such Commissions to violate their supposed, or pretended Liberties and Properties.  F. 
I see you will not argue against the Resistance of the King's person in case he should go about to Ravish, Rob, or Murder his people: But now you raise another difficulty who shall judge, and consequently make this Resistance against the King's Commissions, when executed by illegal persons, to illegal and violent ends; for if the people may judge for themselves of the illegality of such Commissions, a Rebellion may be raised, and His Majesty's person endangered, notwithstanding all the provision the Parliament have made against it. But before I answer this Argument of yours, pray give me leave to ask you one or two Questions; Do you think the King's Late Declaration for the Dispensing Power, and the Commissions granted thereupon to be according to Law or not?  M. 
I must confess I think they are unlawful, yet it does not follow that they may be therefore resisted.  F. 
I do not ask you that now; but only tell me whether you think the Bishops are obliged in Conscience to disperse that Declaration, or the Clergy to read it in their Churches? and whether those have done well who have refused to read it?  M. 
I must tell you, I am so good a Protestant, and so true an Englishman, that I cannot allow the King that power; and therefore I must grant that the Bishops did nobly, and like true Christian Bishops to refuse to disperse it; and where it was dispersed the Inferior Clergy have done very well not to read it.  F. 
Well then, notwithstanding all the dreadful Mischiefs proceeding from private Subjects juding of the legality, or illegality of the King's Declarations, and Commissions, or Commands; yet they may, it seems, not only judge whether they are lawful, or not; but a disobedience to them may not only be lawfully exercised, but is very commendable: Now what is this disobedience to these Commands, but a Moral, or Civil Resistance of the King's Power in this matter? and why may not such a Judgement he made by the People in as plain a case, and also Resistance follow thereupon against such violent illegal Commissions (suppose to raise Money without Act of Parliament, or to Dragoon Men to go to Mass) since the violence is more evident and apparent in this case upon men's persons, than in the other upon the bare Consciences of the Bishops and Clergy? for the force being more immediate, and pressing upon their Persons and Estates, there is no other means left but to resist it if they are able.  M. 
I can give you very good reasons to satisfy you, why, tho' I grant private Subjects, may judge of the Legality or Illegality of the King's Commissions, and also refuse to obey His Illegal Commands, and also that all public Officers ought to take care at their peril how they act by or execute such Illegal Commissions; yet that it does not therefore follow that such illegal Commissions or Orders though executed upon the whole body of the People, may be resisted by them; for all limitation of the Royal Power being only voluntary, and proceeding from the mere grace, and favour of our Kings, they are not compellable by force, or resistable if they should impose their own Proclamations, 
S. C. R. p. 190. & deinde.  or Edicts upon us instead of Laws. For tho' I grant that the King hath no Just, or Legal Authority to act against Law, and that if he knowingly put any Subject to death contrary to Law he is a Murderer; and no Prince can have any such Prerogative, as to commit open downright murders; either in his own person or by those who act by Commission from him; but what follows from hence? That they may resist or oppose them if they do. This I absolutely deny, because God and the Law have Commanded us, not to resist, and I see no inconsistency between those two Propositions; That a King hath no Authority to act against Law, and yet that neither He, nor those commissioned by Him though acting against Law may be resisted. Both the Law of God, and the Laws of our Country suppose these two to be very consistent.  
For notwithstanding the possibility that Princes may thus abuse their Power, and transgress the Laws whereby they ought to govern, yet they also command Subjects in no case to resist, and it is not sufficient to justify Resistance if Princes do what they have no just Authority to do, unless we have also a just Authority to resist, he who exceeds the just bounds of this Authory is liable to be called to an account for it, but he is accountable only to those who have a Superior Authority to call him to an account. No Power whatsoever is accountable to an Inferior, for this is a contradiction to the very Notion of Power, and destructive of all Order and Civil Government. Inferior Magistrates are on all hands acknowledged to be liable to give an account of the abuse of their Power, but to whom must they give an account? Not to their Inferiors, not to the People whom they are to Govern, but to Superior Magistrates, 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 because he hath no Superior Power on Earth, he cannot be resisted by his own Subjects, but must be reserved to the Judgement of God who alone is the King of Kings.  F. 
In the first place I deny (and I have sufficiently proved the contrary) that all Limitation of Royal Power proceeded at first from the mere grace, and favour of our Kings, since the Crown of England, has been from its first Institution Limited by Laws, and the People have likewise always enjoyed a property in their Lives, Liberties and Estates by the same Laws: Tho' I grant, you and I are thus far agreed, That the King hath no Just and and Legal Authority to act against Law, and that if he put any man to Death, or take away his Estate contrary to it, it is Murder, and Robbery: And likewise that the Subjects may be capable of Judging concerning such illegal Commands; but you will not allow, that if such a Limited Monarch should send his Mercenary Forces to take away our Estates, or to Dragoon us till we will own ourselves of his Religion, that those Instruments of his Tyranny may be resisted; or that I have brought any reason for it. Whereas if you had but attended better to my discourse at our 3d and 4th Meetings, you might have remembered that I plainly enough proved to you, that God hath not given Princes, nor those Commissioned by them, any Authority to Murder, or enslave their Subjects; and yourself then granted, That every Man hath power to defend his Life against him who hath no Authority to take it away; 
S.C.R. p. 59  which holds more strongly in our Constitution; where if the King give a Man a Commission to act contrary to the Law of the Land, it is altogether void, and the People may as well justify their Resistance of those Officers, or Soldiers who should come to Dragoon, or persecute them, for professing the Religion Established by Law, as if he had sent 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 any express Precept in the holy Scripture, I also examined at those Meetings; but whether any Municipal Law of the Land hath restrained us from it, I have also now considered, and proved it contrary to the true intent and meaning of these Acts concerning the Militia. And therefore to say, that it is not sufficient to justify Resistance if Princes do, or command what they have no Legal Authority for, unless we can also show an Authority to resist, is a mistake, if by Authority you mean an express Civil Law for it, because such Resistance in absolute Monarchies is justifiable by that which is Prior to all Civil Laws, the Right of Self-defence, or Preservation: And so likewise in Limited Kingdoms there is the same necessity of Defensive Arms upon a general Breach, or Violation of any Fundamental Constitution of the Government, since it cannot be kept, or maintained without such Resistance be allowed.  
So that if the King hath no Authority to act contrary to Law, he cannot sure delegate that to others, which he had not in himself; and consequently such Commissions to Persecute, or Murder Men contrary to Law, being in themselves void, the persons that Execute them being no Officers, may be justly resisted, and the Resistance of such an Illegal Act doth not at all derogate from his Sovereignty as King, since (as I told you before) that is limited only to the performance of Legal Acts, and extends not to Illegal Orders, or Commands; and as for the rest of the Reasons you give against this Resistance, viz. because he who exceeds the just bounds of his Authority, is liable to be called to an account for it, only by those who have a Superior Authority to do it; Whereas no Power whatsoever is accountable to an Inferior: You do but impose upon me and yourself, the same Fallacy which you have so often made use of, in making, being accountable, all one, with irresistible, which are vastly different, and therefore your Conclusion is as false, that because the Sovereign Prince may exceed his Authority, and is only accountable for it to God; that therefore he cannot be resisted by his own Subjects; for he may be resisted, and yet be still unaccountable, those two differing as must us Self-defence does from punishment, as I have more than once told you.  M. 
I cannot rest satisfied with this Reply; for though I so far agree with you, 
S. C. R. p. 192, 193.  that an Act without a Legal Authority carries no Obligation at all along with it, and therefore cannot oblige the Subject to Obedience: Now this is true, if by Obedience you mean an Active Obedience; for I am not bound to do an ill thing, or an Illegal Action, because my Prince commands me; but if you mean Passive Obedience, it is as manifestly false; for I am bound to obey, that is, not to resist my Prince when he offers me the most unjust and illegal Violence. Nay it is very false and absurd to say, that every Illegal is an Inauthoritative Act, which carries no Obligation with it. This is contrary to the practice of all Human Judicatures, and the daily Experience of Men, who suffer in their Lives, Bodies, or Estates, by an unjust, or illegal Sentence. Every judgement contrary to the true meaning of the Law is in that sense illegal; and yet such illegal Judgements have their Authority, and Obligation, till they are rescinded by some higher Authority. This is the true reason of Appeals from Inferior to Superior Courts, to rectify Illegal Proceedings, and reverse Illegal Judgements, which supposes, that such Illegal Acts 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 Unjust, and Illegal Sentence; it carries so much Authority, and Obligation with it, that the Injured person hath no Redress, but must patiently submit, and thus it must necessarily be, or there can be no end of Disputes, nor any Order, or Government observed in Human Societies.  
And this is a plain Demonstration, that tho' the Law be the Rule according to which Princes ought to exercise their Authority and Power; yet the Authority is not in the Laws, but in the Persons that Execute them: For otherwise why is not a Sentence pronounced according to Law by a private person, of as much Authority 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 Sentence reversible, and alterable, when pronounced by one Judge, and irreversible and unalterable when pronounced by another? For the Law is the same, and the Sentence is the same, either according to Law, or against it, whoever the Judge be: But indeed the Authority of the person is not the same, and that makes the difference. So that there is an Authority in persons in some sense distinct from the Authority of Laws, nay superior to it: For there is such an Authority, as, tho' it cannot make an Illegal Act Legal; yet it can, and often doth make an Illegal Act binding and obligatory to the Subjects when pronounced by a competent Judge.  F. 
I think notwithstanding all you have now said your distinction of a Supreme Authority in Persons above, and distinct from the Authority of Laws will prove a mere Notion, for you grant that the King hath no Just or Legal Authority to act against 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 should thus murder never so many thousands, either he, or those Instruments of Tyranny may be resisted; And therefore you would fain top upon me your old distinction of an Active, and Passive Obedience: The former of which I very well understand, but as for the latter I have long since proved, that it is so far from being any Obedience, that it is indeed downright Disobedience, or a refusal to do that which the Prince Commands, so that truly yourself have taught me to distinguish between the King's Personal Authority and his Legal, for otherwise, why are you not as much obliged to yield an Active Obedience to the King's Personal Illegal Commissions or Commands as to his Legal ones, if there were no difference between them? So then all the difference between us lies in the measure of the Disobedience, you maintaining that it is sufficient not to yield Obedience to such Illegal Commissions and Commands; and I that besides this denial of Obedience, (if it be in a fundamental point, and that which generally concerns the whole body of the Kingdom) that they may not only be disobeyed but resisted too, if forced upon us with violence; and therefore all that you have said to prove that the Authority to which we are bound to submit, consists not in the Laws, but in the Persons tho' acting contrary to Law; is according to your own way of reasoning altogether unconclusive.  
And farther, when you say, that it is false, and absurd to affirm, that every Illegal, is an unauthoritative Act which carries no Obligation with it; I shall prove, that this absurdity lies wholly on your side. For 1. Legal and Authoritative, 
I. R. S. p. 15.  are all one in our Law, for that which is not Legal carries no Authority along with it; so that Illegal Authority is in plai●● English, unlawful, lawful Power▪ nor had K. Charles 1. any such extravagant Notion of his Royal Authority, (who certainly understood his own Power better than you or I,) when he owns in his Declaration to the Long Parliament dated, from Newmarket 1641. That the Law is the measure of his Power, which is as full a Concession of the thing I affirm as words can express; For if the Laws be the measure of it, than his Royal Power, or Authority (which is all one) is Limited by it. For the measure of any thing is the Limits or bounds of the thing Limited, and when it exceeds those bounds it is an Illegal, and consequently an Unauthoritative Act, which carries no Obligation either Active or Passive along with it. So likewise in the said King's answer, to both Houses concerning the Militia, speaking of the Men by them named to him to be Commissioners for it; He thus replied, If more Power shall be thought fit to be granted to them than by Law is in the Crown itself, His Majesty holds it reasonable, that the same be by some Law first vested in him, with Power to transfer it to these Persons; etc. In which Passage it is granted, that 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 than what is vested in him by the Law of the Land.  
2. Your Argument from the practice of Human Judicatures is also very fallacious, for you Argue from the bare abuse of a Trust, or Commission, with the Execution of which all Judges & Officers must be entrusted, to that which is quite of another Nature, (viz:) When the Person entrusted Acts directly contrary to his Commission, or without any Commission at all: And therefore you are quite out in your Law, when you tell me, that an Absolute Illegal Judgement is valid, till it be reversed, for if it be appearantly contrary to the known Forms of Law, and practice of the Kingdom, it is so far from being valid, that tho' it be put in Execution, it would be looked upon as null, and done without any Authority at all: As suppose the King in person, or any Inferior Judge, 
I.R.S. p. 15, 16.  should condemn a Man to die, either contrary to the Verdict of his Jury, or without any Jury at all; this is so far from being Authoritative, or valid, that such a Judgement is void in itself, and those are guilty of Murder, who execute it, and it will need no Writ of Error to reverse it: But I suppose by Illegal Judgements, you mean such Judgements, which have some Error in them, either in matter of Law, or Form, for which they may be reversed: I grant if these should not be looked upon as valid, and hold good till they are reversed in a higher Court, there could not be any Judgement given at all, since all Human Judicatories whatsoever are subject to Errors and Mistakes; and there is sure a great deal of difference between such actions as are done by that Authority which the Law entrusts them with, tho' not duly exercised, and those violent and illegal acts which a Prince, when he persecutes, and enslaves his Subjects, performs by his wicked Instruments, contrary to all Divine and Human Laws: So that the validity of such an Erroneous Judgement, is not from the Judges personal Authority, above the Law, nor from his mistake or ignorance of the Law, but from that high Credit and Authority which the Law hath given to all Courts and Judicial Proceedings, which if they are done in due form, are to be taken for Law, however unjust and must be presumed to be free from Error, till they are reversed in some higher Court.  M. 
But if you please better to consider of it, you will find a necessity of owning a Supreme Power in the King beyond all Appeal, or Resistance, 
S.C.R. p. 196. & deinde.  and that there must be a personal Authority in him; antecedent, and superior to all Civil Laws; for there can be no Laws without a Lawmaker; and there can be no Lawmaker unless there be one, or more persons invested with the Power of Government, of which, making Laws is one principal branch; for a Law is nothing else but the public, and declared Will, and Command of the Lawmakers whether they be a Sovereign Prince, or the People.  
And hence it necessarily follows, that a Sovereign Prince does not receive his Authority from the Laws, 
Ibidem 197. & deinde.  but Laws receive their Authority from him: And I must be still of the same Opinion as to Bracton's words, which you before quoted, Lex facit Regem, the Law makes the King; by which I cannot believe that that great Lawyer meant that the King received the Sovereign Power from the Law, for the the Law hath no Authority, nor can give any, but what it receives from the King; and than it is a wonderful, riddle, how the King should receive his Authority from the Law. And therefore I must stick to my former Interpretation, that when he says the Law makes the King, that is, it distinguisheth him from a Tyrant, as appears from the reason he gives for it, i. e. Non est enim Rex ubi dominatur voluntas & non Lex, he is no King that Governs by his Arbitrary Will, and not by Law, not that he is no Sovereign 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, so should he violate the Laws, by which he is bound to govern: Yet, he is not to be resisted, much less doth he forfeit his Power. 'Tis true he breaks his Faith to God, and his Country, but he is a Sovereign Prince still. And now I hope it plainly appears that every Illegal act the King doth, or Illegal Commission that he grants, is not an inauthoritative Act, or Commission, but lays on the Subject an Obligation to yield if not Active, yet a Passive Obedience. And in the King's most Illegal acts, tho' they have not the Authority of Laws yet they have the Authority of Sovereign Power, which is irrisistible, and unaccountable. In a word it doth not become any Man, who can think three consequences 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 Dispense with them, and make new Laws; The only Power, and Authority of the Laws is in in the Power, that can make, and execute Laws; Sovereign Power is unseparable from the Person of a Sovereign Prince; tho' the exercise of it may be regulated by Laws, and though the Prince doth very ill who having consented to such a Regulation, breaks the Laws, yet when he acts contrary to Law, such acts carry Sovereign, and irrisistible Authority with them, while he continues a Sovereign Prince.  F. 
I am very well satisfied, notwithstanding all you have hitherto said, that the Government of England owns no such thing as this Arbitrary Power with which you would invest the King; since I have already proved at our ●th meeting that the King is not the Sole Legislator, and consequently not the Sole Supreme Power. So likewise our Law it doth as little understand any such thing as a Personal Authority in the King, antecedent and Superior to all Laws. For since God hath now left off making Kings by his own special appointment, as he did among the Jews, every King must either be so by the Law, or Custom of that Country, or else a bare possession of the Throne is sufficient to make him so; and then every Usurper hath as much right to a Crown as the most lawful Prince, and Oliver Cromwell was as rightful a Prince as King Charles the Second. It is true the first King of any Race could not be invested with the Crown by the same Law, as his Successors are, that is, by an Hereditary proximity of Blood; Yet such a King, whenever he began to be so, could have no Legal Right, without the Election, Recognition, or Consent of the People. And as for an Hereditary Right, that is but a Right by the Law of the Land, or general Consent of the People, (testified by an uninterrupted Custom) to entail the Crown on such a Family, so that in either Case they are Kings by Law; and therefore I conceive it can be only in this sense, that Bracton says Lex facit Regem, i. e. The Law of the Kingdom, makes the King, which more plainly appears, by what immediately follows, attribuat igitur Rex Legi, quod Lex attribuit ei, viz. Dominationem, & Potestatem, in which words nothing seems more plain, than that the King ought to yield the like Dominion, and Power to the Law, as the Law had given him before; or else how could Bracton call the Law (in the place I have already cited,) the King's Superior? And if the King's Title to the Crown were not by Law? How came it to pass that the Stewards for Example had a better Tittle to the Crown of Scotland than the Bayliols'? but only that the Laws of Scotland, that is the Consent of the States of that Kingdom, made them so, for otherwise any man that looks upon the Pedigree of both those Families, will see, that Bayliol according to our rules of Descent was the nearer of Blood to the last King David than Bruce, and was so ajudged, upon a solemn hearing by our King Edward 1. ih Parliament. And as for William whom you call the Conqueror under whom all our present King's do claim at this day, he could have no just Right, or Title to the Crown of England by Conquest, but by the Election, or Submission of the People declared by them at his Coronation. And therefore that Law by which he was made King must be precedent, or at least concurrent with his being so; and upon whatever terms, or Conditions he then accepted it, his Successors are bound both by the Laws of God, and Man to observe them. And therefore whatever you have built upon, or would infer from these Principles is of no force. And If the King be the Sole Sovereign Power, that makes the Laws, repeals them and dispenses with them when he pleases; I would be glad to know upon what grounds so many of the Bishops and Clergy refused to read the King's Declaration of Indulgence, Since certainly if he alone made the Laws, he also could dispense with them; But I shall say no more of these Points now because they are not directly to the matter in hand.  M. 
As for what you say concerning the King's not being the sole Supreme Legislative Power, I confess you and I have discoursed long upon that point; and if I were thoroughly satisfied of it, I could much easier assent to what you have said; as also 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 than it would evidently appear, that the People might have reserved to themselves such a Right of Resistance as you now maintain; but that they never could have such a power in England, from the Constitution of this Monarchy, I need go no farther than your own Instance 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 less Election, or Confirmation of the People, as I think Doctor Brady has proved beyond dispute in his Learned Answer to Argumentum Antinor manleum; so that since we owe all the Rights and Liberties we enjoy to the gracious Concessions of our Kings of this Norman Race, we ought not in reason, or gratitude to resist them, if they should sometimes encroach upon what we take to be part of those Liberties so granted; no not if the King (who derives an Indefeasible Right to the Crown from the Title of the first Conqueror) should go about to take away all those Liberties, nay our very Religion and Property too from us.  
But I have not time to pursue this Argument further now, and therefore shall leave it to another opportunity.  F. 
As for what you have now said concerning William the First's having no Right to the Crown of this Kingdom, but what he owed to his Sword, is false in matter of fact, it being more than that Prince himself ever asserted or pretended to; and in the next place, as for your Dr's. proving him an Absolute Conqueror over the English Nations, supposing he had done it (which yet I positively deny) yet will not this serve to do the business for which the Doctor urges it; viz. to set up an Arbitrary, Irresistible Power in that King, and all his Successors, but may be urged against him to a quite contrary purpose, as I shall show you more at large, whenever you please to discourse farther upon that Subject: And as for all those things we call Legal, our Rights and Privileges, which you say were wholly granted us by the Charters of his Successors, I have already proved that to be false in matter of fact at our fifth Meeting, where I showed you that the English Nation had the same Liberties, as to their Persons and Properties in their Estates before your pretended Conquest, as they enjoyed afterwards; and that Magna Charta was but the recital and confirmation of our Ancient English Laws, as Mat. Paris affirms in the place I here formerly cited; but admitting these Liberties and Privileges you mention had been owing to the favour and bounty of former Kings, yet can I see no Rebellion or ingratitude the People of this Nation are guilty of, if they keep and defend them now they have them, but would rather betray a servile, base spirit if we part with them: For since it is a Maxim in Law, concerning all Grants, as well from the Crown as private persons, that they ought so to enure ut Res magis valeat, quem pereat; i. e. that the Parties to whom the Grant is is made, may not lose the benefit of it; when ever the Grantor pleases. Therefore it is also a rule in such Grants, that they are still to be interpreted in favour of the Grantee against the Grantor, and also, that the Grantee shall not be left without some means or remedy of keeping, and defending his right against the Grantor whenever he goes about to take it away; nor do I know any exception there is for the King's Grants more than those of private Subjects; 
Bract. l. c. 8. Fleta. l. 1. c. 17.  since both Bracton, and Flita tell us non debet esse Rege major in Exhibitione juris, minimus autem esse debet in judicio suscipiendo si pecatur (which I take to be the true reading of that place, and not peccat, parcat, or petat) (as divers copies have it.) That is, as the King is the greatest in distributing of right, or Law to his Subjects, so ought he to be no more than the least of them in submiting to right judgement if he be Petitioned to, and that it be required of him, (either of which senses this word will well bear,) but if he absolutely refuses to do this, but 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 resistance? since otherwise the King may alter the Government and take away all our Legal Rights and Liberties, whenever he pleases.  M. 
I confess this dispute concerning the Resistance of those commissioned by the King; and the Kings being the Sole Legislator, and Original of all the Civil Liberties, and Privileges we now enjoy: hath carried us from the main points in this Question: pray therefore satisfy me (if you can) those great Objections I have made. First how this Resistance can consist with with that sacredness, and inviolableness which you yourself suppose to be due to the King's person, for either this Resistance in case of an invasion of our Civil Rights must be made even when the King's Person is actually present, to back those Illegal Commissions, or it must be forborn out of that due Reverence, and Care of his Royal Person, which the Law enjoins. If the former, the King's Person is in danger to be destroyed whenever a factions Party is strong enough to rise in Arms and oppose the King's Commissions upon pretence of their being against Law: But if on the other side this Resistance is not allowable when the King's Person is present, than all such Resistance will signify nothing, since as soon as ever the King in Person shall appear in the Field to back his Commissions; all your Defensive Arms (as you call them) must be immediately laid down, unless they mean to destroy the Sacred Person of the King: So that take it either way, all Resistance is either Illegal, or else unpracticable. Secondly, I can as little understand (as I told you before) how the Two Houses of Parliament should renounce all taking up Arms, as well offensive as defensive against the King for themselves, and yet should leave a Power in the diffusive Body of the Nation; nay, in any part thereof strong enough to make a Rebellion, which they thought unlawful to exercise themselves. Lastly, By what Legal Authority the People, or any part of it, can justify the taking up even defensive Arms, since you yourself acknowledge that no Arms can be taken up regularly, but by the King's Authority; and you have also disclaimed all taking up of Arms by his Authority against his Person, or against those Commissioned by virtue of such Authority; tho' I confess, you except the Cases of Self-defence, and in maintenance of the Law; yet I cannot find those Exceptions allowed of in any of our Law-Books, either ancient or modern.  F. 
I hope to give you such Satisfaction to every one of these Objections you have made, as may serve any indifferent person; therefore as to the first, concerning the Sacredness of the King's person, which I allow of as well as you, we must in the first place distinguish between such Commissions as the King assures by colour of Law, when the Judges for example had given their Opinions in the Case of Ship-money; for they being the sole Interpreters of the Law in the Intervals of Parliament; I do acknowledge that their Determinations are not to be opposed by force; but legally reversed when the next Parliament mee●, and they are then to answer in Parliament for their false Interpretations and Opinions; as tresilian and his Companions did in the 11th of Richard II. and as the Ten Judges did upon the two Houses Declaration against Ship-Money, and their Impeachment thereupon. Thus, tho' Mr. Hammpden refused to pay Ship-Money when demanded of him, and rather chose to lie in Prison than pay it, yet it had been downright Rebellion, in case any resistance had been made by him against the levying of it: But had this Tax been laid by the King's sole Power, without such colour of Law, I doubt not, but resistance might have been made even against those that were Commissioned by Him to levy it; and if any one Town, or Hundred, were not strong enough to seize such Officers as presumed thus to levy it against Law, the Sheriffs of every County in England might have raised the Posse Comitatus, and seized all such Offenders and carried them to Jail; since the King's Commissions never did, nor can indemnify the persons so Commissioned, in case the thing they were about to execute was contrary to Law: and for this, I need go no farther than the Old Mirror of justices, 
Chap. 1. Sect. 10.  which is owned for good Law at this day, which speaking of Robbery, and the several Kind's thereof, has this passage, which I shall here render out of the old Law French; Into this Offence (viz. Robbery) all those fall, that take other men's Goods by Commandment of the King, or any great Lord, without the Owners consent. Where you see there is no difference at all made between those that took away other men's Goods by the Command of the King, or any other, but it was Robbery in all of them alike, and consequently the Actors might be alike seized, and punished as Robbers: The same is also allowed, by the Statute of the 20th of Henry the 6th. whereby the King's Purveyors are forbid to take any thing to the value of 40 s. or under, 
Chap. 8.  without ready Payment in hand, of any person 〈◊〉 that it then should be lawful for every one of the King's Liege-People to retain their Goods and Chattels, and to resist such Purveyors and Buyers. So likewise the last Clause in this Oath, viz. In pursuance of such Military Commissions seems to restrain it to such Commissions as were granted by the King's Authority, that is according to Law, and no other.  
So that you see by the old Law of England the King's Commission did not render any man irresistible, unless he executed it according to Law: since the Constable of each Town might raise the Inhabitants thereof, to seize such Wrong-doers; and if they were not strong enough, the High-Constable of the Hundred might raise the whole Hundred; and in case they were not sufficient; the High Constable might crave Aid of the Sheriff, and assemble all the several Hundreds of the County till these Malefactors were seized: So that as long as there were no standing Forces kept up, in the Nation, (as I have shown you there was not till the Reign of King Charles the Second) there could never be my Clashing between the King's Civil, and Military Commissions; and this is one great Reason why no King of England, since the Act de Tallagio non Concedend● was so hardy as to issue any Commissions to levy Money without colour of Law▪ because they knew they were void in themselves, and consequently would be resisted by the whole Nation. So that this would not have been taking up Arms by the King's Authority against those Commissioned by him, but only in order to bring those to Justice who had not any Commissions at all to do what they did; the Law taking no Cognizance at all of the King's Personal Commissions, when absolutely against Law.  
Nor if the King had joined his own Presence to such illegal Commissions, would it have mended the matter, or rendered these Robbers of other m●●● Goods, any more irresistible than they were before; since the King can give no m●n Authority to do that which he has not Power to do himself, and therefore face his single Person may be resisted in case he go about to Ravish, Rob, or Murder People; then sure his joining himself with such Men, tho' never so numerous, can never make him more irresistible than he was; unless you will suppose that the King may not rob with a few, without resistance; but may justify the doing of it with an Army: and if so, pray tell me, what number they must be to render the King, and all those with him, thus irresistible? And therefore it is no wonder if our Law has made no express Provision for resisting the King's Person, since it had so high a regard for his Honour, as not to suppose He could be guilty of making War upon his People: But if the King shall be among such wrong doers, either by Force, or Fraud, the case will be otherwise. Thus when K. Edward, and Richard the Second, joined their own presence to the Illegal Actions of the two Spencers, and Robert de Vere Duke of Ireland; yet the Nobility and People took no notice of that, but prosecuted them, notwithstanding the King's personal joining himself with them; and Thomas Earl of Lancaster, tho' he had the worst of it, and was taken and executed, yet was his Attainder reversed in Parliament, as I have already said; and his Quarrel with the Spencers declared to be good and just; as the like resistance was also declared to have been for the safety of the King, and safeguard of the Realm, in the Parliament of 11th of Rich. the Second, wherein the Duke of Ireland, and the rest of his Faction were Con●emned, as I have already shown you: and tho' I grant that in such a division between the King and his People, his Person may run a great hazard; yet it is his own fault, and not theirs, if it so fall out; and they are not to lose their Lives, Liberties and Properties, in case the King will fully join himself with Murderers, or Robbers, since this is not to resist Royal Authority, but Illegal Force, without any Authority at all; and if he will thus expose himself to the mercy of blind Bullets, charge is to be given to all, not to kill him wilfully, or wittingly, since we are never to despair of his Repentance, till he absolutely renounces all reconciliation with his People: and thus, even in the midst of such a resistance, the King's person may be as safe as he can be in such Circumstances, though not so safe as if he were in his own Palace. But if an Army of wicked and lawless men must not be resisted because they have got the King's person on their side; then Prince Edward (afterwards K. Edward the First) could not have justified his fight with Simon Montfort, and those of his Faction, who had, as you yourself acknowledged, 〈◊〉 the Person of King Henry the Third into their Power, and acted all things in ●is Name, and by his seeming Authority; as the Historians of those times expressly tell us: and the King being in Montfort's Army at the Battle of Ev●sham, 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 this sense, this rescuing of the King by his own Son out of the hands of these wicked Councillors, had been taking up Arms by his Authority against his Person.  M. 
Pray give me leave to answer this instance you have now brought, because I think it does rather make against, than for your Opinion: I grant Prince Edward might well justify his fight with Simon Montfort, tho' he had the King's Person then in his Power, because the Prince very well knew that his Father was carried about with them as a Prisoner against his will; and therefore aught to release him, tho' with some hazard to his Father's Person; since it could not be otherwise brought about. But sure there is a great deal of difference between fight to release my Prince, when made a Prisoner against his will, and fight against him to take him away from Evil Councillors, whether he will or not; as the Long Parliament did against King Charles I. tho' they knew he was in the Head of his Army with his own consent; and this was sure taking up Arms by the King's Authority against his Person, and is that which is to be expressly disclaimed by this Oath; and will be also Treasonable, if done in any Case whatsoever where the King shall think fit to be at the Head of his Forces, whether the thing be lawful or unlawful for which they are raised.  F. 
Well then, it seems the fear of endangering the King's Person is nothing, if the end for which it be done be lawful. And why it may not hold in other Cases as well as this, I can see no reason. I grant that what the Parliament did was unlawful, because the Occasion of the War began on their side, as it was then said; but supposing the King made War upon the People, I doubt not but the Case had been otherwise. And for proof of this, pray give me leave to put you a Case which may well happen, now we have a Standing Army distinct from the Militia: Suppose that in a Suit with a great Favourite of the King's, a Man recovers a House and Lands against him by a Judgement at Law, and he also by Course of Law put into Possession thereof by the Sheriff; afterwards the King's Commission is obtained by the Interest of this Favourite, to Command an Officer, and some Companies of Soldiers of the Standing Army, to take Possession of this House, and deliver it back to the person who first had it. The Man in Possession being a stout, and powerful Person in his Country, hearing of it, resolves to maintain the Possession of his House according to Law, and therefore gets in good store of his Tenants, & Neighbours to defend it: The Officer comes with his Soldiers, & Summons the House; they within, refuse to yield up the Possession; whereupon an Assault ensues, in which a great many are Killed; The Man in Possession is by the King's command, Indicted for Treason or Murder for fight against those commissioned by the King. Now, pray tell me, whether the Judges ought, according to their Oaths, to direct the Jury to find this Man, and those of his Party guilty of the Crimes above mentioned, or not; and whether the Officer and his Soldiers are not rather to answer for this Offence.  M. 
Truly I cannot deny but this Military Commission to put a Man out of his Freehold is Illegal, and consequently void; and so may be resisted; since I know the Law says, That a man's House is his Castle, and he may justify the defence of it against all Subjects whatsoever; but what is this, to resisting the King's Person, who was not there; for if he had, I doubt not but this Person ought to deliver it up to the King, rather than endanger His Majesty's Sacred Person. Nor is this resistance considerable, it being only in a particular Case, which can no way by a general Rebellion alter this Government over the whole Nation.  F. 
You speak agreeable to your own Principles. Well, but suppose the King should be persuaded by some very ill men about him to play this or the like trick, whenever he had a mind to favour one party more than another, and so should hinder the execution of the Law whenever he pleased, can you think the Nation would long endure this, without any resistance: Or suppose, to make the Case more general, the King should undertake to lay a Tax upon the whole Nation without consent of Parliament, and fearing it should not be Levied, should resolve to do it by his Officers and Soldiers of his Standing Army; and lest they should be resisted, should march with them in person, from one County throughout to another to see the Money raised: Do you think the whole Nation out of pure deference to the King's Person were bound to permit him to do whatever he pleased, and let the Soldiers take this Tax, which they were certainly not obliged to Pay, had he not been personally there?  M. 
Yes, I am of that opinion that they ought; for it were better to Pay it, then that a Civil War should happen about it, in which the King's Person, as well as the Government, may be destroyed.  F. 
I see you are of this opinion, because you fancy that the whole Government consists in the King's Person alone, which it does not; but in the Legislative Power, which is not in the King alone; but in the King together with the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament: Therefore you are mistaken in supposing that this Resistance must needs alter the Frame of the Government, since it is undertaken to maintain the fundamental Constitution of it; for if the King may take what Money he pleases from the People, and make what Laws he will without the Parliament, and without supposing it lawful to resist him if he does, the Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom will be but a Jest, considering how light some Princes make of their most Solemn Declarations to their People; nay, their very Coronation Oaths now adays: And it is a strange Paradox that one man may defend his Life and Property against the King's single Person, in case he go about to Rob or Murder him; and yet that a whole Nation should not have the like Right; and that a Prince may not Rob or Murder men by himself, yet may do it without any resistance, in case he can raise an Army to back him.  M. 
Let what will happen, I am for understanding this Oath and Declaration, in the strict literal sense, which you by your false glosses go about to destroy; therefore to tell you plainly my mind, I think, neither one single Person, nor yet the whole Nation can justify resistance of the King's Person, no, tho' he should go about to Rob or Murder me; it were better I were killed, or lost all I had, than that the Sacred Blood of my Prince should be shed by my hands: Since the whole Parliament have on behalf of the People actually renounced all defensive Arms against the King, (by which I suppose they mean all defensive Arms against his Person;) nor have you as yet answered my two last Objections, concerning that Renunciation of the Two Houses, and the want of a competent Authority to raise the Arms of the whole Nation in case of that which you call a General Invasion of men's Religion, Liberties, and Properties; if ever any such thing should happen, as it is not likely it ever will.  F. 
Your Principles and Mine are so diametrically opposite, that it's no wonder we may draw quite contrary Conclusions; for whereas you suppose that Nations were made for Princes to Govern, and dispose of at their Pleasure, without any resistance on the People's side, let them do what they will: I suppose that Princes are made for the common good of their People; and where their Happiness and Preservation do not interfere, ought inviolably to be preserved; but when through the Folly, Negligence, or Tyranny of Princes, that which was ordained for their Protection proves their Ruin and Destruction; I think the Preservation of the Prince's Person ought to give place to the Public Good; and better that he than the whole Nation should perish; which though it was the opinion of Calaphas in relation to our Saviour, yet it is so well approved of, that it is said by the Evangelist St. john, that he spoke not that of himself, but being High Priest that year he Prophesied. For there may be a Common Civil Government without a King, but there can be no King without a People. Of this Opinion our English Ancestors always were, who though they often resisted, and sometimes deposed their Kings; yet they still maintained Kingly Government, though with the change of the person. And if it failed in the last Civil War, it was because it was at last managed by a faction of men of quite different Principles both in Religion and Politics, and not by the Nobility and Gentry of the Nation, whose interest it was, and ever will be to maintain the ancient Government of a limited Monarchy; without falling into a Commonwealth or giving up their just Rights, and Liberties to an Arbitrary Power.  
But to answer the rest of your objections, which, if what I have already laid down be Law, and reason too, may be easily done. As to the first Objection, The two Houses might very well renounce the power of making any War offensive or defensive against the King, and yet leave the right of resistance for self defence and preservation to the whole nation in general; since the former was necessary unless they would have asserted a right in themselves of sitting whether the King would or not, and waging a War against him whenever they pleased; after he had actually dissolved them; which would be to set up two equal absolute powers at once in the Kingdom. But that they did not renounce it for the whole Kingdom, is plain; for though by the Statute of the 12th of Charles the II. they disclaim all coercive power over the King's person for themselves and the People either collectively or representatively, yet do they neither there nor in any of these Acts for the Militia renounce all defensive Arms for the defence of their Religion, Liberties, and Properties: There being a great deal of difference between such a defence and a coercive power over the King, as I have already sufficiently proved; nor indeed was it in the power of the Parliament to have done it if they would, since they are but trusties for the People to preserve their just right and had no power so really to give up their Religion, Lives, Liberties, and Properties to the King's mercy. So that this renunciation of all defensive Arms on the behalf of the whole People had been absolutely void in itself: And since it would have rendered the legal constitution of the Government of this Kingdom wholly precarious, if notwithstanding the illegality of the King's Commissions, and their being void if granted to illegal purposes; the King's presence shall render it downright Treason to resist them. And if this be so, the last difficulty will be easily answered, viz. By what Authority or Commission the People may make this general resistance? To this I say, That in the first place all Commissions granted to persons uncapable by Law to take them, or for illegal purposes, are to be supposed to be issued contrary to the Kings will and knowledge, and therefore are to be looked upon as void in Law; and consequently the Persons not to be commissioned at all, and so may be resisted by the King's legal Officers all over England, as I have already proved; but if once the King should Countenance and Abett such Robbers by his own personal presence, this resistance may then be made, and justified by the whole nation, not by the King's Authority against his Person, but by another higher and precedent right, viz. The Right of Self-defence, and the Common-safety of the whole Nation; which the People must have reserved to themselves at the first Institution of the Government, or else all Monarchies would be alike and there would be no difference at all between absolute and limited Kingdoms.  M. 
I shall not trouble myself about other Kingdoms, but this much I firmly believe that our Kings are absolute Monarches notwithstanding they have limited themselves by Law to the manner of their administration of these grand essentials of Government, the making of Laws, and raising of money; so that since the supremacy of the Government is still in themselves as God's Vicegerents here on Earth, and not as the People's Deputies; I cannot but still understand this Oath in the strict literal sense in which I am confident this Parliament meant it, and therefore since they have expressly declared the Law to be so, I will not be wiser than the Law; especially since it is most agreeable to the Scriptures, and the known doctrine of the Church of England, that the King's Person is not only unaccountable, but irresistible too upon any pretence whatsoever; and I think I am able to show you that it is much better for this Nation or any other of a like constitution to suffer the worst that may happen from the ill Government, nay Tyranny of our Kings, than to involve themselves in blood and confusion by Rebellion and Civil Wars; as often as the People shall judge, though never so falsely, that their fundamental Rights and Privileges are forceably invaded by the King.  F. 
I think I have very expressly proved at our 5th meeting, and that from undoubted Testimonies from our ancient Histories, and Writers of the Laws of England, as also from the whole constant Tenor of the Statute Law of this Nation that the Kings of England are not limited by their own concessions in the manner of the Administration of their Sovereign Power, but from the first constitution of the Government; and if the King be not the sole supreme Legislative power, I care not what some Divines have writ to the contrary; and since it is a Law question, the supreme Authority alone ought to decide it. And therefore it is no matter in this case what the Scriptures say, nor yet the Church of England, the former hath not, and the latter cannot determine what is the Legal constitution of the Government in this Nation; and where the supreme power resides: and therefore suppose it to have been the intent of this Parliament never so much to bar all resistance of the King's Person in any case whatsoever, yet I am sure it was not in their power to do things absolutely inconsistent and contradictory in themselves, as they must have done had they made the Persons of all Officers however commissioned by the King absolutely irresistible; and much more if they had induced the King's Presence with an absolute power for them to commit the most violent and illegal action; and yet have supposed they had thereby altered nothing in the constitution of the Government, though they had rendered it instead of a Limited, an Absolute Despotic Monarchy; which as I am not yet convinced it was in their will, so neither was it in their powers to grant if they would: And therefore as I do not desire to be wiser than the Law, so I cannot allow this to be any Law at all in the sense you would put upon it; so that make the most of it this was but the unwary declaration of a Parliament of very young Men, not long after the King's coming in; who through the great Abhorrence they had of the late Civil War raised 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 Expressions, not considering the consequences that might follow: But when this fond Fit was over, and that a standing Army had been raised in England under pretence of the Dutch War, and that the King had by his Declaration of Indulgence made some approaches to an Arbitrary Power, and in order thereunto, would in that very Parliament in 1675. have imposed this very Oath or Test, not only upon those who were to take it before, but upon all Peers and Parliament Men before ever they sat in the Two Houses, as also, upon all Officers in Church and State, to the very Justices of Peace; so that the Disguise being now seen through, it made divers of the Peers, even those of greatest Loyalty and Wisdom stiffly to oppose the laying this Test upon all the Clergy, Nobility, and Gentry of the whole Nation, as it was then the design of the Bishops and Court-Party to have done: Which vigorous Opposition, tho' in the smaller number, yet met with such good success, that the Bishops and Lords of the contrary Opinion, could not then carry it; and the Eyes of the whole Nation were afterwards so much opened, that the King durst never offer this Test any more to either of the Two Houses: So that if you will but consider this matter of Fact, how this Test was first obtained; and how afterwards, when it was thought to be intended to set up Arbitrary Power, was also as vigorously opposed by them; and their being sensible that the Parliament had gone too far already in doing what they had done: I think none can take this Oath in your sense except those Clergymen, who will allow none to be of their Church, but those who are for this Passive Obedience; according to their prejudicated Notions of Loyalty, or else some few mercenary Lawyers, who in hopes of Preferment (which they can never otherwise obtain) would interpret this Oath in such a sense as should make us all Papists, and Slaves too, whenever the King has a mind to it. Now which of these extremes are worst, that the people should judge for themselves (tho' perhaps erroneously) when the King, or those acting by his illegal Commissions, shall violently assault them in their Religion, Lives, Liberties and Estates; that thereupon they make Resistance with one consent, when they find themselves brought to this extremity; or else that the King should be thus invested with an irresistible Power of doing whatever he pleased with us; I durst leave to any indifferent person to judge.  M. 
I confess you have told me more concerning the History of this Oath, than ever I knew before; but let the legal sense of it be what it will, and setting aside the Precepts in Scripture for absolute Submission without any resistance, I think I am able to prove from your own grand Topick of the common good and preservation of Mankind; that it is much better to submit to the worst, and greatest Tyrant that ever was, than to resist him, if he be our lawful Prince, for if you consider what is the Subject of all Humane Happiness and Contentment, it is certainly life; now what Tyrant ever in his whole Reign destroyed so many men's lives by force, 
Vid. An Answer to Dr. King's State of the Protestants in Ireland, p. 32, 35, 36.  or unjust Prosecutions, as a Civil War, if carried on with violence and animosity does in a years time; so vast a distance there is between the Evils of Tyranny and Rebellion, and so much is the Remedy worse than the Disease; the Cruelty of a Tyrant (says one) is like a Clap of Thunder, it strikes with great terror; but Civil War is like an Inundation, it sweeps away all before it, without noise: Thus one Man brought to the Scaffold by the Arbitrary Command of a Tyrant, makes more noise than ten Thousand killed in the Field in a Civil War, but that does not make the Evil the less, but the greater Evil while we are made willing to destroy ourselves, and do it more effectually in one day, than the bloodiest Tyrant could find in his heart to do in his whole Reign: All the men put to death by the Arbitrary Commands of Tyrants since the beginning of the World in all the Kingdoms of it, will not amount to half the number of those who have perished in the Roman, or English Civil Wars; so much safer are we in God's hands than in our own, and in theirs under whom God hath placed us; and tho' he often makes them like the Sun, and Sea, (tho' highly useful in themselves) scourges for our Sins, yet he has promised to keep their hearts in his hand, and to turn them as seemeth best unto him; we have more Promises of safety there, 
Ps. 68.30.  than when we are delivered over to the Beasts of the People, whose madness David compares to the raging of the Sea.  
In short, The strict Restraint of the People by Government is their truest Liberty and Freedom, since if they were at Liberty from Government, they would be exposed to Combat one another: which would be worse than the greatest slavery in the World: the great mistake is in the foolish Notion we have of Liberty, which generally is thought to consist in being free from the lash of Government, as Schoolboys, from their Master, and proves in the consequence only a Liberty to destroy each other; and yet it is for such a Liberty as this, that men most commonly begin Civil Wars, and fall a cutting of each others Throats. Therefore tho' I grant it were much better for all Princes to let their Subjects live happily, and enjoy a competent share of Ease and Plenty; but on the other side, if they will not permit them so to do, but will tyrannically oppress them, it were much better for them to sit down contented with poverty, nay, slavery itself, rather than to destroy so great part of a Nation, as may be lost in a Civil War, whenever it begins. Thus even the Poet Lucan, tho' of Cato's party, reckoning up the Miseries of the Civil Wars of Rome, which were all for Liberty, as if envying the happy Condition of those, who lived under absolute Tyrants, cries out, 
Faelices Arabes, Medioque Aeaque Tellus,  
Quos sub perpetuis tenuerunt Fata Tyrannis.  I could give you instances of the truth of this in most Nations, enough to make a History: and if such a History were written, of the Mischiefs of this false and pretended Liberty, and good of the people, I durst undertake the Comparison, that more visible Mischiefs come upon the people, more destruction of the public good, and greater loss of Liberty and Property by this one Method, than by all the Tyranny and Violence of Mankind put together: and consequently, that there is no Comparison 'twixt the Evils of Tyranny, and of a Civil War, for public good; and that the Mischiefs of this pretence of public good, is infinitely less tolerable, and a more Universal Ruin to the people, than any Tyranny of lawful Governors, that ever was in the World; whereas this is by many degrees the greatest, and most lawless Tyranny, and always brings greater mischief along with it, such as Confusion, Rapine, Violence, Contempt of all Laws, and legal Establishments, with more intolerable Evils of all sorts, than those it pretends to remedy.  
But of all pretences for Rebellion, Religion is the most ridiculous; since a Man's Religion can never be taken from him, or a false one imposed upon him, whether he will or not; and also because a Civil War introduces greater immorality, and more loosens the Reins of Discipline, and is more contrary to the Spirit of true Religion, than any other Thing in the World: true Religion is not propagated by the Sword, it is a small still Voice that cannot be heard in War; War confounds it, and debauches it, the most profligate, and licentious Court bears no proportion in wickedness to the lewdness, blasphemy, and contempt of all that is Sacred, which reigns, and overflows in Camps. It was an old and true Saying, Nulla sides, Pietasque viris qui Castra sequuntur.  F. 
I see when neither the Scripture, nor the Law can justify your absurd Doctrine of Passive Obedience; than you fly back to your old Topick the Law of Nature and common good of Mankind: I allow your Principles, but not the deductions you draw from thence, which are indeed but Paralogisms, as I will show you by and by; but I see there is nothing so false and absurd, which Prejudice and Education will not make men swallow; I confess, you have made a long and ingenious Harangue in a Commendation of the Benefits of Tyranny and Slavery: which had you done only for an exercise of your Wit, I should have ranked it with Cardan's Panegyric of Nero, and the praise of the Government; but if you vent such Notions in good earnest, I cannot forbear showing you the absurdity of them.  
First therefore admitting what you say for truth, that a Civil War does destroy more men in one Battle, than the greatest Tyrant hath ever done in his whole Reign; Is this an Argument that no man may defend either his Life or Liberty against Arbitrary Power? if this were true Reason, it were the greatest folly in the World for the Poles, or any other Nation that are at Wars with the Tartars, ever to resist them; for their Emissaries might thus make use of your Argument to make them submit to them: Life is the only state of Happiness in this World; and without which nothing can be enjoyed: It is therefore better for you to be made Slaves than to venture a Battle; for in the Fight God knows how many of you may be destroyed, whereas if you quietly submit, we promise to hurt none of you, we will only carry you away, and sell you for Slaves, and sure Slavery is better than Death; for even Slaves enjoy a great many Comforts of life, tho' with some hardships, and you may be redeemed again, or make your escape; but life once lost can never be recovered: The same Argument a Tyrant may use for the exercise of his Arbitrary Power over men's lives; that he will not (nay, cannot) destroy the whole Nation, but only use them as Butcher's 〈◊〉 their Sheep, cull out the fattest, and let the poor ones live, thrive and grow fat, till they are likewise ready for the Knife: This perhaps may be a proper life for those Beasts that cannot live without Man's protection; but what man of any courage or sense, would be willing to live under a Government where his Poverty was to be his only Protection? who would not venture his life in one brisk Battle, rather than live in such a vile and slavish Condition? and who would not rather argue thus, It is great odds, if among so many Thousands, I am the person ordained for Death; or if I am, I may perhaps purchase Victory for my Countrymen, and Liberty for my Posterity; but let the worst happen, I venture my life for the public 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 lost in the recovery, or maintaining any right whatever, should be the only rule to render War either reasonable, or lawful; I doubt whether most of the Wars Princes make for small Territories, or Punctilios of Honour; (as lowering the Flag for example) nay, even for the recovery of their Crowns, when unjustly detained or taken from them, can upon your principle ever justify either Princes in Conscience to make such Wars, or oblige Subjects in prudence, (according to your Rule of the public good) to fight in such quarrels; since none of them but often cost more Lives to defend, or regain them, if lost, than the things are worth that the Princes of the World usually make War about, against each other.  
But if you tell me, that men are bound by the Law of God, and of their Country to assist their Prince in any Wars he shall Command them; without enquiring into the Consequences of it: and let what will happen as to the loss of men's Lives, Estates or Liberties; that we are likewise to obey and submit to lawful Princes; because, let them tyrannize, enslave or destroy us never so much, yet God has put us into their hands; and we are safe in God's hands whilst we are in theirs; This is all a mere fallacy, for what is this to your main Argument from the destruction of Mankind; for, if so many men are to lose their lives in the War, what difference is it as to them, whether the War be made by a lawful or unlawful Power, it is still upon this Principle unlawful to be made, and consequently unlawful to be fought for; and if you once grant that Princes may tyrannize without resistance, kill or enslave any of their Subjects; what difference is it, as to the people that are to suffer it, whether he be a lawful Prince or a Tyrant or Usurper that does it: for as for being delivered by God into the hands of a lawful Prince to be dealt withal as he shall think good, it is all mere Jargon: pray prove to me (if you can) that whilst a Prince thus tyrannises, oppresses, and enslaves his people, that God ever thus delivered the people into his hand for that design, or that whilst he does so, he acts as God's Minister. This I have urged you to prove at our 4th meeting; but since you could not do it, I take the case for desperate.  
But to answer your Comparisons of the Sun and Sea, to which, you compare lawful Princes that turn Tyrants; they are as easily retorted upon you: if the rays of the Sun are too hot, we may resist them, and put on thicker clothes: or set up shelters to defend ourselves from them: the like we may say of his malignant Influences or Effects upon men's Bodies, could there be any means found out as easily to avoid them. So likewise for the Sea, suppose the breaking in of it upon any Country to be sent by God for their Sins, you will not say it is unlawful for the people to make Banks or Dikes, or use any other natural means to keep it out, or to drain it away; and the case is the same as to Tyranny, for if resistance be as natural a means against it, as these I have mentioned are against the too violent heat of the Sun, or breaking in of the Sea, I cannot see why we may not as lawfully exercise it; But since we are ●alking of Waters, this puts me in mind of the place you have now cited out of Proverbs, That the heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord; which without doubt is a great truth: but than you should have added what immediately follows; as the Rivers of Waters he turneth it whithersoever he will; now, how does God turn Rivers of waters? it is not by any supernatural means, but either by a strong Wind, or else by the hands of Men. So likewise that Solomon's Comparison of God's turning the Hearts of Kings like Waters, is but an allusion to the Custom of those Eastern Countries, 
Vid. Dr. Patrick's Paraphrase, and Annotations on this Text.  that as a Gardener draws the streams of water through the trenches he cuts, into what part of the Garden he thinks good; so doth God turn the Hearts of Princes to act, or do quite contrary to their first intentions, nay, to what they have actually done before; but how, is this performed? it is only as he makes use of the Gardener to turn the streams of Water; it is wholly by Humane means, such as Advice of good and wise Counsellors, and a prudent Consideration upon it; to which also may be added, the Resistance of their Subjects, when after all Remonstrances and Entreaties to the contrary, Princes still go on outrageously to oppress them; when they see they will no longer bear it, and find themselves engaged in a troublesome War with them, they then see their Error, and send to their Subjects and offer them terms of Peace. Thus divers of our King's hearts were turned, when they saw the Nation would all as one Man resist their tyrannical Arbitrary Proceedings, they came to Terms with them, and granted them Magna Charta, and other good Laws for the security of their just Rights and Liberties: But as for what you say of our being safe in the hands of Tyrants, as being in God's hands; I grant we are still in God's hands even when we fall under the power of Thiefs and Robbers; But is our safety then so great, as when we are out of their hands? Or, may we not get from them by force, if we are able? 
Cap. I. f. 107.  especially if what Bracton tells us be true, in these words in his Third Book, Exercere igitur debet Rex potestatem juris sicut Dei minister, & Vicarius in Terrà, quia illa Potestas solius Dei est; potestas autem injuriae Diaboli non Dei, & cujus horum operum facit R●●, ejus minister erit cujus borum operum facit, igitur dum ●acit justitias vicarius est Regis aeterni, minister autem Diaboli cum declinet ad injuriam. Now pray tell me, if the King can thus cease to be God's Lieutenant, and become the Devil's Officer? whether he can properly be said to be under the Power ordained by God, or that we can be very safe in such hands, I cannot very well see.  
As for unnecessary Wars undertaken, without any such cause, for mere pretences of Liberty, and the public good; and which may have sometimes caused many more Mischiefs and Inconveniencies than those they pretended to cure; merely does it therefore follow that no Wars, tho' against insupportable Tyranny, and for self-defence have never been nor may be undertaken by any Nation in the World? and that the state they are in after such a War, is always much worse than it was before; which is notoriously false, as you may see by so many instances I have given you from our own Histories; as I could also show you from other Countries, such as the Swissers and Dutch, who have by defending their Liberties when unjustly oppressed, brought themselves into a state of Plenty, Liberty, and Safety; and therefore notwithstanding your making so light of men's Just Rights, Liberties and Properties, there are certainly such things that distinguish a free people from slaves, as any who will but travel into France, Turkey, or any other Arbitrary Government, may easily satisfy themselves: and if these things ought to be really esteemed, as the causes of all the earthly happiness we enjoy, then certainly they may be defended, and fought for; and if in the purchase of them many men's Lives happen to be lost, this is no necessary consequence; since such Reformations are often brought about with very little Bloodshed; as appears by many instances I have now given of such resistance, and may more evidently appear by this late great and wonderful Revolution; but admitting it should happen, (as you say) and that a great part of a Nation should be destroyed in a Civil War for their just Rights and Liberties; yet it is still upon your own Topick better for Mankind that ●t should be so, if true Liberty (I do not mean from lawful Authority) may be but obtained at last thereby, since life is not to be esteemed only for mere living, but living happily, non est vivere, sed valere vita; and life is enjoyed by Slaves in Galleys, as much as by the greatest Prince, yet no rational man but will allow that Men may venture their lives, rather than suffer themselves, and their Posterity to fall into that miserable Condition; the like he may, if they were only to be reduced to the Condition of the mere Peasants in France, or ordinary Christians in Turkey; and if so, I think I may then safely affirm, that it is better that half the people of any Country should be destroyed by a Civil War, if their just Rights, and Liberties may be preserved to them, and their Children at the last, than that Slavery, with all its consequences, such as Ignorance, baseness of Mind, Cowardice, Beggary, etc. should ever be entailed upon a Nation; for as for the loss of Men, it may be made up again in some Generations; but when men's civil Liberties and Properties are once lost, they cannot without some rare and unexpected Revolution be ever regained; as we see in the Subjects of all sorts in France, Turkey, and Muscovy, etc. at this day: and therefore if you please better to consider, the real Liberties of a people (such as we contend for) are not that of Schoolboys to be free from the Lash of their Masters, however that if such a Discipline were to be exercised upon Men all their lifetimes, I think no man but would say it were worth venturing his life, rather than to fall into so miserable a state; so that what you cite from the Poet Lucan, is only to be taken as a Poetical Exclamation against the Miseries that Civil Wars often bring upon a Nation; but to say that it was Lucan's Opinion that Subjection under the severest Tyrant was better than the Liberty the people of Rome enjoyed, is to suppose that either you or I have never read that Author since nothing is more plain, than that the main design of that Poem is to magnify Cato and Pompey, who fought for the Liberty of their Country above Caesar, and those that joined with him to destroy it: As for all the rest that you have said, that you could make a History of greater Miseries, as loss of Liberty, etc. that have come upon whole Nations by fight for their Just Rights and Liberties against Tyrants, than by all the Tyranny, and Violence of Mankind; I think you would have a hard task to make it good, since I suppose under Absolute Monarchies it is unlawful for the People to take up Arms, till they are either like to be enslaved, or destroyed by the Tyranny of their Prince, or else so intolerably oppressed by his Soldiers, that they can scarce even in a state of War live in a much worse condition; and if they are ever subdued and reduced to their former condition, they cannot be worse than what they were under before: The like I may say as to Limited Monarchies, or Commonwealths, that degenerate into Tyrannies, the People may perhaps better their condition by Resistance, and recover their Liberties, but cannot be in a worse, if, they are overcome; for I do not allow such Resistance lawful till the very Fundamental Constitutions of their Government, whereby it is distinguished from an Arbitrary Despotic Power, be actually invaded, or taken from them; so that let the worst that can happen, they can scarce fall into worse condition than they were before: And as for England, we may speak it experimentally, that of all the Resistances that have been made by the Major part of the Nation, or greater part of it in defence of their Just Rights and Liberties, every one of them have happened for the b●●t, and been a means of restoring this Kingdom to its former Estate; except the last, in which I grant we lost it by that War; yet that was not from the Doctrine itself, but because the War was begun and carried on by a Violent Faction upon unjust grounds, and, which was worse, the Government and Discipline of the Church as Established 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 last by a Standing Army, which could give what Laws they pleased even to those that pretended to command them: So that why the Abuse of this Right once in a Thousand years should be made any just Argument against the ever using it at all, I can see no reason in the World for it.  
As to the rest of your Discourse against making any War about Religion that is also as fallacious; for tho' I grant that true Religion is not to be propagated, yet I think it may lawfully be defended by the Sword, especially where it is the received Established Religion of a Nation, or else the defence of Religion against Infidels would be no Argument at all to fight against a Turkish or Popish Prince that unjustly invaded us: For tho' it is true that Religion cannot be taken away from any Man without his consent, yet a Man may be taken from his Religion; and when the Professors are destroyed either by Martyrdom, or violent Persecution, as bad, or worse than death, what will become of the Church and Religion Established by Law, when all the Persons that constitute that Church are driven away, destroyed, or made to renounce it? And for this we need go no farther than over the Water to our next Neighbour. It is likewise as fallacious what 〈◊〉 urge of the great Corruption of Manners by Civil Wars, which if it be any Argument at all, is so against all Standing Armies whatever, whether raised by lawful or unlawful Powers: And I think there was much more debauchery in the King's late Camp at Hounslow-heath, as also in all places where they quartered, than was lately at York, or Nottingham, among those that took up Arms in defence of their Religion or Civil Liberties unjustly invaded by the King and his Ministers; nor does it always happen that Armies raised for defence of Religion and Civil Liberty must prove debauched, since we may remember that the Parliament Army (to its praise be it spoken) was infinitely more sober, and outwardly religious than the King's; but if you will say that this proceeded from their Principles, as well as good Discipline, I know no reason why Men who fight in defence of their Religion and Civil Liberties, may not upon Church of England Principles as to Church-Government and Common-Prayer, and also by a strict Discipline, be as little debauched as any Standing Armies the most lawful Monarch can maintain; who 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 wickedness that attend a loose Discipline, and want of Employment, and consequently may also corrupt the Places where they Quarter by their ill example.  M. 
I shall not longer argue this point since I see it is to no purpose. But you have not yet told me what these fundamental Rights and Liberties are, that you suppose the People may take up Arms to defend; nor yet what number of the Nation may thus judge for themselves, and take up Arms when they please; for it may so happen that the whole Nation may be divided as to their opinions concerning these things: And the South part of England (for example) may think their Religion, and Liberties in great danger, and that it is very necessary to take up Arms for it, when the North parts are not under those apprehensions, but lie still; as was lately seen in the risings for the Prince of Orange.  F. 
As to the first of these queries I think I can easily give you satisfaction and such as you can have nothing material to reply to: And as for the other though I do not say I can give you such an answer as will bear no exception or reply, yet I doubt not but it will be that which may very well be defended and may serve to satisfy any indifferent and unprejudiced person; And which if not allowed will draw much worse consequences along with it. And therefore as for the just Rights and Liberties we contend for, they are only such as are contained in Magna Charta, and the Petition of Right, and are no more than the immemorial Rights and Liberties of this Kingdom, and that first. In respect of the safety of men's lives and the liberties of their persons: aly. The security of their Estates and Civil Properties. And 3ly. The enjoyment of their Religion as it is established by the common consent of the whole Nation. All which I will reduce to these plain Propositions.  
1. That no Freeman of England ought to be imprisoned, or arrested contrary to Law, 
Vid. pryn's 1 st. part of the Vindication of the Rights of English Freemen.  without specifying the cause of his commitment in the warrant or mittimus, whereby he is sent to prison: And he ought not to be sent out of the body of the Country, or Jurisdiction where the crime was supposed to be committed, unless he be removed by due course of Law: neither ought he by the Law of England to be detained in Prison without Trial only for a punishment; but aught to be Tried the next Assizes or Goal-delivery, or within some reasonable time to be allowed of by the Court. And this was Common-Law many Ages before the Act of Habeas Corpus made in the 31st of King Charles the Second, which does but ascertain that Law concerning bailing men for all manner of Crimes in case no Prosecution come in against them: much less can the King or any Court below the whole Parliament banish any man the Kingdom in any case unless by some known Law already made whereby he is bound to abjure it upon a lawful Trial by his Peers and conviction by his own Confession.  
2. Nor can the King nor any Courts of Justice condemn a man to loss of Life, or Members, without due Trial by his Peers, and Legal Judgement given thereupon.  
And for proof of this I need go no farther than Magna Charta, and the Petition of Right which are both but declaratory of the Common-Law of England● see therefore Magna Charta cap. 29. Whereby it is declared, and enacted, that no freeman may be taken and imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or Liberties, or his free customs, or be Outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed but by the lawful Judgement of his Peers, or by the Law of the land, which is also farther confirmed and explained by these Statutes, viz. the 37, 38, 42. of Edward III. and 17. of Richard the II. all which are summed up, 
Cap. 18.9.3. Cap. 6.  and more particularly declared against, contrary to the fundamental Laws of the land in the Petition of Right exhibited to King Charles the I. in Parliament in the thirtieth of his Reign; wherein the late imprisonment of the King's Subjects without any cause showed, and the denial of Habeas Corpus are expressly resented; as also putting Soldiers and Mariners to death by Martial Law in time of peace: And the King's answer to this Petition is remarkable, The King willeth that Right be done according to the Statutes and Customs of the Realm, 
Vid. Ru●hwaths Hist. Col. pt. 1. p. 597. 598. 625.  etc. Which not satisfying as too doubtful and general, the King at last gave this full and clear answer in legal ●orm, Soit Droit fait comm● il est desirè.  
The Second point in relation to our Civil Properties is this, That no Tax, Taillage or Aid shall be laid or levied by the King without the consent of the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights, Burgesses, and whole Commonalty of the Realm in Parliament; this was first of all granted by the 56th Law of William the First, which I have already cited; as also more particularly forbid by the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo in the 34th of Edward the First, which was but a revival, or explanation of the former Law of William the First, and also by the 25th of Edward the Third, whereby it is Enacted, That no person should be compelled to make any Loans to the King against his will, because they are against Reason, and the Franchise of the Land; and it is also provided, that none should be charged by any Charge or Imposition called a Benevolence, nor by such like Charge, which is also more fully set forth in the said Petition of Right, to have been lately executed by certain Commissioners;) as also that divers other Charges have been laid and levied by Lords-Lieutenants, Deputy-Lieutenants, etc. contrary to the Laws and free Customs of the Realm.  
The Third Point declared against in this Petition of Right, is against Quartering of Soldiers (tho' they pay for their Quartors) contrary to the Will of the Owners and Inhabitants, much more when they did take free Quarter in time of Peace, as hath been too much practised of late: So that by the Common Law of England, not only Private-houses, but Inns, and Alehouses are not compellable to Quarter Soldiers, unless they will: so much was this Nation anciently a Stranger to standing Armies; and Quartering of Soldiers in time of Peace; that there was no Provision made for it, either at Common-Law, or by any Statute that I know of.  
4thly, That no new Law can be made without an express Act of Parliament; or the joint-consent of the King, Lords and Commons: and therefore that Parliaments ought to be duly summoned 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 least; or whenever there is a just and necessary occasion for it: And for proof of this, I need go no farther than the old English Saxon Law, which ordains, that the great Council, or Mycel Synod should be held twice in the year, as the ancient Mirror of Justices recites, and the constant Custom long after the Conquest, in which there never passed a year without a general Council of the whole Kingdom; and when this came by degrees to be discontinued, then were those Statutes of Edward the Third, and Richard the Second made; whereby it was enacted that a Parliament should be held every year, and oftener if there were occasion.  
5thly, Since the Legislative Power of Parliaments is the very Soul, and Essence of the Government, the Election of Knights, Citizens and Burgesses to sit and serve in Parliament, aught to be free; and all the Members of Parliament who have places there, either by Patents or Writs of Summons, as the Lords; or else by Election or Writs, as the Bishops ought to be present, and there to have freedom of Speech and Votes, without any Guards to over-awe or terrify them; and none to be forced, threatened, bribed or tampered with to give their Votes contrary to their Consciences; either by the King or any of his Ministers: This is ordained by the Stat. of Westm. 1 Chap. 5. whereby it is expressly provided that all Elections ought to be free; which Sir Edward Cook in his Notes upon this Statute extends to Elections of Knights of Shires as well as other Elections since. I have sufficiently proved, that the Commons elected Members to Parliament, when this Statute was made; and that this was the ancient Law of England, 
N. 36.  you may see in the Rolls of Parliament. 1 Hen. 4. wherein it is alleged as by the Parliament, as one of the Articles against Richard the Second in these words: Item licet de stato & consuttudine Regni sui in Convocatione enjuslibet Parliamenti Populus suus in singulis Comitatibus Regni debeat esse liber ad eligendum, & deputandum Milites pro hujusmodi Comitatibus ad inter ●ssendum Parliamentis, & ad exponendum corum gravamina, & ad prosequendum pro remediis superinde prout videntur expedire.  
Tamen praefatus Rex ut in Parliamentis suis liberius consequi valeat suae temerariae voluntatis effectum, direxit mandata sua frequentius Vicecomitibus ejus ut certas Personas per ipsum Regem nominatas, ut milites C●mitatuum, venir● saciant ad Parliamenta sua; quos quidem Milites eidem Regi faventes induc●re poterat, prout frequentius fecit, quandoque pro minas varias, & terrores, & quandoque per munera ad consentiendum illis qu●a Regno praedicto pr●ejudicialia fuerant, & Populo quam plurimum onerosa, etc. So that you here may see, that it was then judged by the whole Parliament to be a brench of one of the Fundamental Liberties of the Nation, for the King to make false returns to be made of Parliament-Men, as also, to corrupt, or over-awe their Votes, either by Promises or Threatening.  
But to conclude, that we have such things as Fundamental Laws, and Privileges, I shall go no farther than King james I. his Speech confirmed by an Act of Parliament of the First year of his Reign; wherein it is recited, That the King hath vouchsafed to express many ways, how far it is, and ever shall be from his royal, and sincere care, and affection, to the Subjects of England to alter, or innovate the Fundamental Laws, Privileges, and good Customs of this Kingdom, whereby not only his royal Authority, but the People's Security of Lands, Livings, and Privileges (both in general and particular) are preserved and maintained, and by the abolishing, or alteration of which it is impossible, but that present Confusion will fall upon the whole State, and ●rame of this Realm. So that if this Judgement of the King and both Houses of Parliament was true; sure we may justly suppose, that things of such vast concernment deserve our contending for, by all means possible and lawful to preserve them; for what the Nobles of the Land upon occasion once said with one Voice in full Parliament, every Freeborn Subject of England, may as well say at this day, Nolumus Leges Angliae mutari; which is a Maxim that ought to be imprinted upon the Hearts of all true Englishmen; who, (as my Lord Bacon very well observes) take themselves to have as good Title to their Laws, 
Lord Bacon's Letters p. 43.  as to the common Air they breathe in; and King Charles the First, somewhere says, That it was his Maxim, that the King's Prerogative is to Defend the People's Liberties, and that the people's Liberty strengthens the King's Prerogative: For indeed, if the Foundations are destroyed, the Superstructure cannot stand; and if this Rule had been well observed by this King's Sons, we had not been reduced to this great Confusion we now lie under. For my Lord Bacon calls those Flatterers who put the King upon such Dangerous Courses, 
Ibid. p. 41.  as great Traitors to him in the Court of Heaven, as he that draws his Sword against him: And King james I. in his Speech in Parliament, 1609. Calls all those who persuade Kings not to be confined within the limits of their Laws, Vipers, and Pests, both against them, and the Commonwealth.  M. 
For my part, I shall not go about to defend such ill men, whoever they be; yet since such Insinuations are done privately, and in a Corner it is very hard for Subjects to judge when such Evil Councils are infused into the Ears of Princes; and much more unjust for them to make any resistance on pretence to remove them: and therefore besides the absurdity of making Subjects both Judges and Parties, you have not yet told me, what number of men must be at once oppressed in their Fundamental Rights (as you call them) and who may make this resistance; for methinks it is very absurd to give one County, for example, upon the account of free Quarter, a Power of rising in Arms and resisting the King's Officers and Soldiers, when perhaps all the rest of the Nation where no Soldiers are, feel no such thing.  F. 
I am not so unreasonable, as to maintain that Subjects ought to take Arms merely because the King gives too much ear to Flatterers and wicked Ministers, or is too much led by them; let him be so, provided the people do not smart for it. But if once it comes to that pass, that they grow intolerable, and set the King upon a General Invasion of the people's Rights in any of the great Points I have now laid down, let them look to themselves, if they will not permit a Parliament to sit, and redress those Grievances▪ they must expect the Nation will rise at last against them, as they did against Gaveston, and Spencer's; and make them undergo that punishment they so well deserve: But as for what you say of making the people Judges, when their Rights and Liberties are invaded; the Consequence is as bad if the King alone shall judge, as for example in the Case of Ship-Money, the Judges gave their Opinions that the King might raise Money for Ships of War in case of Necessity, without any control; but if he be sole Judge of this Necessity, he might lay this Tax as often, and raise it to what degree he pleased. Therefore as I shall not deny that the King may judge it fit to do a great many things against the strict Letter of the Law, in cases of urgent necessity; but it will be at his peril if he judge amiss; as for example, Every man's House is his Castle, and he may lawfully defend it against all Illegal Commissions: Yet I think no man will deny, but that in case of a Fire in London, the King may by Common Law command his Officers to break open some of the next Houses, and blow them up with Gunpowder to stop the Fire; but admit he should out of malice, or misinformation command some Houses to be blown up that stood a Mile off, under pretence of stopping the Fire, do you think the Owners were bound to stand still, and let them do it?  
But if the People must not judge when their Fundamental Rights and Liberties are invaded, because they will be both Judges and Parties; then no man whatever by this Argument ought to defend himself against the violence of another; for who can be judge, but he that feels the blow? Nor indeed could Princes make so much as Defensive Wars, since whenever they do so, they are themselves both Judges and Parties, as I told you at our Third Meeting, when I answered (as I then thought) all your Arguments against the people's ever judging for themselves. So that if it be proved that the people in a limited Kingdom remain, as to the defence of their Lives, Liberties, Religion, and Properties, always in the state of Nature, in respect of their Prince as well as all the rest of Mankind, they must certainly make use of defensive Arms when necessity requires it, or else become Slaves whenever he pleases to make them so; may people have no right to judge of his Violence and Oppressions?  
But as for the number that are to make this Judgement and Resistance thereupon; I grant in most Cases this is not to be done, as long as the Oppression is begun by colour of Law, without actual violence. Secondly, when it concerns only some particular Bodies of Men; thus if free Quarter should be taken in one or two Towns or Counties I do not allow it a sufficient cause for all the Neighbouring Towns, much less the whole County, or the Neighbouring Shires to take an Alarm, and rise in Arms upon it, since, perhaps, the King may know nothing of it: and if he were once informed of it, would redress it; but can you affirm the Case would be the same if this Grievance should become general, all over the Nation? and that the King should be so far from redressing it, that he should put out a Declaration, setting forth that it was his Prerogative so to do; would not the whole Nation then take it for granted, that the King's Design was to govern by a standing Army, who should live upon the people, and devour them (as they do in France) to the very Bones; and might not they make Resistance against these Robberies and Oppressions? the same I say for all other breaches made in any other of our Fundamental Rights; I do not allow any resistance to be made, till it become a general Oppression upon all, or the major part of the Nation, and without all hopes of being otherwise remedied, and this must be also so evident, that there can be no doubt or denial of the Matter of Fact: for so long as the Case is disputable, or the Grievance is not of a general concern, I grant the people ought never to stir; but of this they alone must Judge; since our Constitution has left us no other Judges of these breaches, but the diffusive Body of the whole people in the intervals of Parliament.  
But for your last Question, as to the number that may thus rise to make this Resistance, I answer thus, that when once the Mischief becomes general, and without all other remedy; any part of the People who think themselves strong enough to defend themselves against such violence, may begin to rise if they can, till the rest of the Kingdom can come into their assistance; as I told you the Town of Brill did against the Tyranny of the Duke D'Alva, in the beginning of the Belgic Wars, and it was soon after seconded by the revolt of divers other Cities and Towns in those Provinces; till the Spaniards were quite driven out.  M. 
I do not deny but you speak more moderately on this Subject than most of your opinion, who think every private man has a right to take up Arms and raise a Rebellion, whenever he judges his Person or Estate is invaded; or injured by the Government. And indeed this remedy of Resistance seems at first sight pretty tolerable, if it were not that we very well knew that this many-headed Beast, the Multitude, is very apt to be deluded by the cunning Speeches, and sly Insinuations of factious and ambitious Men, whose Interest it will always be to fish in troubled Waters, and raise Disturbances to make themselves the Heads of a Party: Thus in the Year— 42. what Lies and Stories were there raised to incense the People against that good King, to make them take up Arms against him, as an Invader of their Liberties; and one that was about to make War upon them; And who that is not over-partial to his own Opinions, does not see, that the Nation has been blown up into a flame by the lying Reports of a French League, and a Supposi●irious Prince of Wales; neither of which, I durst pawn my life, have the least tittle of truth in them; so that this Doctrine can scarce fail▪ almost every time it is put in practice, to bring all Government to Anarchy and Confusion.  F. 
I have already in part answered this Objection at our Third Meeting; but since you will urge it over again, I shall in the first place admit the Matter of Fact to be as you say, that the People may, by some turbulent Demogogues, be sometimes so far incensed as to take up Arms when there is no just Occasion▪ but let me tell you▪ I doubt that neither of the Instances you have given, will make good your Assertion; for in the first place, as to King Charles' the First, it is said by all Writers on the Parliaments side, that the King by leaving his Parliament, and going to York, and there taking a Guard when no Enemy was near, and when the Parliament had as yet, raised no Forces at all; as also by his going to Hull to remove the Magazine of Arms that lay there, in order to put them into the hands of an Army, to make War upon the Parliament, who then demanded the Settlement of the Militia, to be in Commissioners of their Nomination; that he thereby broke his Coronation Oath, whereby he was Sworn to Govern according to Law, and not by force. But as for what you say, as to the present juncture of Affairs: I never can desire a more plain proof of the People's necessity of ●aking up defensive Arms; since admitting that neither of the Reports concerning the French League; and the false Birth of this supposed Prince be true; yet, I think, the Nation has had sufficient Provocations to rise as one man, and join with the Prince of Orange for the obtaining of a free Parliament to set all things right, which the King's violent illegal Administration has so much discomposed. But admitting the utmost you can suppose, that sometimes the people may Judge amiss, as well as the King, and through that misinformation may take up Arms against their Prince, when there is no real Occasion; shall this abuse of a right be a sufficient cause against there ever exercising of it at all; I am sure this is no good Argument against the natural Right of Self defence between private persons in the state of Nature, that some men do often abuse it; nor can I see how upon these Grounds, even Sovereign Princes may be allowed to make so much as Defensive Wars, (as I said but now) since they may pretend that themselves are wronged, and invaded, or at least are like to be so, when no such thing was really done, or intended; and so by their mis-judgment or false pretences, many millions of Lives may be lost▪ What then? must no Princes ever make War at all, till all the World be satisfied of the Justice of their Quarrel? If so, I doubt the last War of King Charles the Second made against the Dutch, and this late War the King of France, has now made upon the Empire, should never have been by your Principles so much as begun; much less carried on with so great an Effusion of Blood, and the Destruction of so many Cities and Towns: and whether this, as well as Tyranny at home, is not more often put in practice by Princes, than any Resistance this Nation, or all the Subjects of the World have made against such Tyranny, and Arbitrary Power, I leave it to yourself, or any indifferent Person to judge.  M. 
I doubt not but I may very well join issue with you upon this point, for I think that upon those very conditions, and grounds you have now laid down the Clergymen, Lords, Gentlemen, and Commons of this Kingdom, who have either come over with the Prince of Orange, or have taken up Arms in defence of his Late Declaration cannot justify themselves by any of the Instances you have given for joining themselves with him in Arms, for tho' I grant His Majesty by harkening too much to Popish Counsel● may have done many things which in strictness of Law cannot be justified; yet since they do not strike at that which you call the fundamental constitution of the Government, and has been also done without any force on the People of this Nation; but hath been either transacted by Judgement of Law, or the colour of it at least, viz. by the opinion of all or the Major part of Judges; all the Parties above mentioned, aught (according to your own Principles) to have waited for the meeting of the next Parliament, to whose determination they ought, by the Law of the Land, to have referred all such grievances, and violations of Laws which they had to complain of; and if then the King had refused to have remedied them, they might have had some colour (I do not say right) for taking up Arms▪ and doing what they have done; whereas I cannot see how you can, even upon your Principles defend the late risers from wilful Rebellion against the King.  
And for proof of this, I need go no farther than the Prince of Orange's Late Declaration, which being drawn by the best advice of the Malcontents then in Holland; would not fall to mention all the violations of Law, which they thought his Majesty's Government had been guilty of ever since his coming to the Crown, and therefore not to insist upon the want of right, which I conceive the Prince had to concern himself with the affairs of another Kingdom, which he had no right to: I shall however mention every Article, in which his Highness conceives the Religion, Laws, and civil Liberties of this Nation to be endangered. In the first place as to the dispensing Power, which the King has lately assumed to himself in matters of Religion; and thereby putting into Offices and Commands persons uncapable by Law of bearing them, without taking the Test; as I shall not now dispute the Legality or Illegality of the King's Declaration concerning it, so as to that part of it that concerns Liberty of Conscience, or dispensing with the Papists and Dissenters to meet in Assemblies for their Religious Worship notwithstanding all the Acts made against Mass and Conventicles, it was no more than what King Charles the IId. had done before with the Advice of his Privy-Council; in which if it had been Rebellion to have opposed him, sure it is the same crime in the Reign of his Brother.  
2. As for the Commission for causes Ecclesiastical  F. 
Since I foresee your discourse upon this Subject is like to be long; and to consist of many more heads than I doubt my memory will serve to bear away; pray give me leave to answer all your instances one after another as you propose them. First then as to the late Declaration concerning the Dispensing Power, it was so far from being done by Law, or so much as the Colour of it, that besides its being against divers express Acts of Parliament, which tie up the King's hands from dispensing with the Act against public Mass and Conventicles; as also that disable all Persons whatever to act in any public Employments, till they have taken the Test appointed by the said Act, (in which all non obstances are expressly barred.) But this Declaration was never so much as shown to the Privy Council, till it was ready to be published, and then indeed the King caused it to be read in Council, declaring that he would have it issued forth, tho' without ever Putting it to the Vote, or so much as ask the consents of the Privy Counsellors there present; though I grant the Title of it sets forth, that it was done by his Majesty in Council, to impose upon the Nation that stale cheat, whereby this King, (as well as the last) would have had us believe, that their Declarations had been issued by the consent of the Council, when God knows there was no such thing.  
And as for any judgement, or opinion of the Judges to support it, and make it pass by colour of Law, it was never, as I can hear of, so much as proposed to them in their judicial capacities, though perhaps it might be proposed to the Lord Chancellor, and some of the Judges who were of the Cabal, which is nothing to the purpose; all that I ever heard to have been brought judicially before them, was the Case of Sir Edward Hales taking a Commission for a Colonel of a Regiment; after he had openly declared himself a Papist; in which great point though I grant the Major part of the Judges gave their opinion for the dispensing Power, yet was it only in the case of Military commissions, as several of them afterwards declared, and not of all sorts of Employments, as well Civil, as Military, much less for Popish heads of Colleges, Parsons and Bishops to hold their Livings, Headships, and Bishoprics, if they pleased to turn to the Romish Religion; or that the King should please to bestow them upon Popish Priests, it would have been as legal in the one case as in the other; Since as for Popish Heads of Colleges, and Parsons, we have had too many instances of it, and if we had none for Bishops, we must thank either the constancy of most, or the timorousness of some of them, if they have not openly declared for the Romish Religion, and yet might have kept their Bishoprics, notwithstanding; but I do not at all doubt but that such a general dispensation for professed Papists to take and hold all sorts of Offices, and places of Trust, not only Military, but Ecclesiastical and Civil, would have in a little time brought all Offices and Employments into their hands.  
Nor is this dispensing power in matters of Religion, the sole thing aimed at by this Declaration, as appears by the very words, and whole purport of it, which is not confined to matters of Religion only, but claims an unlimited power of dispensing with all sorts of Statutes in all cases whatever, none excepted: and if so, pray tell me, what Magna Charta, or the Statute de Tallagio non concidendo, or any other Law, will signify, whenever the King pleases to dispense with them, either as to raising Money, or taking away men's Lives, or Liberties, or Estates, contrary to Law; nay the Papists already give out (and that in Print) that all Laws for taking away Religious Orders, and Suppressures of Monasteries, are against Magna Charta, by which holy Church (that is, the Popish Religion then in being) is to enjoy all her ancient Rights, and Liberties; and the Abbots, and Priors, do thereby, as well as the Bishops, and Lay Lords, reserve to themselves all their Ancient Rights, and free Customs: now whether this unbounded Prerogative would not quickly have destroyed not only the Ecclesiastical, but Civil constitution of this Kingdom, as they now stand established by Law, and would have soon introduced both Popery, and Arbitrary Government on this Nation, I leave it to yourself, or any indifferent person to consider.  
And though I do not say, that the bare giving of Papists or Protestant Dissenters a Liberty of Religious Meetings, or Assemblies for Mass, or Preaching, is an infringement of the free exercise of our Religion established by Law, yet pray take one thing along with you, which is a matter of great moment both to the Dissenters, and to ourselves; that if the King can thus by his Prerogative give both Papists, and fanatics a Liberty to meet publicly contrary to Law; let the latter look to it; for he may by the same Prerogative (whenever he pleases) dispense only with the Papists, and keep the Laws still on foot against the Dissenters; nay, he may by the same unbounded Prerogative, dispense with all the Laws for the public exercise of our Religion, and under pretence of dispensing with them only in some particular cases, shut up our Church Doors one after another, beginning with the Cathedrals, and so proceeding by degrees to Parish Churches: and though I grant King Charles the IId. did assume a power of dispensing with all Statutes concerning Religious Meetings contrary to Law; yet the Nation had not then any sufficient reason to rise in Arms against this Declaration; since it did not extend the King's Prerogative beyond those Acts concerning Religious Worship: and farther the Nation was not out of all hopes of having it redressed by the next Parliament, and so was not in that desperate condition in which it was lately, before the Prince of Oranges coming over. And you may remember that the Late King upon the joint Address of the Lords and Commons against that Declaration was forced to call it in, and cancel it, which certainly ought to have been better considered by his Majesty, and those of the Popish ●unto that advised him to issue out the late Declaration, so expressly contrary to Law, and the sense of both Houses of Parliament, and which gave the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the rest of his Brethren a sufficient ground of petitioning against it; and this was so evident, that a Jury in which the greatest part were high Prerogative Men could not upon a fair trial, but acquit them.  M. 
I shall not further dispute this point, since you have dwelled so long upon it, though I must still tell you, I do not look upon this as a sufficient cause for the Nations taking up arms for a reason I shall show you by and by; and therefore I shall now proceed to the next head complained of in the Prince's late Declaration, (viz.) the late Commission for erecting a new Court for Causes Ecclesiastical, but as I will not enter upon the question of the Legality of it; so on the other side it was also done by colour of Law; and the King as supreme head of the Church, was told by his Ministers that he had power to erect what new Court Ecclesiastical he pleased, provided it was not of the same kind with the High Commission Court, which had been abrogated by the Stat. of the 17th of King Charles the I. as likewise particularly excepted in the Proviso, in the Stat. of the XIIth of King Charles the II. for restoring Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Bishop's Courts: so that admitting that Court was not legal; yet the Persons who advised the King to erect it, and the Commissioners who sat in it were only answerable for it; in the next Parliament; and though the Bishop of London was suspended, and the Precedent, and Fellows of Magdalen College were unjustly expelled by this Court, yet sure none of these miscarriages could give the Subjects of this Kingdom any just pretences to take up Arms to redress them, being done (as I said before) by colour of Law, without any force or violence; and was also submitted to by the Parties against which these Decrees were given, and was at the most but a matter of particular concern, and reached no farther than the said Bishop and College, and did not touch the Religion and Civil Liberties of the whole Kingdom: and consequently was not of that general importance, as to be any just cause of the whole Kingdoms taking Arms, much less for the King's Officers and Soldiers to run over to the Prince of Orange, as they lately have done.  F. 
To answer what you have now said concerning the Ecclesiastical Commission; that I must also tell you was issued forth without so much as any colour of Law for it; and though the late Chancellor, and some of the worst, and most Mercenary Judges countenanced it by appearing for and acting in it, yet it is very well known that it was never proposed to all the Judges to be argued in the Exchequer Chamber, as it ought to have been, before a thing of that great importance to the whole Nation had passed the Seals; as to what you say, that the King's Ministers told him it was according to Law, and that they alone ought to answer for it in the next Parliament, and that no public disturbance ought to have been made about it, because the things that, that pretended Court did, were but of a particular concern, and only reached the Bishop of London, and one single College; that is but a fallacy which you put upon yourself; for sure if you had better considered of it, you would find that what these Commissioners have already done is of a little more public concernment than you are aware of, for pray tell me, why by the same Law, by which the Bishop of London was suspended for his refusal to silence Dr. Sharp, all the Bishops in England might not have been suspended one after another by that pretended Court, if they had refused to obey or execute any Letters or Orders from the King, tho' never so illegal or unreasonable? since what command could be more illegal, than the King's positive order to the Bishop to suspend a Clergyman from his Diocese, without first hearing him, or giving him leave to answer for himself? So likewise for the case of Magdalen College, by the same Law by which these Ecclesiastical Commissioners took upon them to turn out the Precedent, and Fellows for disobeying the Kings Mandamus, by the same Law the King might put upon any other College in either University, Popish Heads, and Popish Fellows, till instead of Nurseries for the education of our youth in the Protestant Religion, they may become as absolute Popish Seminaries, as the Colleges of Douai, or St. Omers; and though I grant that the persons concerned in these unjust Decrees, might have patiently submitted to them without any protestations against the jurisdiction of that pretended Court, since they might for some prudential reasons have thought fit to submit to them, without making any such protestation, and yet for all that not allow their Authority; but indeed the matter of fact was far otherwise, for when a part of these Commissioners sat at Magdalen College to expel the said Precedent and Fellows from their places contrary to Law, and the express Statutes of the College, they did all severally protest against their whole proceedings, and appealed to the King's Courts at Westminster. And it is a plain proof how willingly Dr. H. the Precedent of this College submitted to this Sentence, by his locking the Doors of his Lodgings, and leaving the Commissioners to break them open before they could get in, and put in his pretended Successor by force.  
But as to what you say, that the King was told he might as supreme Head of the Church, set up what new Court he pleased for the execution of his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: it is certainly a great mistake, for I utterly deny, that the King has power to erect any new Courts either Ecclesiastical or Civil, unless 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 also the Authority of the high Commission, by the Statute of the first of Queen Elizabeth, and if either of those high spirited Princes had● believed themselves to have been invested with such an unbounded Prerogative, they would certainly have exercised it, without being beholding to the Parliament, but indeed it is but a subterfuge, to allege that this Court was not of the same Nature with that of the high Commission, because it did not take upon it to ●●ne, or commit Men to Prison, nor to administer the Oath, ex Officio, to those that were convened before them, since it is not the different name, or some small difference in the manner of the judicial proceedings, but the Causes or Matters that a Court pretends to take Cognizance of, that can make it a Court of a quite different nature; now it is notoriously known that this late Ecclesiastical Court took upon it to Judge of Matrimonial Causes, about Alimony, and concerning ●lmoniacal contracts, and all other misdemeanours both of Clergy and Laity, against Religion and good Manners, which were the same things the late high Commission Court took upon them to determine; and if they did not meddle with Popish, or Nonconformist Meetings, it was because their hands were so tied up by the Late Declaration of Indulgence, that they had no power to meddle either with Papists or Dissenters.  M. 
I shall make no farther reply appresent to what you now say, till I come to answer once for all, therefore I shall go on to the next things excepted against in the Prince's Declaration, (viz.) the erecting of public Chapels for Mass, the protecting of Priests, and the making a Jesuit a Privy Councillor, all which tho' I confess they are against the express Letter of divers Statutes, yet since all these things depend upon the King's dispensing power, set forth in His Majesty's late Declaration, which as I will not assert, so I will not positively deny; since the said Declaration of Indulgence, and all proceedings thereupon have issued out and executed under colour of Law, viz. of the King's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, without any force or violence upon the Conscience, Religion, or Properties of the King's Protestant Subjects, whom the King in his said Declaration solemnly promises to protect in the free possession, and enjoyment of their Religion established by Law: and I cannot see how a liberty granted to Popish Priests to say Mass, or the putting in a Jesuit into the Privy Council; or making Popish Judges, or putting a Papist into the Ecclesiastical Commission, can be looked upon as any Invasion of the Protestant Religion, the free, and public profession of which we have (God be thanked) as quietly enjoyed as we did in the Reign of this King; or in that of his Brother.  F. 
Since you cannot directly justify the Kings setting up public Mass Houses in London, and in most other parts of the Kingdom; and his so public protecting and countenancing Papists and Jesuits, even to the making a Jesuit a Privy-councillor, tho' they are all in judgement of Law alike public Enemies and Traitors to the King and Kingdom, and that all these (as you cannot deny) are contrary to the express words and intent of all Statutes against Priests, and Popish Assemblies, so you endeavour to palliate it under the King's dispensing power, which you suppose to have had a colour of Law (at least) to support it, but tho' the giving Liberty to Popish Assemblies, and the Conventicles of the Dissenters was no direct hindrance of the free exe●ercise of the Protestant Religion established by Law, yet I must utterly deny that the King has any such prerogative, as to dispense with those Laws, and by his sole Authority to declare those that the Law calls Enemies and Traitors, to be good Subjects, and you may as well tell me, that the King has not only a prerogative power to pardon High-way-men; but may also protect them, and put them into his Guards, with a Commission to rob whom they pleased, as to give Papists Power to bear Arms, or to protect, and employ declared Traitors, (as Popish Priests, and Jesuits are by Law,) as the King had done; not the like I may say for putting in Popish Judges and Justices of Peace, (viz.) that it was all done by force of the King's Personal Orders, without his Legal Authority, which is that alone we can take cognizance of, or render any Obedience to; and tho' 'tis true, I do not deny the King a Power of making whom he pleases Judges, yet this prerogative is still to be exercised according to Law, and therefore if the King should make an illiterate man a Judge, who could neither Write nor Read, the Writ or Patent would be void in its self; the same I may say of a Popish Judge, the Law making no difference (as I know of) between a natural and a legal disability: but however the turning out honest and able Judges, because they would not give up our Religion and Liberties to the King's Arbitrary Will, is certainly a much greater breach of the Trust committed to him by his Coronation Oath, wherein he swore he would maintain the Laws of the Land, and mix Equity with Mercy in all his Judgements: now where is the Equity, or Justice of this, that whereas the Judges anciently held their places quam diu se bene gesserint they should now (by a notorious encroachment of the prerogative) not only be made durante beneplacito: but that the King should stretch this prerogative so unreasonably, as to examine the Judges before hand, whether they would agree to the dispensing power, and to turn out those that refused to comply, merely because they would not serve his Arbitrary designs? and then to put in the meanest and most mercenary Lawyers at the Bar, (nay some who never come thither at all) into their places, for no other merit, or good qualities, but because they would serve a turn, is so notorious a breach of his Oath, that it could not fail in a little time to destroy all our Common, as well as our Statute Laws, since these were all lately lodged in their Breasts and resolved into their Arbitrary determinations, which yet (as all the World knows) were wholly managed by the influence and commands of the Court; and this I say again was as notorious an abuse of the King's prerogative, as if he had put in High-way-men into his Guards with Commissions in their Pockets to rob whom they pleased, since these Gentlemen in Scarlet have taken the same Liberty under colour of Law, to raise Taxes upon the Subjects against the express letter of an act of Parliament, as may be seen in their late determination concerning Chimney Money, making Cottages built for the use of the poor, and houses of persons exempted from payment liable to Chimney Money, contrary to the express words of that Statute.  M. 
I cannot deny but the things you now mention have been great abuses of Prerogative, but whether so great as to require resistance I must still disagree with you, therefore I shall now proceed to the next particular complained of, (viz.) the examining of the Lords Lieutenants, Deputy Lieutenants, Sheriffs, and Justices of Peace, to know whether they would concur with the King in the repeal of the Test, and Penal Laws, and turning all such out of Commission as refused to comply with the King's desires in this matter; now tho' I will not say it was well or prudently done, yet it was no more than (what I think) the King by his Prerogative might Justify the doing of; since he may by Law give a quietus est to what Judges he pleases, and put in or out of Commissions, whether Civil, or Military, what persons he thinks fit, and as for the persons so examined they might have chosen whether they would have given any positive answers to the questions put to them, by the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Lieutenants, and if they had refused to answer positively to those questions proposed to them, I know no other penalty they had been liable to, more than being put out of Commission, which sure is no punishment, but rather an ease; and tho' I do not defend those evil Ministers that put the King upon this Method of distrusting, and disobliging his best Protestant Subjects (I mean those of the Church of England) by putting them out, and putting in either Papists, or fanatics in their steads, yet all that own themselves of that Communion, aught to have been of more loyal Principles than to have taken up Arms as some of them have done, upon pretence of standing by the Prince of Orange's Declaration, against these abuses.  F. 
I see though you cannot directly justify the examining of the Lords Lieutenants, and Deputy Lieutenants, and Justices of the Peace, about taking away the Penal Laws and Test, and turning those out of Commission that refused; yet you strive to mitigate it (as far as you can) by making it part of the King's Prerogative, to put in and out what Judges, Justices, and other Officers he pleases: well, granting this to be so, yet sure you cannot deny but that the clositing of Judges, and all other Officers you have now mentioned, and putting those out of Commission, that refused to comply with the Kings Will, (and that for no other reason) was sure a strange abuse of that Prerogative; and the excuse you make that the persons examined had a liberty to refuse whether they would give any positive answer, or not, is yet more trivial, since it is very well known, that as well those who gave doubtful answers, or refused to make any answer at all, were as much turned out, as they who positively denied to comply with the King's demands; so that no answer was looked upon as satisfactory, but such as seemed to give up all freedom of Elections, and Votes in Parliament; none being to be chosen by the King's directions but such as would engage before hand to repeal the Test, and Penal Laws: and I think you will not deny but that the King by thus examining all these Magistrates and Officers you now mention, and by turning those out that refused to comply, did all he could to hinder the free Election of Members to serve in Parliament, and the freedom of giving their Votes when they came thither, and the King might as well another time have declared that he would have no Members chosen but such as would agree to take away the Statute de Tallagio non concidendo, or any branch of Magna Chart●, which he should think fit to have repealed; and as this strikes at the very fundamental constitution of the Government, (viz) the free Election of Parliament men, so it was inserted among the Articles against Richard the II. that he had caused the Sheriffs to return whom he pleased for Knights of Shires, as I have already showed you.  
But what say you to the Kings late calling in almost all the Charters of Cities, Towns, and Corporations in England, and putting in Popish or Fanatic Officers and Magistrates, into the rooms of those that were turned out, only to influence Elections, and to procure what persons he desired to be returned for Parliament men; is not this a grand breach of the fundamental constitution of the Kingdom, thus to take away the legal Rights and Privileges of these Corporations, for no other cause than to procure the King such Parliament men as he had a mind to?  M. 
I beg your pardon, I forgot to mention this sooner, and though I will not take upon me absolutely to defend the Legality of it; much less the design for which it was done, since I grant that it was in order to destroy, or at least to humble the Church of England: yet since i● was done by colour of Law, and Judgement of the Court of King's Bench, and no more than what has been formerly done in the Reign of King Charles, I cannot see how the Noblemen, and Gentlemen lately in Arms, could defend their rising upon that ground, unless they would also at the same time justify the lawfulness of the Plot, and Rebellion intended in the same Reign, and in which so many of the Whig Nobility, and Gentry, were deeply engaged.  F. 
To answer what you have said in vindication of this great violation of one of the fundamental Rights and Liberties of the Kingdom; I must in the first place tell you, that as I shall not now examine into the matter of Law, whether a Corporation can forfeit its Charter for misdemeanours or not; much less shall I concern myself whether it were done by, or without colour of Law, or the Judgement of the Court of King's Bench, since it is notoriously known that none of the Judges were permitted to sit there, nor any new ones put in, but such as would blindly agree to all the Court would have done, and therefore I value nor any thing they did, nor think it one ●ot the more legal for their Judgements: nor is it any excuse, that the same thing was done in King Charles Reign, and therefore might as well be done now without any rising against it; for though I must tell you I look upon the taking away of the Charters from the City of London, and the other Cities and Corporations of the Kingdom, one of the most arbitrary, and illegal acts of that King's Reign, yet there were several reasons which made it unlawful for the Nation to rise then; yet it might not be so now, as in the first place, because most of those Charters, were either willingly surrendered by the members of those Corporations, or else were declared forfeited by due trial and Judgement of Law, whereas it was much otherwise in this King's Time, when notwithstanding that all the Cities and Towns Corporate in England, had but a few years before taken out new Charters to their great trouble, and expense, they were now summoned anew to surrender these again, for no other reason but because it was the King's pleasure it should be so, for who can imagine that all the Corporations of England could have forfeited their Charters in so short a time as three or four years? and they were plainly told, that the King must and would have them, and that it was to no purpose to stand out, and therefore it was no wonder, if all the Cities and Corporations of England were forced to submit patiently to this violation, since they found by experience the Judges were ready to give Judgement against them, right or wrong.  
And besides this I have already laid it down as a Maxim, that no resistance whatever is to be made, till matters become desperate, and all other means are become absolutely ineffectual, which I think they were not, as long as King Charles lived, who besides the inconstancy of his humour, which seldom persisted long, either in well or evil doing, (especially if the ill consequences of it were well laid open to him▪) was too timorous then to have put in any Magistrates into Corporations, but such as were for the Protestant Religion, as it stands by Law established; and such however angry they might be with those they called Whigs in respect of their opposing the Duke's succession to the Crown, yet I believe most of them would never have given up the freedom of Elections of Parliament men, or have done any thing to bring in Popery among us; so that as long as things remained in this State, there were some hopes still lest of a redress of our grievances, whenever a Parliament had met, and that the Nation was grown more cool, and had come to itself again after those heats which had risen in the late Parliaments about the succession, and other things; whereas now the case was far otherwise in this King's Reign; wherein we found not only our Religion, but the fundamental Rights and Privileges of the Nation, struck at by the King's dispensing power, and the Arbitrary proceedings of the Judges: and not only the freedom of Elections of Knights of Shires, but of Citizens and Burgesses endeavoured to be taken from us: either by threatening the Electors, or else by open force; as I shall prove by and by; when I shall have occasion to speak farther upon that head; so that unless a great part of the Nation had declared for the Prince of Orange, he had been repulsed with shame and ruin and our Chains tied faster upon us, than ever they were before.  M. 
I shall forbear replying further to what you have now said, till I come to conclude, but in the mean time I cannot omit another material grievance, set down in the Prince's Declaration, (viz.) the turning out and disarming the English Protestant Magistrates, Officers, and Soldiers in Ireland, and putting of Irish Papists in their Rooms, as also the late Declaration of Indulgence in Scotland; but as I will not defend the Justice or Prudence of those Councils, so I think none of them could give any sufficient cause for the people of this Kingdom to rise in Arms, for sure it is enough (if not too much) for them to concern themselves with the grievances, and miscarriages of their own Country, without taking upon them to take up Arms to reform those of their Neighbours, since they are not only ignorant of the Laws and Constitutions of those Kingdoms, but may also mistake the true reasons and grounds on which those alterations were made.  F. 
I see you can as little defend what has been illegally acted in Scotland, as in Ireland, only you would said put me off by telling me that the people of this Nation have nothing to do to take notice of what is done in other Kingdoms; and you may as well tell me, that a man ought not to take any warning as to defend himself against Thiefs, though he see's another man robbed by them before his Eyes, or that the Protestants of England should not take warning by the sad example of those in France, from ever suffering a Popish King from having the same power here as the French King has in France, for fear of the like fatal effects, since I never found Papists give Protestants the least forbearance, or show them any mercy longer than whilst it was not in their Power to hurt them.  
But to come to the matter in hand, we cannot but concern ourselves with what has been so lately done in Scotland and Ireland, for the introducing of Popery and Arbitrary Government in those Kingdoms, since the latter is notoriously known to be governed by the same Laws as England, and it is as much against the Laws of that Kingdom, as it is of ours, for the Irish Papists to be put in Arms, and the Protestant Militia disarmed, and for Popish Judges, and Justices of Peace to be put in Commission, as hath been practised under the Government of the Lord Tyrconnel; and if English Protestants in Ireland, cannot enjoy their Estates and Liberties, without being turned out of them by the Papists, how could we in England expect better treatment whenever they shall think themselves strong enough; and as for Scotland, tho' it be not wholly governed by the same Laws as England, yet the fundamental constitution of the Government is the same in both Kingdoms, and the King can no more make, abrogate, or dispense with Laws in Scotland without the Parliament, than he can here, and therefore for the King not only to issue out such a Declaration of Indulgence, and suspension of all the Penal Laws in Scotland against Papists, but also therein to declare that he expected an obedience to all his commands without reserve (whether legal or not) was so bold a stroke, that we could not but expect the like in England, tho' his Majesty thought it not fit at present to discover his Mind so plainly to us.  M. 
I shall not any longer dispute these points with you, but own that the abuses you mention, were indeed of great concern both to the Protestant Religion and our Civil Liberties, yet however besides the Laws of the Land, (which I still suppose do expressly forbid all resistance of the King upon any account whatsoever) I think there aught to have been no such thing done by any Subject of this Nation, even upon your own principles, which seem not to allow of such resistance, but in case of an actual and violent assault upon men's Religion, Lives, and Properties, and that by open force of Arms; now I desire you to show me, whom it is that the King has ever yet Dragooned, or persecuted till they would become of his Religion, or whose Life his Majesty hath taken away, even of the most notorious Traitors, but by due Trial, and course of Law, nay he has pardoned divers, several after they were condemned, merely because he was informed they were not really guilty of the Crimes whereof they stood Condemned; and as for men's civil properties, I defy you to show me any persons Estate that has been taken from him without due course of Law, or any Taxes that have been Assessed upon the Nation, but what have been granted by Parliament: or else raised by the opinion of the Judges, by whom if his Majesty hath been misinformed, they only ought to answer for it in the next Parliament, who are the only proper Judges of their Miscarriages without having any course to Force, which the Laws of this Kingdom so much abhor, and therefore make the worst of it you can, all these Greivances already mentioned were no more than some breaches upon the outward Splendour of our Church Religion or some of our civil liberties; whilst the main & Essential parts of both continued untouched, since, God be thanked, we have hitherto enjoyed the Free & public profession of our Religion, together with our lives, Liberties and Estates in perfect peace, and undisturbed by any outward Force, or Violence from the King, or any Commissioned by him; and as for those Grievances you mention, viz. The turning out the Precedent and Fellows of Magdalen College by the late Ecclesiastical Commission, as also the turning out of the Deputy Lieutenants, and Justices of Peace, and all other Magistrates out of Cities and Corporations, the King has sufficiently redressed them by restoring the first to their places, and by putting all the rest into Commission again▪ and turning out those that came in their rooms, and all this before the Prince of Orange came over, and I doubt not but his Majesty would have been content to have given the Nation any other reasonable satisfaction they could have desired in the next Parliament: Which ought to have been patiently waited for until his Majesty thought sit to call it, without going about to right ourselves by Force.  F. 
I confess you have made not only the most plausible defence you can of the King's late actions, but have also urged the utmost that can be said against those defensive Arms, that have been lately taken up by those Lords, Gentlemen, and others who have associated themselves to stand by the Prince of Orange, till our grievances were redressed by a free Parliament; but if what you have said be strictly looked into, I doubt it will prove but a mere Subtersuge to hide the nakedness of the Cause you have undertaken: In the first place therefore let me tell you, that though I confess the King has not yet Dragooned us to Mass, nor has made an actual War upon the Lives and Properties of the People of this Nation; yet that he has not only invaded our Liberties, but also endangered the Protestant Religion of the Church of England established by Law, you yourself have not the confidence to deny; only you will not suppose it to have been done by any Armed Force, and therefore ought not to have been resisted by Force, but to have waited for their redress by Parliament; which is but an evasion, for in the first place it is plain, that the things complained against, in the Prince of Orange's Declaration do most of them strike at the Fundamental Constitution, both of the Church and State, as I have sufficiently proved, and shall do it more particularly hereafter when there is occasion: all therefore that remains to be proved is this, that all these breaches, and violations of our Religion, and Civil Liberties, tho' done under colour of Law, yet were acted and maintained by Force; and Secondly, that all other hopes of remedy or redress, unless by joining with the Prince of Orange, was wholly taken from us; the first of these I prove thus: It is notoriously known that for the King to maintain a standing army in time of peace, has been always declared against in Parliament, as contrary to Law, and dangerous to the Religion, civil rights, and Liberties, of this Nation; now it is also as certain that the King has ever since the Duke of Monmouths coming over, set up, and maintained a standing Army in this Kingdom; in which he has also put in as many Popish Officers, and they as many Popish Soldiers (contrary to the Laws of the Land) as ever they could find, besides the many Irish Papists that have been of late sent over, for no other purpose than to be listed here, & whilst Protestant soldiers were turned out of several regiments to make room for them, not to mention the listing of vast numbers of loose, and profligate fellows, and some of them pardoned Highway men, who provided they had their pay would not have ●luck to Rob or Murder any body they had been ordered, as may be sufficiently proved, not only by their common taking of free quarter, but by their frequent taking it in the houses of Gentlemen, and other private Persons in divers places of this Kingdom; and that without any amends or redress as I know of, tho' frequently complained of at Court, all which being done by the King's arbitrary Power, without the least colour of Law, and in contempt of the Militia, the only legal Forces of this Kingdom, what was this but plainly to declare that as the King had thought fit to Act so many arbitary things clean contrary to Law▪ so he was likewise resolved to maintain 'em by force, since it is plain that the King never durst undertake to do all these Illegal and arbitrary things we have now mentioned, until such time as his standing Army was raised; and tho' it is true, men's Lives, Liberties, or Estates cannot be taken away unless by some Force or other, either Legal, or Military, yet as for those Civil rights, and Privileges, which are the main Bulwarks and defences of the former, they can only be invaded or taken from us by Illegal Judgements, and Declarations, which if supported by a visible Force beyond what the Nation (in the Circumstances it was in) was able to resist, this is as much a taking them by Force as if there had been resistance made about them. Thus if Soldiers come into my House, and say that the King hath given them Orders to quarter there upon free cost, I suppose you will not deny, but this is a forceable taking of my goods, nowithstanding I dare not, (because I cannot) resist them; the same I may say for a whole Nation, when once oppressed in their Civil Liberties, and those oppressions are once backed and defended by a standing Army contrary to Law: But that this Army was raised chiefly to this intent, I can give you a remarkable instance from the mouth of the late chief Justice Wright, who sent for Officers, and Soldiers to make the Scholars keep silence, because they Humed at what the Precedent, and Fellows of Magdalen's had just before done against the authority of this pretended court; so that to conclude, from that very time that the King beagn to keep up an Army, and to list Popish Officers and Soldiers, (tho' utterly disabled by Law to take Commissions, or to bear Arms) by virtue of his Dispensing Power, and all this in Order to back and support his Arbitrary proceedings, I look upon this Nation under such a force, as that they might Lawfully remove it by Force, when ever they could. And that either by joining with some Foreign Prince, or else by their own Domestic Arms. But to come to the second point to be proved, viz. That there was no other means but Force lest us to redress these mischiefs and to retrieve us out of that sad condition in which we lately were, as also to hinder us from falling into worse; I shall only suppose, (that which I think you will readily grant) that there could be no other means to cure these evils but either by some sudden change in the King's inclinations, or else by a Free Parliament; the former you must acknowledge was not possible, as long as he continued of the Religion he is of, and suffered himself to be managed by the Counsels of the Jesuits, and French King; and as for a Free Parliament what hopes could there be of that, as long as the King had done all he could to hinder Free Elections, and due returns of Parliament Men, by making either Popish, or Fanatical Sheriffs, and putting Mayors and other Officers of the like Principles into most of the Cities and Corporate Towns in England? nor can I tell but that force would also have been used, if they found they could not have compassed their designs without it, in those places where Soldiers were Quartered; since I am credibly informed that at the late intended Elections of Burgesses for Northampton, and Brackly, the Officers and Soldiers Quartered, at those places declared, that none of the Townsmen should be admitted to give Voices at the Election, unless they would promise to Vote for those that the Court would set up; and the like instances I believe I might give you of other places had I time to inquire into it: and as for the house of Peers, pray consider how many of the Bishops and temporal Lords the King might have gained either by threats, or fair promises to the King's party, or at least prevailed upon to stand Neuters, and not to oppose his designs, and if these had failed, it had been but calling up some Popish, or high Tory or Fanatic Gentlemen to the House of Lords, and to have sat their as Barons, Peers, pro tempore, till this job was done, and I doubt not but there would have been enough found out, of each sort, for that purpose, and that I do not speak without Book, I have had it from persons of very good Intelligence, that such a design was lately on foot, and the Court party thought they had very good Authority for it; since Mr. Pryn, and Sr. Will. D●dgdale pretended to show us several examples of this Kind, as low as the Reign of King Henry the 4th. and a great part of the design of your Dr. Bs. late Books seem to have been only to prove, that the King might not only have Summoned to Parliament what of the commons he pleased, but what Lords too, and have omitted the rest, as I have already shown you at our two last meetings, and sure if the King had such a prerogative two or three hundred years ago, these Gentlemen would not have denied his Present Majesty the like Power; Since they have in all their Writings and addresses declared him as absolute as any of his Predecessors.  
But to make an end, as for what you say of the Kings Redressing the Grievances of the Nation before the Prince of Orange came, it is very true, he did by the advice of some of the Bishops, endeavour to put things into the same state they were in at his first coming to the Crown; but I very much mistrust the sincerity of his Majesty's intentions, since it is plain he never offered to do it till the Prince of Orange was ●ust upon coming, and that his Declaration had been spread about the Kingdom, and then he did it so unwillingly, that when the news came of part of the Prince's Fleets being Shipwrecked, and that his design was quite put off, the Bishop of Winchester who was then but newly gone down to restore the Precedent and Fellows of Magdalen College, was immediately called back, under pretence of being present as the Examination of the Birth of the Prince of Wales, and did not return again to finish that business, till such time as fresh News came that the Prince was certainly come, notwithstanding his late disaster. And which is also more remarkable, His Majesty in none of His Declarations ever disowned his Dispensing Power, or so much as put out Father Peter from the Council, or Disbanded one Popish Officer, or Soldier out of his Army, which is another great Argument of the Sincerity of his intentions. So that I think this was sufficient to convince any reasonable Man that there was no other means left us but Resistance, and that by Force, and a hearty Joining with the Prince of Orange at his Landing.  
Since this resistance was not made either in Opposition to the King, or the Laws, but for defence of both, against a Standing Army kept up contrary to Law, and headed by Officers, the greatest part of which, by not taking the Sacrament and Test, according to the Act made for that purpose, had rendered themselves wholly uncapable of holding those Commissions, and consequently whilst in Arms were to be looked upon as common Enemies to the Nation.  
But as for his Majesty's Gracious and merciful disposition; as I shall not make it my business personally to Reflect upon him, so I must needs tell you the Execution of Mr. Cornish, Mrs. Lisle, Mrs. Gaunt for Treasons falsely alleged; or else for such as Women could scarce be capable of knowing to be so, were no great Evidences of such highly Merciful Inclinations.  M. 
I confess you have taken a great deal of pains not only to set forth the Late Miscarriages of the Government, but also to prove that the Army which the King raised upon the Duke of Monmouth's Rebellion, and which he hath since kept up to prevent either fresh Rebellions at home, or Invasions from abroad, has been merely maintained to support all these Late breaches upon our Laws, and Civil Liberties, which you say were made upon them: now this is very uncharitably done for as His Majesty was Forced to raise that Army at first because the Late Rebellion in the West was too powerful to be quelled by the ordinary Trained Bands of the Kingdom whom he had too much reason to suspect, by the running over of several of them to the Rebels, not to be so Loyal as they ought to have been; and if His Majesty had not had a small body of an Army on Foot, the last Summer before the Prince of Orange came over, he must upon his Landing have Yielded to his terms, had they been never so unreasonable; and though I will not defend the Listing of Popish or Irish Soldiers, or the Granting Commissions to Popish Commanders, yet it is very hard to prove this to be a making War upon the Nation, unless you can suppose there may be War made without Fight, and as for those Violations of the Laws which you suppose were made only upon the presumption of this standing Army, this is likewise very hard to affirm, since how can you tell that the Judges and Ministers would not have given the same Opinions and advices concerning the Dispensing Power, Chimney Money & the Ecclesiastical Commission, had there been no Army at all raised, since they might for aught I know have presumed that the People of this Nation, had been sufficiently convinced of the truth of the Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Nonresistance, as not to have needed a Standing Army to back what he had already done, tho' contrary to Law: but as for the latter part of your Discourses, say the People ought to have waited till the King had called a Parliament, and then if they had betrayed their trust and given up our Religion and Liberties as you suppose they would have done, it had been then time enough and not till then for the Nation to have called in the Prince of Orange, and His Dutc-hmen to their Deliverance; so that till this Parliament had been tried, you could not say that matters were altogether desperate.  F. 
I see you do all you can to prove that the Kings Raising an Army, wherein he had Listed so many Popish Officers and Soldiers, (and which were like to be daily increased upon us) was no making War upon the Nation, because they had not yet actually robbed or murdered People; and you may with as much reason tell me that a Thief upon the Highway does not use any Violence upon the party he robs, if he should only clap a coked Pistol to his breast without ask him to deliver his Money: Now I suppose you will not deny, but that the Passenger would quickly understand the meaning of that sign and would soon deliver his Purse for fear of losing his life; apply this to the Chimney Money that has been raised upon the poor part of the Nation, and the taking away the Charters from the Corporations, merely through the Terror of this standing Army, and see if the Similitude does not exactly fit, and for what you say concerning the presuming upon the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, and so might have done the same Arbitrary things whether he had raised an Army or not, tho' I am very glad you confess that those Doctrines encouraged the King's Arbitrary proceedings, yet I must Beg your Pardon if I cannot believe the rest whatever thoughts the King might have of the Major part of the Clergy, Nobility and Gentry: Yet certainly he had no such good Opinion of the Ordinary People who composed the Militia, (and indeed are the Hands of the Kingdom) since you confess the King did not look upon them as sufficiently Loyal, and therefore was forced to maintain a Standing Army for fear of them; So that it seems the Nation was not yet thorough paced in your Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Nonresistance as you would have had them, but that even this Standing Army when it was to Fight against the Religion and Liberties of their own Country, it was not to be trusted, the King himself was convinced of, when he so lately ran away from them at Salisbury; and because some of them deserted him he feared the rest would not Fight, in so unjust a Quarrel.  
But as for the rest of Tour Speech, that the People should have ●arried till matters had become altogether desperate, and that a Parliament had actually given us our Religion, Civil Liberties and Properties to the King's Arbitrary will, that had been indeed intalling Slavery upon us by a Law, and would have made good the Proverb, of shu●●ing the Stable Door after the Horse is Stolen, and puts me in mind of a Story I have heard of a Gentleman whose House being beset by Thiefs, who were actually breaking in at a Window, and that he was about to shoot at them, his over scrupulous Chaplain (who I suppose had nicely studied your Doctrine of Nonresistance) desired his Patron to forbear, because the Thiefs had not as yet sufficiently declared their wicked intentions by assaulting or robbing any Body in the House, But I suppose the Gentleman was not such a Fool as to take his Chaplains advice, and a great part of the Nation was too sensible of the dangers they saw hang over their Heads than to follow your Opinion.  M. 
I see you are very free in your Comparisons, in making the King's Late Army little better than Thiefs, and then what Opinion you have of the King himself who headed 'em, I leave it to yourself to consider; but since Similitudes are no Arguments; I shall not trouble myself to argue this point any longer with you, since I see it is to little purpose; but yet let your right of Resistance be what it will in desperate cases, yet I am sure that divers Lords and Gentlemen of your Opinion can no way justify their renouncing all Allegiance to his Majesty, by adhering to a Foreign Prince, and by their Late advising the same Prince to call a Free Parliament, without taking any notice of the King: or making any more Addresses to him about it, than if he had never been their Anointed Sovereign; and indeed it was a burning shame, as well as a crying Sin, for the Nobility, Gentry, and People in and about this great and populous City to let their King be hurried away Prisoner by a handful of Dutchmen, though his Majesty hath had since the good Fortune to escape out of their hands, when he saw there was no other means to fail him.  F. 
In answer to what you have now said, I must freely tell you; that if the resistance that hath been made against the Army Commissioned by the King was Lawful, so has all that has been done in pursuance of that resistance been alike Lawful and necessary; and therefore what if I tell you that the King by breaking the Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom, and by twice going away without ever offering to repair those breaches, and give the Nation any sufficient satisfaction for the same, has not only put himself in a state of War against the People, but has also thereby ceased to be King; or if you will have it more plainly, has lost and forfeited his right to the Crown.  M. 
This is rare Commonwealth Doctrine, and of the same batch with that of bradshaw's, and Cooks Speeches against King Charles the First, but I thank God I have learned Loyaler Principles, and do firmly believe, that a King of England cannot for any Tyranny or breach of Laws whatsoever forfeit his Crown or Royal Dignity, as you suppose. But since this is a new Doctrine I shall not be unwilling to hear what you have to say upon this Subject another time, since it is now too late to pursue this Argument any further.  F. 
Before I make any reply to what you have now said, I desire not to be misunderstood as if I call all the Kings Late Army Thiefs or himself the Captain of them, since in Similes it is sufficient if they agree in some common property without being the same things to which they are compared, though this much I may safely say that those that take Free Quarter without consent of the owners in time of Peace, and those who support 'em in it are no better than Thiefs; but since you desire to hear my reasons for this opinion I have now given you, I desire that we may have another meeting to debate this weighty question: and then I will likewise hear whatever you have to say against it; but I must tell you by the way, that you are very much out in making my opinion of the same batch with that of the Regicides; for it appears plainly by the Printed Trial of the King, that they acknowledged him for King of England at the same time, when they read his Indictment to him, whereas I affirm the contrary, and say that the King cannot be judged or deposed by the Parliament or People; and that he has without any effect of ours absolutely Abdicated the Government, and Deposed himself: but that I may not seem to speak out of any prejudice to this King's Person or Government, I desire we may first debate it in General whether a King of England can ever fall from, or forfeit his Royal Dignity let him behave himself never so like a Tyrant: and when that is dispatched it will be then time to consider whether the King has so behaved himself or not.  M. 
I like your Proposal well enough only let me desire you to come again as soon as you can, for since I hear there is like to be no Term, I intent to go visit some Friends in the Country, till I see 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.  
FINIS.   

Bibliotheca Politica: OR A DISCOURSE By WAY of DIALOGUE, On these Questions; 

I. Whether a King of England can ever fall from, or forfeit his Royal Dignity for any breach of an Original Contract, or wilful violation of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom.  
II. Whether King William (commonly styled the Conqueror) did by the Conquest acquire such an absolute unconditioned Right to the Crown of this Realm, for Himself and his Heirs, as can never be lawfully resisted; or forfeited for any maladministration, or Tyranny whatever.    
Collected out of the most Approved Authors, both Ancient and Modern.  
Dialogue the Tenth.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, near the Oxford-Arms; where also may be had the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, six, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Dialogues. 1693.   

Authors whose sense is made use of in this Discourse, and how denoted in the Margin.  

Dr. Hick's jovian. H. I.  
Mr. Petyt's Right of the Commons asserted. P. R. C.  
Dr. Brady's Answer thereunto. B. A. P.  
His answer to Mr. Atwood's janus, etc. B. A. I.  
His Answer to Mr. Cook's Argumentum Antinormanicum B. A. A.  
Mr. Atwood's Treatise called Ius Anglorum ab Antiquo. I. A. A.   
I desire the Reader to remember that I do not make use of the word People, for the mere Vulgar or Mobile, but for the whole community, consisting of Clergy, Nobility and Commons.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
I AM come to one of the last parts of my intended task, (which in pursuance of the last discourse of resistance,) is whether the Late King James by any breach of the Original Contract made between his Predecessors, and the People of this Nation, expressed by a Notorious violation of the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom, hath forfeited his Crown, and Royal Dignity, and hath thereby discharged the Nation from all Allegiance to him; in the discussing of which to let the World see I do not Write any thing out of particular spleen, or prejudice to the Late King's Person, or Government, I have chose to handle this question in general, without making any mention at all of him, and therefore have urged all that I think can be spoken on either side, in this question, without applying it to any King in particular; but because I find the chief Argument (next that of a Divine Right) for the Absolute, and Unconditioned Power of the Late King, is a Right of Conquest over this Kingdom, and Nation from K William I. (commonly called the Conqueror) whereby he is supposed to have acquired an absolute indefeasible Right to the Crown of this Realm, both for himself and such lawful Heirs of his Body as shall succeed thereunto; I have also examined all things considerable that have been or may be urged on either side on this question, as well from Ancient as Modern Authors: tho' I confess it is the more difficult to be resolved, because not only our later Antiquaries, such as Sir H. Spelman, Sir Roger Twisden, and Mr. Selden, are p●int blank against Sir William Dugdale's and Dr. Brady's Notion of King William's Title by Conquest; but also the Ancient English and Norman Historians do extremely differ in their Relations, for tho' they both agree to Found the best Title he had on the Testamentary Donation of King Edward the Confessor (which they also call an Hereditary Right) yet do they very much differ about the manner of his Government. Some of the most Ancient of the Norman and English Historians, setting him forth as a Just, and Pious Prince, and others of them, and especially Mat. Paris, making ●im a m●er Tyrant that observed neither Oaths nor Laws, farther than stood with hi● own convenience; I have not therefore omitted to my knowledge any considerable Authority or Argument, that hath been made use of; and not to seem partial, have added several new ones that have not been taken notice of before; and tho' this subject may seem antiquated, and trivial to divers nice Readers, yet I doubt not but it will prove sufficiently pleasant and instructive to those who are Studious in our English History and Laws.  
But as for the Authorities I have given you on either side, I have confined myself wit●in the space of 200 years, after the reputed Conquest; because the Authors that writ within that time, may be supposed to speak either on their own Knowledge, or else from the then recent Tradition of their Grandfathers, or great Grandfathers at farthest; as for the Arguments; they are the best I could find among our pretended Authors, and where they fell short I have added the best I could think of, or have heard in those conversations I have frequented; and if these do not satisfy, I hope the Reader will not blame me, since it is not my fault they are no better: but if the reverend Dr. Hick's or the learned Dr. Brady, (whom these questions may chiefly concern) shall vouchsafe to peruse this discourse, and will take the pains so far to consider them, as to show me my omissions, or wherein the person whom I have all along introduced to oppose their sentiments, has either argued falsely, or is mistaken in matter of Fact, I shall be so far from taking it ill, that I shall thank them for their pains, provided it be done with that civility and candour, which may be expected from persons so eminent as they are for Knowledge and Civility; I have no more but to beg the Readers pardon, for the length of this Discourse, which I could yet have enlarged farther, but that I leave him to satisfy his Appetite to the full upon this Subject of the Norman conquest, whenever Mr. Petyt and Mr. Atwood shall think fit to publish their laborious and learned collections on this Subject: till when I hope the Reader will stay his Stomach with these remainders, tho' they have in great part been served up already in the learned Entertainments of those Authors mentioned immediately in the Title Page.   

THE Tenth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian, AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman.  M. 
OH! Are you come at last; I have looked for you these two Nights; and now began to fear you were not well, or else had disinherited your cause, and declined another Conference.  F. 
I beg your Pardon for disappointing you; which yet I had not done, had no● some Business hindered me; but however to let you see I do not decline another Conference with you upon this Subject, pray let us go on where we left off; and tell me freely your sense of my Notion of the King's forfeiture, or Abdication of the Government by his violation of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, and refusal to repair those Breaches, when he might have done it?  M. 
In answer to your demand, I will deal freely with you, and must tell you, that I have perused all Writers, that have Writ any thing considerable concerning 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 absolute Sovereign Prince, a● I must still take ours to be, notwithstanding all you yet said to the contrary; unless what you have cited at our third meeting, 
Vi. grot. de J. B. L. 1. cap. 4. §. 7.8. Pufendorf de jure not. L. 7. cap. 8. §. 6.7.  out of Barclays third Book, contra monarchs; where he allows the Subjects to resist their Prince, in case he go about to destroy the Body of the People or Common wealth, whereof he is the Head: To which I may also add another Case which you have omitted, viz. if the Prince make over his Kingdom to another, without the Consent of his People: And I confess that both Grotius, and Pufendorf, agree with Barclay in this Notion: Because they look upon both these Cases, as their plain downright Renunciations of their Civil Authority, over those whom they were obliged to Govern: But indeed, the first of these Cases is so improbable, nay, almost impossible to happen, that were it not for the overgreat niceness of these Writers, it need not to have been so much as mentioned; since none but a Madman, can ever go about to destroy his whole People; and therefore as a Man out of his Wits, such a Prince may be Resisted; and locked up, if ever it should so fall out (as you yourself have confessed it hath very rarely) for a Nation to be so unhappy, as to have such a Prince; but as for the Second, viz. the making over their Supreme Power to a Foreign Prince; that likewise so very rarely happens, That it is scarce worth the while, to make any dispute about it; But in all other Cases, they held the Supreme Power of every Nation, to be absolutely Irresistible in any case whatsoever; and if irresistible, then certainly uncapable of forfeiting their Right to govern, by any pretended, or real Violation of the Liberties and Privileges of the People. And Bodin in his first Book, 
Cap. 8.  de Republica; tho' he grant that absolute Princes are obliged in Conscience, to keep and maintain all such Privileges, which have been granted to the People by either themselves, or Predecessors, which are for the good of the Commonwealth; yet since the Prince is sole Judge, whether these Privileges are consistent with his Supreme Right to Govern, and Protect his People, he may therefore have occasion sometimes, not only to Detract from them, or dispense with them in some Cases; but may wholly break and lay them aside, by turning Tyrant: 
Lib. 11. cap. 5.  Yet nevertheless in all these Cases, People are still bound not to resist them: And that he looked upon the King of England, as such an Absolute Monarch, as well as others he there mentions, pray read me the place I now Cited, where after he has allowed Resistance to be lawful against those Princes, who were not properly Monarches, as enjoying but a share of the Supreme Power, and among which, he reckons the Germane Emperor, and the Kings of Denmark, Sweden, and Poland: But then, when he comes to speak of Real and Absolute Monarchies, his Sense is quite different, as you may see by these words. Quod si Monarchia quaedam est, summâ unius potestate constituta, qualis est Francorum, Hispanorum, Anglorum. Scotorum, etc. (I shall slip all the rest, because not to our purpose) ubi Reges sine controversia jura omnia Majestatis habent per se; nec singulis civibus, nec universis fas est summi Principis vitam, famam, Fortunas in discrimen vocare, seu vi, feu judice constituto id fiat, etiamsi omnium scelerum, ac Flagitiorum quae in Tyrannis convenire antea diximus, turpitudine infamis esset; where you may observe that Force or Resistance, by which such an absolute Prince's Life or Regal Power (here called Fortunas) are as much forbid, as calling him in question, by appointing Judges to sit upon him. And he there gives us a very good reason for it, because all Subjects of what degree soever, cannot pretend to any Coercive Power, over the Person of a Sovereign Prince.  F. 
We have discoursed enough concerning the Resistance of Absolute Monarches, at our third and fourth meeting, and therefore I desire we may not fall into that Subject, which can produce nothing but needless Repetitions; and I have already proved, at our 5th Conversation, that the King is not an Absolute Despotic Monarch, but is limited and tied up by the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, from making of Laws, or raising Taxes without the consent of his People in Parliament; and that our Government is mixed, and made up of Monarchy, with an allay of Aristocracy, and Democracy in the constitution; the former in the House of Lords, the latter in the House of Commons, as K. Charles the First himself confesses in his Answer to the Parliaments 19 Propositions; and I have farther enforced this from divers Authorities out of our Ancient as well as Modern Lawyers; viz. Glanvill, Bracton, Fortescue, and Sir Edward Coke: So that since we have such clear proof for our Constitution from our own Histories and Authors, nay from the King himself, besides the whole purpor● and style of the very Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom; I do not value the Authority of Bodin a Foreigner, whose business it is to set up the Authority of the French King to the highest pitch he could; and therefore being sensible that anciently the Government of France and England were much the same, he could not with any face make his own an Absolute Despotic Monarchy, unless he had made ours so too: But this is not the only Error he has been guilty of in our History and Constitution, as I can show you when there is occasion. But Arnisaeus, who, as well as Bodin, is so much for Absolute Monarches, yet does in his Treatise of Government called his confess that a Tyrant in an Hereditary Monarchy, who violates all the Laws of Justice and Equity to the endangering the Ruin of the Commonwealth, doth ixcidere jure haereditario, fall from, or forfeit his Hereditary Right. But pray make it out by some convincing proofs either from History, or Law, that our Kings are such Absolute Monarches as you would make them, that by the fundamental Constitution of the Government they cannot be resisted, nor can fall from their Regal Power, let them carry themselves never so Tyrannically; for I do not see you have been yet able to do it by any Arguments you have hitherto made use of.  M. 
I have already at our 5th, as well as at our last Meeting, given you divers Arguments and Authorities whereby I proved the Kings of this Realm to be complete, and absolute Monarches; especially that place from Bracton, 
Lib. 1. Cap. 9  where he thus speaks of the King, that every one is under him, and that himself is under none but God; that he has no Peer in his Kingdom, because so he would lose his Power, since an Equal has no command over an Equal; much more has he any Superior, because than he would be inferior to his Subjects, and Inferiors cannot be equal with their Superiors, which sufficiently destroys that Notion of yours, that Subjects can be in any case equal with their Princes, so as to judge and resist their actions; which is also farther enforced by another passage just aforegoing, de Chartis vero Regiis, & factis Regum, non debent, nec possunt justiciarii, nec privatae personae disputare, nec etiam si in illis dubitatio ulla oriatur, possunt eam interpretari; & in dubiis, & obscuris, vel si aliqua dictio duos contin●at intellectus, Domini Regis erit expectanda Interpretatio & voluptas, cum ejus sit interpretari cujus est concedere; from which we may conclude, that the King's actions were above all censure and dispute, much more forcible opposition of his Subjects. And I defy you to show me any passage in Bracton, Fleta, or even your beloved Author Fortescue, that in the least countenances your Doctrine of Resistance, much less your Opinion of the King's forfeiture of his Crown and Royal Dignity for Tyranny, or the highest Violation of Laws; but rather the contrary in all those passages that I have either observed myself, or found quoted out of them by others: For tho' I grant both Bracton and Fleta call the King, if he prove a Tyrant, or one that governs contrary to Law, not God's, but the Devil's Minister; yet for all that, they no where maintain, that then he ought, or may be resisted by his Subjects, or that they are discharged of their Allegiance towards him: For Bracton tells us in the same place, 
Lib. 2. cap. 7.  that if the King do any man wrong or injury, Locus erit supplicationi quod factum suum corrigat, & emendet; quod quidem si non fecerit, satis sufficit ei ad paenam, quod Dominum expe●tet ultorem; nemo quidem de factis suis praesume● disputare, multo fortius contra factum suum venire: The same he says likewise word for word in another place of any other King or Prince, who has no superior Lord, against whom there is no Remedy by Assize (or Legal Trial) as against an Equal, but only place left the injured Subject for Petition: And Bracton gives us a very good Reason for it in this maxim, omnis qúidem sub eo, & ipse sub nullo nisi tantum sub Deo. So that tho' I grant this Moral Obligation, which the King hath to observe the Laws, is farther increased by his Coronation-Oath, 
H. I. P. 244, 245. cap. 9  as Bracton observes in his third Book de Actionibus: But then, as in the Oath of Allegiance, the People swear nothing to the King but what they are bound to observe unsworn; so the King in his Coronation-Oath promises nothing to the People, but what in Justice and Equity he is bound to perform whether he swear or not; for, ad hoc (saith the same Author, of the King) electus, & creatus est ut judicium faciat universis, etc. and separare debet Rex, cum sit Dei vicarius, Ius ab Injuria, etc. But then if he will pervert this great end for which God made him King, if he will not act as it becomes God's Vicar, if he will obstruct or pervert the Laws, and govern never so Tyrannically; yet still there is left no Remedy to his Subjects by the Law, but Moral Persuasion; for the Laws Imperial of this Realm have declared him to be a free, unconditioned, and independent Sovereign exempted from all coaction, and outward force, much more from any forfeiture of this Crown, or Regal Authority.  F. 
I hope I shall be able to return you a satisfactory Answer to the Authorities you have now brought; for, as for Reasons, I see none in the first place; as to what you say concerning Barclays, and all other Writers agreeing, that in these two Cases you mention, the People may resist their Prince, because he does as good as renounce the Government of them, and abdicate the Crown he wore. Pray observe that they also allow the People to judge for themselves when the King thus goes about to destroy them, to make over his Crown to a Foreign Prince: Now I desire you to show me, why the People in a limited, or mixed Kingdom (as ours is) cannot as well judge when the King has broke the Fundamental Laws of the Government, whereby it is distinguished from an Absolute Despotic Monarchy; and hath either actually set up, or is going about to bring in Tyranny, or Arbitrary Power; since according to the Rules I have laid down at our last Meeting, the matters to be judged of may be as plain and evident, not only to a single person, but to a whole Nation: All that you have to say against this is, only an Hypothesis you have laid down without any just 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, which is the Point to be proved: Now if I have already made out (as I suppose I have) that the King of England is not an Absolute Monarch, as not having the two main parts of it, viz. the power of raising Money, and making Laws, in his own disposal, without the consent of his People, and these so reserved by his own Concessions, or that of his Predecessors, from the very beginning of Kingly Government in this Island; and if I have also proved at our last Meeting, that if we have such Fundamental Rights, we have also some means left us to keep, and preserve them inviolable, and that this means is only a forcible defensive Resistance, in case they are forcibly invaded by any of the King's Officers, or Soldiers, nay, by his own Personal Power, in case he shall be so ill advised as to join himself with such Instruments of Tyranny; it will then also follow, that such a Resistance is really a suspension of their Allegiance to the King for the time it lasts; and till they can see whether there be any hopes lest of a Reconciliation with Him, and that he will amend his Errors, and Misgovernment; and if so, and that he will give his People any sufficient Testimony of his amendment and sincerity, by giving up such evil Ministers to punishment, that put him upon such desperate courses; I do then readily grant, that the People ought to lay down their Arms, and be again reconciled to their King, and submit themselves to him as before, according to that Clause in King John's Magna Charta I have already cited, wherein there is a Power left for the Barons in case of any Breach of it, to take Arms, and constrain the King by taking of his Castles, Lands, and Possessions, to amend those transgressions; and when all was thus amended, the Charter says, Tunc cum fuerit emendatum (then, and not before) interdent nobis sicut prius fecerunt; they shall be subject to us as they were before; but what followed upon this, the King not only refused to observe this Charter, but procured the Pope's Dispensation to be absolved from the Oath he had taken to observe it, and also did all he could to bring in Foreigners into this Kingdom to support his Tyranny; and raised what Forces he could of his own Subjects to that end; whereupon the Barons at last were forced to renounce all Allegiance to him, and to declare he had forfeited all Right to the Crown by his Tyranny and Perjury towards his People, as Mat. Paris and other Authors show us at large. Now what the Barons did in the case of King john, may be also done by the People of this Kingdom in all succeeding Times; or otherwise the King will be in a better condition after he has done the worst he can by force of Arms against the People, than he was before; for if (as I have already proved) he may be resisted, till he give the Kingdom satisfaction that he will surcease from such Tyrannical courses; and that such Resistance is really a Suspension of Allegiance for the time it lasts; it will likewise follow, that if the King will still persist in these wicked courses, he must at last forfeit his Crown, and discharge his Subjects of all Allegiance to him; or else he would be in a better condition, by his wilful persisting in his Tyranny, than he could by quitting it, and reconciling himself to his People: For whereas by this Method the best he can expect is to return to the exercise of the same Limited Power ●e before enjoyed: If he push things to the utmost extremity, he may perhaps get the better of his People, and then he may set up for an Absolute King by Conquest; or if he fail in that, and be beaten, or taken Prisoner by them, he can still lose nothing, since by your Principles he still continues an Absolute Sovereign Prince, as he was before, and must be immediately put in the same state and ability of destroying the Government, and enslaving the Nation; but your Civil, as well as our Common Law, has a very good Maxim, Nemo ex proprio Delicto beneficium c●piat, no man may take advantage of his own wrong, and therefore such a Prince ought certainly to lose, and not to get by his own Illegal and Tyrannical Actions; and therefore I grant, that the King is not tied to observe any new things that he was not, before he was Crowned, bound to do; only there is the higher obligation of an Oath added thereunto; so if the King be a Limited Prince, whose Authority depends upon the right exercise of it, and that he can claim no Allegiance of his Subjects but upon that condition; if such a Prince wilfully breaks all those conditions, and absolutely refuses to amend, he must at last forfeit his Crown, and lose all Allegiance from his Subjects, or else all their Resistance would signify just nothing, and they would after all be in a much worse condition than they were before.  
Now if this be so, all your Quotations out of Bracton and Fleta will signify nothing; for as Pufendorf very well observes, a Supreme Power may reside in a Limited King in respect of all his particular Subjects, 
L. 7. c 7. § 7.10.  yet they may have a right to disobey him in those things to which his Power does not extend; for, says he, it does not follow, that because I am not bound to obey him in all things, therefore I must be his Equal, or Superior, or because I cannot in any wise command him, therefore he may enjoin me what he pleases; for Supreme and Absolute are by no means one and the same, for the former denotes the absence of a Superior, or an Equal in the same order, but the latter a faculty of exercising all the Rights of Government according to his own Judgement and Will; 
Lib. 7. cap. 8.  and therefore this Author in the next Chapter says very rationally concerning resisting of Tyrants in extreme cases, that their scruple is nothing, who will not admit any Liberty of resisting the most cruel Tyranny of Rulers, because there cannot be supposed any lawful Call of Subjects taking Arms against the Supreme Power, since no Jurisdiction can belong to any Subject toward such a Power; as if (says he) that Self-defence were an Effect of Jurisdiction, or that there is required any peculiar Call or Precept for Men in case of extreme necessity to defend themselves, and to repulse any unjust force from taking away their Lives or Estates, any more than there is for those who are like to starve, to allay their hunger by eating; tho' it may be the Meal they eat is not their own but another Man's; so far he; and if this be lawful even in Absolute Monarchies, in case of defence of Life; the same, I say, may be exercised in Limited Kingdoms, when the King goes about by force to take away the Religion, Lives, Estates, or Liberties of the People contrary to Law; since they both act upon the same Principle, that a King, by destroying the Fundamental Laws and Conditions by which he is to Govern, renounces the Government, and indeed so far dissolves it, that he ceases to be King.  
And tho' I grant Bracton and Fleta, and other old Lawyers have no● in express words taught this Doctrine, yet they do it in effect, since the former tells us, 
Lib. 1. c. 8.  Non est Rex, ubi dominatur voluntas, & non Lex; that is, he is not a King, when his own Will, and not the Law governs: 
Lib. 9 c. 9  And in another place, Rex est dum bene Regit, Tyrannus dum Populum sibi creditum violentâ oppri●it dominations; and in the very same place, (as you have also observed) he tells us, exercere debet Rex potestatem juris, ut Vicarius & Minister Dei, potestas autem injuriae Diaboli est non Dei; cum declinat ad injuriam Rex, Diaboli Minister est: Now, if what Bracton says be true, than the King, when he does injury, is the Devil's Minister, and not God's. I cannot see how he can then act as God's Lieutenant; or why it is not as lawful to resist the Devil's Minister as the Devil himself: And as to what you allege out of the same Author, that there is no Remedy lest against the King in case he does wrong, or oppresses any man, but only petition, and after that, the only Remedy is expectet Deum ultorem, in case he refuse to do right; this is to be only understood of Remedy in ordinary Courts of Justice, and by ordinary means, for otherwise this Author would contradict himself, whereas he tells us expressly, (as I have already noted out of Bracton and Fleta) in Populo Regendo Rex habet Superiores, Legem per quam factus est Rex, & Curiam suam, viz. comites & Barones, that is the highest Court of Parliament, called by way of eminency, the Earls and Barons; who, he here says debent ei s●●●num imponere, in case he transgress the Law; and therefore if he go on still wilfully to violate all the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, by the same Power by which they may put this Bridle upon him, by the same Power may they also declare (in case of manifest and downright Tyranny,) that he has forfeited his Crown; and tho' they cannot depose him as his Superiors, yet they may declare that he hath by violating the Original Contract between him and his People ceased to be King; and that both themselves and all his Subjects are discharged of all Allegiance to him.  
And agreeable to this Opinion, the Old Mirror of Justices tells us in the place I have formerly cited at our third Meeting, that tho' the King have no Peer in the Land, nevertheless if by his own wrong, he offends against any of his People, none of those that Judge for him (i. e. none of his Justices) can be both Judge, and Party; therefore it is agreeable to Right, that the King should have Peers, or Companions to hear and determine in Parliament all Writs, and Complaints, concerning the wrongs of the King, Queen, and their Children, of which wrongs they could not otherwise have common Right: Now can any one imagine that any private person might have Right against the King, or his Queen, and Children, and that there should be no Remedy left for the general Oppression, and Violation of the Laws and Rights of the whole Nation in general, and that whether the King would or not? for if it had lain in his power to have hindered it by dissolving the Parliament, this Law had been wholly in vain; so that this will serve to answer your other Quotation out of Bracton, concerning the King's Charters, or Grants, (for so I suppose factis is to be rendered in this place) that no private persons, no not the King's Justices could in those days take upon them to dispute about, or interpret their meaning, but it was to be left to the King himself; 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 consisted of all the great Officers of the Crown, together with the Judges; who, the King being present, were in the nature of Counsellors or Assessors to him, and there all matters not determinable in ordinary Courts were heard, and determined; and of this nature were the King's Charters, tho' now that Power since the dissolution of that great Court, is fallen partly to the Chancery, and partly to the King's Bench, who do both of them at this day judge of the King's Grants, whether they are according to Law, or not; and can declare them to be void if they are not.  M. 
This is right Rum● Parliament Doctrine, or rather worse (if worse can be;) for whereas Bradshaw and those Mock-Judges appointed by that pretended juncto plainly asserted an Inherent Right in the People of England, and the Parliament, as their Representatives, to call the King to an account, and to judge and condemn him as his Superiors; you, to evade that Doctrine, as being expressly condemned both by the first and second Parliaments of K. Charles the Second, in the Statutes I have already cited, do fall into a much more dangerous Error; for whereas those men supposed it was only in the Parliament (and in themselves as their Commoners) to judge and depose the King, and to put him to death for Tyranny; you take this Power out of their hands, and place it in every private person, which you call the diffusive Body of the People, which are not only more fallible, but more dangerous Judges, as being more apt to errors and mistakes; but if you would have better considered the words, and meaning of that Act I have formerly cited of K. Charles the Second, 
12 Car. 2. c. 30.  for attainting the Regicides, you would there find these words in the Preamble to that Act expressly against you; Whereby it is by both Houses of Parliament declared, That by the undoubted, and Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom, neither the Peers of this Realm, nor the Commons, nor both together in Parliament, nor the People collectively, or representatively, nor any other persons whatsoever ever had, have, hath, or aught to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm. Where you see by this Act, that all Power of Judging or Deposing the King is expressly renounced, not only for the Two Houses of Parliament, but for the whole People, whether collectively, or representatively, or for any other persons whatsoever: But as for what you say, that the King in case of a wilful, and constant Violation of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, is not then deposed by the People, but deposes himself, and thereby renounces the Government over them; this is but a mere fallacy, and an evasion, which you, and those of your Party have now found out to make the King to have forfeited his Crown without any Judgement of the Parliament or People; for who can believe a King will ever depose himself, or do any Act, besides an evident destruction of the People, or a making over his Royal Power, or else an express resignation of the Crown, whereby he can ever be construed to have parted with it; and therefore your Notion is no better than the equivocation of the Jesuits, who if they are asked whether it be lawful or not for Subjects to murder their Kings, will tell you by no means; but it is still with this mental reservation, that Princes Excommunicated and Deposed by the Pope do thereby cease to be Kings; and therefore their Subjects being thereby discharged of all their Allegiance to them, they may not only be resisted but murdered by them as Tyrants, and Usurpers. Put the People here instead of the Pope, and see if the Parallel does not hold exactly.  
But as to your argument, from a necessity of resistance, to a necessity of laying the King aside, because he has forfeited all Rights to the Crown, upon his persisting in the violation of the Fundamental Laws, and refusing to make the People satisfaction, and this upon the account of I know not what original contract; for as to the Coronation Oath, I see you dare not insist upon it, so that I do not now wonder that the Gentlemen of your Principles are so violent for this right of Resistance, since it is only in order to introduce your Darling Doctrine of the People's Power of deposing or laying aside their Kings (as you term it) whenever they shall judge they turn Tyrants, and have thereby forfeited their Crowns, which is a most dangerous Doctrine: and if it should take effect, the Princes of the World had need look about them, since the People may make up such a pretence (for aught I know) even against the very best of them, that are now Regnant in Europe.  
But sure absolute Monarches ought not to be outted of their Crowns by strained consequences or forced interpretations of Laws, therefore pray show me this original Contract you so much insist upon, and those conditions on which you suppose our limited Monarches hold their Crowns; I confess if you could show me any clause in our Laws, or ancient forms of the Coronation of our Kings, as there was at the Coronation of the Kings of Arragon, wherein the chief Justice on the behalf of the People plainly told him that they made him King upon this Condition, that they would have more Power than himself: or that in the conferring of the Regal Power it was expressly reserved in what cases it should be lawful for them to resist the King; or to absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance; as Bodin tells us, it was expressly inserted in the Coronation Oath of Henry II. Duke of Anjou (afterwards King of France,) when he was made King of Poland: that if he broke his Oath and violated the Laws, and Privileges of the Clergy and Nobility of Poland, than the People of that Kingdom should not be obliged to render him any obedience: I grant then that the Liberties of such a People might be preserved, but the King that took upon him the Regal Power upon such conditions, would not be properly a Monarch, but liable to the Judgement of his People, whenever he really did, or that they imagined he had thus violated their Laws, since the Supreme Authority would still reside in them.  
But indeed the Case (God be thanked) is much otherwise with our Monarches who are Kings by right of Inheritance, whether ever they take any Coronation Oath, or not: as K. Edward the first was, whilst he was in the Holy Land, almost two years before he could come over to be Crowned; and K. Henry the sixth was not Crowned till the eighth year of his Reign, as well as of his Age. But that our Kings are so by Inheritance, and by the Laws of God, and Man previous to any Coronation Oath, or consent of the People, is expressly declared by the Act of recognition of K. james I. and that Treason could be committed against him before he was Crowned, Sir Edward Cook tells us in Calvin's Case, 
Vid. Cooks 7 th' Rep.  was the opinion of all the Judges of England in the Plot wherein Watson and Clerk the Priests were Executed, and Sir Walter Raleigh condemned. So that what you have now urged from Reason, or Authority of our Ancient Lawyers, is either quite mistaken, or else does not reach the matter in hand; that it cannot be made out from reason, is plain; since your whole Argument is built upon this false foundation, that it is lawful in some cases to resist the King, in case of a notorious breach of the fundamental Laws, and therefore it is necessary also to declare him to have forfeited his Crown, if he persist in this violation; whereas I deny your Assumption, for I hold it utterly unlawful to resist, on any pretence, or for any cause whatsoever; and therefore it is impossible for the King who (as I said but now) is an absolute unconditioned Monarch, to forfeit his Crown for any such violation of your Original Contracts, or Fundamental Laws of Government: so that let me tell you, that the citations you have brought out of History, as also Bracton, and Fleta, do not prove either the one or the other of these: for first as to the clause in King John's Charter concerning resistance, and the Barons having a Power thereby to constrain the King to amend his violations of it, by making War upon him, and that they should not return to their former Allegiance till all was redressed; make the most of it, it could be no more than a particular concession for himself alone, and was not intended to reach his Successors, who are not at all mentioned in this Clause; and that it was never intended to reach them, may further appear, because that this clause of resistance is omitted out of all the subsequent great Charters, that were granted by Henry the III. or his Son Edward the I. and instead of this, it was thought a sufficient security upon the last confirmation of these Charters in the 37 year of King Henry III. for the King, Bishops, Earls and Barons to agree, that the Archbishop of Canterbury, and all the rest of the Bishops should declare all those, that wilfully transgressed or infringed the great Charters in any point, excommunicated ipso facto, not excepting the King himself, according to the form of it, which you will find in Mat. Paris; and other Writers of this Transaction. But for the places you have cited out of Bracton, there is none of them reach the point in question; for as to the first, non est Rex ubi dominatur voluntas & non Rex▪ the meaning of it is not that he is no King, but that he does not act as a King, but a Tyrant, when he thus governs by his mere Will, and not by Law; and to the same effect is the next passage, Rex est, dum bene regit; Tyrannus, dum Populum sibi tradi um violenta opprimit dominatione; all which we readily grant; yet since he is still an absolute Monarch, all Writers hold, that his governing without or against Law, cannot give the subjects a power to resist him, much less can it be construed as a renunciation or forfeiture of his imperial Power; and therefore tho' it is true, that as Bracton, and Fleta tell us, whilst he thus acts, he does not act as God's Lieutenant but the Devil's Minister; yet does it not follow that we may therefore resist him with carnal Weapons, or force, since we cannot so resist the Devil himself; and tho' he may in this matter of breach of the Laws, which he has sworn to observe, act as the Devil's Minister, yet notwithstanding in all other points of Government, as in the Punishment of Robbers, and other notorious offenders, and in the due Administration of Justice between Man and Man, he still acts as God's Lieutenant; and it is much better that we should have some civil Government tho' mixed with Tyranny, and oppression, than that we should fall into all the mischiefs and confusions of a Civil War; nay, that Anarchy too which has been often produced by it: and tho' I confess the last place you have made use of, to wit, Rex habet Superiorem, Legem, & Curiam suam, viz. Comites & Barones, &c. who ought, if he transgress the Law, to put a Bridle upon him, yet by this (as I have already proved) neither Bracton nor Fleta could mean any co-active ●orce, but only a Moral restraint upon the King by Petitions, Remonstrances, or denial of aids, till he would be Reformed by fair means; but that it does not go farther, appears by the parallel Bracton there makes between our Saviour Christ and the Virgin Mary, who being both free from the Law of Moses, yet voluntarily chose to be obedient to it; which sufficiently proves, that those Authors never designed that the Parliament should oblige the King by force, or whether He would or no, to amend his faults; since that was as you yourself must acknowledge against their very institution; since both their mee●ing, and their dissolution, wholly depend upon the Kings Will.  F. 
I confess you have made a long, and elaborate speech in answer to my notion, that a King may forfeit his Crown, that is, by his own act, cease to be King; but I shall be able to give you a satisfactory answer to all this, if you please to take it; In the first place therefore, I cannot but observe, that all your Discourse depends upon two Principles, alike false; first, that no absolute Monarch, can by his own act forfeit, or lose his right to the Government, without a formal resignation of the Crown; or, secondly, that the Kings of England have ever been such absolute Monarches: which if they are both great mistakes, all that you have said on this head falls of itself. Now that a King, tho' an absolute Monarch, may do such an act as shall make a forfeiture of his Crown, without any solemn resignation of it, you yourself are forced to allow, in the two cases you have put, viz. that of such a Monarches becoming an Enemy to his People, and going about to destroy them; and that of his making over his Kingdom, to another without the People's consent: now if the diffusive body of the People in an absolute Government, can judge of these two cases whenever they happen, without appealing to any General Council, or Assembly of the whole Nation; I desire to know why it may not be as easy and lawful for the People to judge without a Parliament, when the fundamental Laws of the constitution are generally and wilfully broken and violated; and that violation persisted in by the King, for the introduction of Tyranny and an Arbitrary Government; since the Rules I have laid down to know it are but a few, and easy to be known and judged of by the most common capacities. Now that a Superior or Governor may lose all that power and authority he once had, and that without any act of the party governed, may appear by those great and natural relations of a Husband, and a Master: in the former of which, if a Husband, in the state of nature, use his Wife so cruelly, that she can no longer live or cohabit with him, without danger of her Life, I doubt not but she may quit him; and may also when she is out of his Power, Mary herself again to another Man that will use her better: so in the other relation of a Master, if such a one, in the state of Nature have a Slave, and will not allow him sufficient clothes, Victuals, or will beat him, or use him so cruelly for no just cause, that he cannot enjoy the ordinary comforts of Life; no man will deny, but that such a slave may lawfully run away from such a Master, and ●s at liberty either to live of himself, or to choose another Master if he think good: and this instance is much more strong in an hired Servant; who is to serve his Master, for such and such Wages, or to do such and such Work, and no other; if in this case the Master refuse to pay him his Wages, or put him to do other work than what was agreed upon between them; or instead of an hired Servant will make him his absolute Slave; in these cases no man can doubt, but by this unjust treatment of the Master, the Servant is discharged of his Service, and may go whether he pleases; and of these actions, I have already proved at our first meeting, the party injured, be they Wife, or Servant, must be the only Judges in the state of Nature, where there is no Civil Power over them; or else if the Husband or Master shall Judge for himself, the Wife or Servant is never like to get any Redress; apply this to the case of a limited, or conditional King, and his Subjects, and see if it be not absolutely the same, upon the total breach of the Original constitution of the Government; and whether the Bond of Allegiance is not then as absolutely dissolved, by the sole act of the Prince, without any authoritative power in the Subjects, as it is in the case of such a Wife or Servant, by the sole Act of the Husband, or Master without any Superior Authority in such Wife or Servant, to quit them, and so to discharge themselves of their Wedlock, or Service.  
Therefore as to your accusation, that my notion is worse than that of the Rump Parliament, that put the King to death, I deny it; for they supposed that there was no way of being rid of a Tyrannical King, but by making the People, (and consequently the Parliament as their Representatives) his Superiors or Judges, to call him to an account, and Judge and Punish him for his Tyranny; this I abhor, as much as yourself, for I grant that a King cannot be properly the Supreme, and at the same time own another Power above him, to Punish, or call him to an Account for his Miscarriages; but this Power that I insist on, is not (as I have all along told you) a power of punishment, but a right of resistance for self-defence, in the first place, and of Judging and Declaring the King to have forfeited his Crown or Right to Govern, if he persist in his Tyranny, without any amendment, or satisfaction given to the People.  
Nor is this Doctrine of the People's thus Judging for themselves, so dangerous as that of the Rumpers (as you suppose,) who put this right of Judging, when the King had thus forfeited his Power in the Parliament, of which they thought themselves the only lawful, or necessary Members; but indeed it was not so, for they still supposed him to be their lawful King, and yet at the same pretended to Arraign him, as you may see by the Title of the Charge, or Indictment they drew up against him; all which I grant to be altogether unjust and illegal; but it is not more, but rather less dangerous to put this power of Judging, when the King has thus dissolved the Government, and forfeited his Crown, upon such notorious and wilful breaches of the Fundamental Laws, in the whole or diffusive body of the People, rather than in the Parliament, or great Council of the Nation; for as to your assertion, that the whole People are more fallible, and consequently more dangerous Judges in such a Case, than the great Council, I deny it, since all the matters of fact must be so evident and notorious to the senses and feeling of the greater part of the People, that there can be no doubt or denial of it, by any reasonable and indifferent Judges; and the greatest part of the People are willing to live in Peace, without making any disturbance or alteration in the Government, if it may be avoided; whereas in any great Assembly or Council, there are, many and those of the most eloquent and leading Men, who commonly carry the rest which way they please, who are governed by faction, ambition, or self-interest; and upon all, or some of these, etc. may be desirous to raise Civil Wars, or to declare the King to have done things that require resistance, or to have forfeited his Crown, when indeed he has not; and for this the very Long Parliament you mention is an evident example, since you cannot but grant, that if the differences between the King and that Parliament had been left to the Judgement of the whole People, there had never been any Civil War at all, nor had the King ever been beheaded; since it is notoriously known, that before the Parliament stirred up the People to War, by seizing of the Militia, they were not at all inclined to it. It being a restless, and factious, ambitious party of men on both sides, who brought on the last Civil War: Not but that I defer much to the Judgement of a free, and unbyast Parliament, who may confirm, and declare what the diffusive body of the People have already justly done, to be right, and lawful, which may be as great a satisfaction to private men's Consciences in Civil Disputes, as a general Council is in Spiritual Controversies about matters of Religion; wherein tho' such a Council cannot make new Articles of Faith, yet we Protestants hold that it may declare what were anciently believed: but if the People have a right of Judging during the intervals of Parliament, when the King has notoriously broke the Fundamental Constitution, and so may make resistance accordingly (as I have already proved they have;) since otherwise the King may absolutely refuse ever to call any Parliament at all, or at least may not let them sit, till all grievances are redressed; so that I cannot see why they may not also Judge, when the King has so wholly broke his Original Contract, and so obstinately persisted in it, as to create a forfeiture of his Crown, since the one is not harder to judge of, than the other; nor is your parallel between our opinion, and that of the Jesuits at all true, unless you could also prove, that I had put the same authority in the People to depose their Kings by a right conferred on them by God, as the Jesuits do in the Pope by such a pretended Power, as Superior to that of all the Monarches in the World, but there is nothing like it in my hypothesis. Since I do neither allow the People to Judge, or Depose the King, much less to put him to Death, tho' a Tyrant, but only to Judge, and declare, when he has made such notorious breaches on the fundamental Constitution, as do necessarily imply a forfeiture, or rather an implicit Abdication of his Royal Power, and whereby he deposes himself.  
But to come to the second Point, to prove, that our Kings were never absolute Monarches, or had the sole and absolute authority over the People of this Kingdom, and if so, that there was somewhat still reserved by the People at the first institution of the Government; and which the King by the original contract, when he or his Ancestors took the Crown, must be still supposed as bound to maintain; now that there must have been such a thing as an Original Contract (however light you are pleased to make of it) I thus make out; you may remember that at our fifth meeting, I proved, that at the first institution of Kingly Government in this Nation, it was not by right of Inheritance, but Election. 2. That this Election was made either by the whole body of the People in Person, or by their lawful Representatives in the great Councils, or Mycel Synods of the English Saxons. 3. That this great Council did then reserve to themselves these material parts of Government. First, A right of Meeting or Assembling at stated times of the year; and that without any previous summons from the King. 2. A right of proposing or at least o● ascending to all Laws that should be made in all future times. 3. A right of granting general Aids, or Taxes for the People, and that without their consent no Taxes could be imposed. 4. And as subsequent to all these a right of agreeing to all Wars, and Treaties of Peace ●o be made with Foreign Nations: but the first and last of these tho' I could prove to have been constantly observed, during the Saxon Government, and long after, yet since the People have parted with their right to their Kings in these matters, I shall not now insist upon them, only that this People have still a right to Parliaments, once in three years at least, and oftener if necessity require.  
These then being the Original Constitutions of the Kingdom, the King must have either entered into a compact with the People for the maintenance and observation of these fundamental rights, or else it must have been left to his discretion, whether he would suffer the People to enjoy them or not: if the latter had been true, than I grant they had made him an Absolute Monarch, and had left it wholly at his discretion, whether they should enjoy these fundamental Rights and Privileges or not; but it appears plainly to the contrary that they did not, for I shall prove (if need be) that the Succession to the Crown was at first Elective, and not Hereditary; now in all Elective Kingdoms of the Gothick Model, it is very well known that their Kings were so far from being absolute, that the Assembly of Estates, or great Councils of those Kingdoms reserved to themselves a power of Deposing their Kings for Tyranny and Mistress government; as I have already proved was frequently done, not only in England, but in all the neighbouring Kingdoms without any imputation of Rebellion: and I have also given you a quotation out of the ancient mirror of Justices; which tells us, that upon the Election of the first King of this whole Island. 
Mirror. p. 8.  The Princes that chose him then caused him to swear, that he would maintain the Holy Christian Faith with all his power, should Rule his People justly without regard to any person, and should be obedient to suffer Right, or Justice, as well as others, his Subjects.  
And now that upon a failure to perform these things, a forfeiture of the Crown would follow, and that thereupon he would cease to be King: Pray see those ancient Laws in Lambards' Saxon Laws, and Sir H. Spelman's Councils which go under the name of King Edward the Confessors: 
Spel. Concil. Leges G●il. cap. 6. Hoveden's Annals part 2. p. 608.  (tho' they were made as Hoveden shows us in the time of King Edgar his Grandfather) where among those Laws of King Edward that were confirmed by K. William I. This is one. Rex autem qui est vi arius summi Regis ad hoc est constitutus ut Regnum terrenum, & populum Domini, & super omnia sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam, & ab injuriis defendat, & m●leficos ab ea evellat, & penitus dispendat, quod nisi fecerit nec nomen Regis in eo constabit, that is, not so much as the Title of King shall remain to him: and in the same sense Bracton is to be understood, as an explanation of this Law, 
Cap. 24.  in his second book; est enim Corona Regis facere justitiam, & judicium, & pacem tenere, sine quibus confistere non potest, nec teneri; which may be thus rendered; that it is the Royal office or dignity, (for so I construe Corona Regis) to do Justice, and Judgement, and to maintain peace▪ without the observation of which, his Crown or Royal Dignity cannot hold▪ nor consist: so that this is but an explanation of my sense of that other passage I have already cited out of this Author, non est Rex ubi dominatur voluntos, & non Lex, i. e. He is not a King, (that is, ceases to be a King) when his Will, and not the Law Governs; and he gives the reason for it in another place, speaking of the King, when he was not then Hereditary, for, ad hoc electus est Rex, & constitutus, ut faciat justitiam universis.  
Therefore if he thus totally deviate from the end of his Creation, his Authority ceases, and is at an end. So that nothing is plainer, than that our Ancient Laws have declared, the King to have lost the Title and Right of being King in case of notorious Tyranny, and breach of this Original Contract; and that the ancient Lawyers, Bracton and Fleta, gave the same interpretation of this Law, is also as plain.  
So that what you have said to evade or misinterpret the authority of these Authors, as to the points of Nonresistance and Forfeiture of the Regal Power, will signify nothing; for as to what you say of that clause of resistance being left out in all subsequent Charters after this of K. John's, and therefore that it was no binding Law to his Successors, I do not deny the matter of fact, that it was so omitted; yet that does not prove, that the whole Nation ever renounced their right of resistance in the cases mentioned; since as they exercised it before that Charter was given; so also they continued to do it in the Reigns of his Successors, as I have shown in the History I have given you of this Resistance at our last meeting, and therefore constant practice is the best Interpreter of this Fundamental Law: as for our evasion of that place of Bracton, non est Rex, etc. I have sufficiently confirmed my sense of it, by this Law of K. Edward, as also by other passages out of this Author: and I will leave it to any man to judge which is the most genuine Interpretation of this place; He is not a King, (that is ceases to be so) when his Will, and not the Law Rules; or that he does not act as a King, as you interpret it: but you grant such a King is really a Tyrant, yet may not be resisted, nor can lose his power; and why? because it is absolute and unconditional; this is to take that for granted which we deny, for he that hath not the full and sole power of making Laws, and imposing Taxes, is not absolute Monarch; but the King of England has neither of these, Ergo, etc. and if this be so, see what Grotius says expressly of such a Prince, 
Lib. I. Cap. IV. iv. 13.  (as high as he is for the nonresistance of Absolute Monarches,) Si Rex partem habeat summi Imperii, partem alteram populus, aut senatus, Regi in partem non suam involanti vi● justa opponi poterit, quia tatenus Imperium non habet; quod locum habere cense●, etiam si dictum sit, belli potestatem penes Regem sore; id enim de Bello externo intelligendum est, eam alioqui quisquis imperis summi partem habeat, non posset non jus habere eam partem tuendi, quod ubi fit, potest Rex etiam suam partem belli jure amittere; Where you see, that the opinion of this learned Author, is, that a King may not only be resisted in case he invade that part of the Supreme Power that does not belong to him, but may also lose 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their hands, appears by that passage so often cited out of Bracton, Rex habet superiores, legem per quam factus est Rex, & curiam Baronum, etc. which you strive to evade by supposing I know not what moral superiority which the Court might only exercise towards the King by Remonstrance, or Pe●●●on, in setting forth his deviations against a Law; but what if he had refused to hearken to them? Why then, say you, all the remedy was, expectet Deum Vltorem; now if this was all, than every private subject had such a moral superiority; for Bracton says of them, locus erit supplicationi, ut factum corrigat, & emendet, quod sinon fecerit, etc. then he was to look for God to revenge it: but Bracton and Fleta are more express in this point, and say, that this Curia Baronum, were not only Socli, but Magistri; for say they, qui habet Socium, habet Magistrum, so that surely this Bridle must have been somewhat more than bare Prayers, Remonstrances, or denial of Money; nor is your reason to the contrary cogent, since it is only drawn from a simile between Christ, the blessed Virgin, and the Law of Moses: 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 Bracton, that he supposed this power to be somewhat more than merely moral; for he there says, that if the People cry to God for want of Justice against the King, he will send for a Foreign Nation who shall come and destroy both them (viz. the Barons) and their King, which would have been a vain threat, if He might have chosen whether he would be reform by them or not.  
To conclude, if the first King of the Saxon Race took the Crown upon condition to maintain the Fundamental Laws, and constitution of the Government, and that he was never invested with an absolute despotic power of making Laws, and raising Money at his pleasure, but the people reserved to themselves their share of both, at the first institution of the Monarchy; all those Princes that claim by Virtue of their Right, are tied by this first original contract, whether they ever took any Coronation Oath, or not; nor though the Crown now become no more Elective, does it, at all alter the condition or the limitation of his Ancestors, as long as the present King holds by, and under the same Title, and by virtue of the same original contract; since, as it was by the People's will, that it was at first Elective, so it was also by their Will, that it became successive; since every entail of the Crown upon heirs, can only proceed from the People's agreement or consent to maintain it as a standing Law, or else every King might alter it at his pleasure.  
As for your next reply, that if we resist the King, because when he turns Tyrant, he Acts not as God's Lieutenant, but the Devil's Minister; for, so that tho' it is lawful to resist the Devil, yet we cannot use carnal force against him, this assumption is false, since if we can suppose the Devil does ever use carnal force, we may also repel the same by force, or else those famous Stories of Witches, and Spirits being afraid of, and flying from naked Swords are all false: I beg your pardon for speaking so long; which I could not well contract into less compass without passing by your arguments and answers to my quotations.  M. 
You have indeed outdone me in making long Speeches, but I have heard you patiently, because I cannot deny, but that you have argued fairly, had it been upon a right foundation; but since it is not, pray give me leave to set you right, and show you, that notwithstanding all you have urged to the contrary, yet all our Kings since the Conquest were absolute Monarches; and if so, not only irresistible upon any breach of their Coronation Oaths, but also have been invested with such an absolute unconditioned power, as can never be lost or forfeited upon account of the highest acts of Tyranny; but before I come to my proofs, give me leave to say somewhat to those last citations you have brought from King Edward's Laws, as also from Bracton and Fleta. First, as to that Law you have cited, that passes under the Title of one of those confirmed by King William the Conqueror; give me leave to tell you, that I much question whether it be genuine, and not foisted in by some of the Monks that had the keeping of the Copies of those Laws in their Monasteries, after the Original itself was no more to be found; for in the first place I must observe, it does not savour of that absolute Power, that I take K. William to have acquitted by his Sword, to own his Royal Dignity forfeitable, or that he could lose the name of King upon any account whatsoever, at this pretended Law seems to intimate, by these words, nec nomen Regis in to constabit; now that it strongly savours of the ignorance of the Monks, I shall show you by the very Law itself, wherein the chief points, for which the King must lose his Royal Title, is not only if he does not defend his Earthly Kingdom, but also the People of God, that is, the Clergy, and also shall fail to reverence Holy Church, that is, the Bishops and Clergy, of whom the Monks looked upon themselves as the chief, and most considerable part; as also if he fail to destroy evil doers, (that is Heretics out of the Church) then (forsooth) not so much as the name of King must remain to him; now pray see the consequence of this, and whether you will own this to be a fundamental Law of the Kingdom, for then at this rate, Henry the VIII. who suppressed Monasteries, and took away Abby-Lands, and let injurious persons spoil the Church by Sacrilege, and also all other Princes, who have not extirpated those, who, when this Law was supposed to have been made, would have passed for Heretics (that is all Protestants) must have all forfeited their Royal Dignities, and consequently the Pope did Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth no wrong, if in pursuance of this Law, they Excommunicated them, and declared they had forfeited their Crown, since this Law says, that Pope john testified this truth quod nomen Regis perdet... 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 against King Childerick is mentioned as an evidence to make it good, whereas indeed it was not Pope john, but Zachary who gave this sentence; But in Hovedens Copy of this Law, there is yet a more gross error; for it makes Pipin, and his Son Charles to have writ to William the Bastard, upon their hearing this definitive sentence, so wisely given by him concerning the Title of King; all which is so notorious a piece of folly, and ignorance, that it needs no other confuration; But granting that part, containing the Law itself, to be genuine, it does not at all set forth your Original Contract, or make it a forfeiture in the King to do any of those things which you supposed to be main parts of the Fundamental Constitution; only says in general, that unless he defend his Earthly Kingdom, and the People of God, and reverence Holy Church by defending it from injurious Persons, and removing Evil doers from it, name of the King will not belong to him; now all this the most absolute Monarch in Christendom, even the King of France himself will say he performs to a tittle; and therefore there is no fear of a forfeiture for any King, tho' never so Absolute and Tyrannical upon these Terms, unless he will do that which I think he is too wise ever to go about, to destroy his People wilfully, or to fall upon the Church of Rome and its Clergy.  
As for the rest of the places you have cited out of Bracton and Fleta, to prove this Notion of a Forfeiture, I must freely tell you that they do not seem to me to come up to the point for which you bring them; for as to that place you have cited out of Bracton, non est Rex, etc. you and I differ about the sense of it, and I see no reason why I may not still keep my own opinion: the other place I confess seems more express, viz. That it is the Crown or Dignity of the King to do Justice or Judgement, without which it cannot hold or consist; this also does refer only to such Justice and Judgement as the King is to give and distribute between Man and Man, without any relation to his own actions towards his Subjects; and if a Prince will not do this, either by Himself or Deputies, I grant his Crown, or Royal Dignity cannot long subsist to be maintained, since this will bring all things to utter confusion, so that strangers will soon be encouraged to Invade the Kingdom, nor will the People be at all concerned to assist such a King against them; since they can be in no worse a condition under a stranger than under him; But as for the ancient Superiority of the Law and Court of Barons, there mentioned, to be over the King, that still seems to me to be only a Moral, and not a Co-ercive Power; since the law alone is but a dead letter, and can force no man of itself, without the power of Men to support it; and there can be no Interpreters of this Law but the King, and his Judges out of Parliament; and the Parliament sitting, that alone, that is, not the House of Peers or Commons alone, or both together, but the King, Lords, and Commons that can interpret Laws: but let the power of this Court of Barons have been anciently what it will, it seems to relate only to the Peers or Tenants in Capite and not to the Commons at all, since none ever heard them called the King's Companions; but suppose it so, it is now gone, and as for any co-ercive power in the two Houses over the King, I have already showed you, that the two first Parliaments of King Charles the second, have expressly renounced it from themselves and the whole Nation; and therefore I must still stick to my first conclusion, that the King is not to be resisted upon any Terms whatsoever, neither can forfeit his Royal Dignity by certain general, antiquated Laws, or by the forced interpretations of some doubtful obscure passages in our ancient Lawyers: But I shall now proceed to prove,  F. 
I pray give me leave to reply to what you have now said, before you go to any new Head, First, In answer to what you have now objected against the Genuineness of this Law of Edward the Confessors, it is certain, that it is found in these very words, with very little alteration in all the Copies of King Edward's Laws; only in Hoveden, instead of Rex quia Vicarius summi Regis, it is, Rex atque Vicarius ejus, which is no great difference, and may relate to the King's Lieutenant in his absence beyond the Seas, as there was often occasion for our Kings, after their Accession to the Crown of England; and therefore tho' I grant some Clergymen (they having then all the learning of the Nation among them) might draw up this Law into the form it was made, and so render it as advantageous for the Church as they could, yet that this Clause was not the addition of any ignorant Monk (as you suppose) will appear from this, that it is Recorded by Hoveden, who lived and wrote about a hundred years after it was thus confirmed; and we cannot suppose all the copies of these Laws to be lost, and one single copy to be left and corrupted in so short a Time; and tho' it is true, this Law is not found among those set forth in the last Edition of jugulph, yet does it not therefore follow, that there was no such Law ever made or confirmed by King William, since those Laws in Ingulph seem to be more like an Epitome of the criminal and feudal Laws confirmed, or added by that King, than an exact body of all the Laws of the Confessor, those having been writ in Latin, and confirmed by K. William in the fourth year of his Reign; whereas this Copy was published in French for the use of the Kings Norman and French Subjects, and that long after K. William's coming to the Crown; for Engulf tells us, That after doomsday book was made, he brought those Laws down from London in the French Tongue (in which they were put forth, lest he or any of his Monks, should through Ignorance happen to offend his Royal Majesty by an unwary breach of them;) But as for the faults in the Chronology in the Story of Charles and Pipin in all the best Copies of these Laws, this Letter is said to be written by them to the Pope, and not to K. William at all, and then it will be at most but a miss-nomer or error of the Transcriber putting in Pope john, for Zachary; but if you will have my opinion of this matter, I do freely grant that this passage in the Law concerning Princes writing to the Pope about the deposition of K. Childerick might be an Addition of those Monks who first Transcribed those Laws, and made short glosses upon them, and yet the law itself might be genuine notwithstanding; and if the Law itself be so, it must be understood in a larger sense than what you would put upon it, for sure by defending of his Kingdom must be meant, not only the bare defending it against foreign Enemies, but also against the wrongs and oppressions of his own Ministers, and Officers, which if he suffer by a wilful negligence, or on se● purposes, he will as much offend against this Law, as if he had done it himself, and so will lie under the same penalty. Much less will these passages concerning defending the Clergy, and reverencing the Church, render this Law either void, or impracticable; for suppose, you take Populus Dei, in the strictest sense to signify the same with Servu Dei, (which I grant always to signify the Clergy in our ancient Saxon Laws and Charters) yet all this does not make this Law void and impracticable▪ since, sure maintaining the Worship of God is one part of the duty of a Christian King, nor can this be well performed without some Men set up for that purpose, and that these Men cannot attend their Sacred Function without being maintained in their just Rights and Liberties; neither is it any consequence that these Clergy must always consist of the very same Orders of Men, as when this Law was made, so that suppose the Monks were then held as a necessary part of this Clergy, it will not follow; that it was not lawful for the State to alter or take them away; for than no Religious Order that was then in being, could have been suppressed afterwards, which no Papist will say; so that the meaning of this clause in the Oath, is no more than that the King should from time to time defend all those Clergy, such which the Nation, that is, the Legislative Power should think useful, and necessary for God's service, without being tied to any certain Orders or Degrees of Men; provided those that are particularly ordained by Christ and his Apostles, for the service of his Church, be inviolably maintained and preserved; so likewise for the Church itself, granting (which may also be questioned) that at the time when this Law was made or confirmed, Popery was come to its height, and so was the established Religion of the Nation: and consequently that by the Church here mentioned, was then to be understood the Romish 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; for the Law only says in general, that he shall reverence the Church of God; that is, that Profession of Christianity, or Way, which he, and the great Council of the Nation, shall upon the most mature Judgement and Deliberation think to be so; so that all that can be deduced from this clause is, that the King shall reverence the Church, that is, maintain the profession of Religion, which shall be established by Law, and shall make no alteration therein, without the general consent of the whole Nation in their great Councils or Synods, consisting as well of Ecclesiastical as Secular Members; and so likewise he shall defend it from all injurious Persons, that would invade the Rights of the Church and its Clergy, contrary to Law, and shall root out all evil doers; that is, all debauched, and wicked Professors of Christianity; for so malesicos properly signifies, and not Heretics; as you would render it (who are not Evil doers, but false Believers) or if it should be interpreted for Heretics, it is not those that then might be looked upon as such, but what the present Church shall so determine; or else we must own the former Church to have been infallible in all her determinations. So that I can see no reason upon the whole matter, why this Law should now become void; or unprofitable by reason of any alterations in Religion, or of those men that were then to exercise the functions of it; as long as all the necessary and material parts of both are preserved, as they are to this day: for otherwise this Law would have tied up the King and Nation, from making any Reformation in Religion, tho' never so much for the better, or tho' the National Church had never so much required it, which I suppose no true Protestant will affirm.  
But as for those passages out of Bracton and Fleta which I have brought to confirm and support our sense of this Law; and which you labour to avoid by putting too general and loose an interpretation upon them; whereby you would make them only to signify that the King is to maintain right Judgement and Justice between Man and Man, without which his Royal Dignity cannot hold or subsist; but that he is not obliged upon any penalty to observe the same things in respect of himself, or his own Officers, or Ministers; this is all one, as if a Shepherd, who had a Flock of Sheep committed to his charge by the owner, having first fleeced, and then killed, and destroyed them, and converted the Wool and Carcases to his own private use, should then tell the owner, that he was indeed to defend the Flock from Thiefs, Wolves, and Foxes, but that it was no part of his bargain to keep them safe untouched from himself, or his Servants: or so much as his own Dogs; but that the sense of Bracton and Fl●ta is quite otherwise, sufficiently appears by these places I have now cited, and if those will not do, pray consider these that I shall ne'er add; for Bracton also in the same chapter tells us, 
Lib. 3. Cap. 9  ad hoc creatus est [Rex] & electus, ut, justitiam faciat universis, and he also there recites the ancient Coronation Oath in these words. Debit enim [Rex] in Coronatione sua nomine jesu Christi haec tria promittere Populo sibi subdito, Imprimis se esse praecipturum, & pro virious opem impensurum ut omni Populo Christiano vera pax omni suo tempore observetur. 2. Vt rapacitates & omnes iniquitates interdicat. 3. Vt in omnibus judiciis equitatem praecipiat, & misericordiam, ut indulgeat ei suam misericordiam Clemens Deus. Now how can a King observe this Oath, that spoils the people of their Goods, and raises Taxes contrary to Law, or how can he continue King, who violates all the ends of his Creation? from all which it appears, that by this Justice and Judgement must be meant, not only the Kings own observing Justice towards his People, not only by not commanding, but also hindering his inferior Ministers and Officers, from spoiling and oppressing them, and that no prerogative can justify him in the doing otherwise, is as evident from another place in Bracton, where he tells us, that Regia potestas juris est, n●n Injuriae, & nihil aliud potest Rex nisi quod jure potest. But Fleta is somewhat larger on this head, tho' to the same effect, 
Lib. 1. Cap. 17.  when speaking of the King's Power or Prerogative, he says thus; & licet omnes potentia praecellat, cor tamen ipsius in manu Dei esse debet, & ne potentia sua man●a● infranata fraenum imponat temperantiae, & lora moderantiae; ne trahetur ad injuriam, quia nihil aliud, hoc est●in terra, nisi quod de jure potest nec obstat quod dicitur, quod Principi placet Legis habet potestatim, quia sequitur cum lege Regia, quae de ejus Imperio lata est, non qui●quid de voluntate Regis tanto pere praesumptum est, sed quod Magnatum suorum consilio Rege authoritatem praestante, & habita super hoc deliberatione, & tractatu recte fuerit de●initum, which not only shows, that our ancient English Lawyers in this agreed with the Civil Law, and gave the same account of the original of the Royal Power as that Law does, viz. that it was conferred by the People of Rome, on the Roman Emperor, by the Lex Regia mentioned in the old Civilians I have formerly cited; and also shows that our ancient Lawyers supposed that by a like Law among us, the Royal Authority was originally derived from the consent of the People of England; without whose advice, and assent included in that of their Representatives, here called consitium Magnatum (consilium being taken for consent in this place, as I have proved it often signified) no Law can ever be made: now if the King will not be ruled by this bridle of moderation, this Author as well as Bracton tell us, that the King than hath his Superiors, the Law and his Court of Barons; who were as Masters to put this Bridle upon him. But admit he will run away with this Bridle between his Teeth, all this had signified nothing, if there be no other remedy left us, besides bare supplication, or remonstrances to the King of his duty; and he might have dissolved the Parliament before ever it could have any time to do either the one or the other.  
To conclude, if the King was at first elected, and created for this end, that he may do Justice to all men; and that this Justice does not only concern his maintaining Justice between his Subjects one towards another, but also in respect of himself, his Children and Subordinate Officers and Ministers, that act by his Commission, appears by what follows in Bracton after the King's Coronation Oath: Potestas (scil. Regis) itaque juris est non injuriae, & cum ipse sit Author juris, non debet inde injuriarum nasci occasio, & etiam qui ex officio suo alios prohibere necesse habet, id ipsum in propria persona committere non debet. So that it is as plain, that if he either command, or permit these wilful injuries generally, or all over his Kingdom, he fails to defend it according to K. Edward's Laws, and if he thus fail to defend it, he thereupon loses or forfeits his very Title or Office of a King, since he cannot keep or hold his Crown, or Royal Dignity, for without Justice it cannot subsist, and this by the original contract; since upon whatever Terms the first King of this Race, took the Crown, upon the same Terms all his Posterity who succeed either by election or right of blood, by virtue of that first compact are to hold it under the like penalty of a forfeiture, in case of a wilful neglect, or violation of his duty.  M. 
I confess you have made a specious proof of this original contract you so much talk of, and more than ever I thought could have been said for it; but let it be what it will, it is certain in the first place, that whatever co●ercive Power the two Houses of Parliament might pretend to when Bracton wrote, they have solemnly renounced it in two successive Parliaments in the Reign of K. Charles the II. therefore I shall not insist any longer upon old antiquated Laws, or original contracts; which are not directly expressed, but consequentially deduced at best: but I must now tell you, that let the first institution of this Government have been what it will in the Saxon times, and what original contract soever you may please to fancy between them and their Subjects, yet this was all gone, and out of doors, by that absolute Conquest which K. William I. made of this Kingdom for himself; and his heirs who do not at all claim under the Title of our English Kings. For since their Ancestor had no just Title to the Crown but by the Sword, and that he gained this Kingdom by the Conquest of K. Harold; and the People of England who had elected him, and fought for him; as also by the subsequent recognition of this right, by all the People of England, in their Oaths of Allegiance so often repeated to himself and his Successors, have thereby acknowledged it to be as absolute a Monarchy by conquest, as ever was instituted by any Prince in the World; and tho' I grant that several of the Conquerors have been graciously pleased to grant divers Privileges to the People of this Nation, and some of them perhaps the same they enjoyed in the Saxon time; yet can they not enjoy it by virtue of that Original Contract you suppose to have been made, between the first King of that Saxon Race, and the People of England; for as I said but now K. William had no right by any Title from K. Edward the Confessor, but wholly by his Sword, as I shall prove by and by.  
But however these concessions ought not at all to derogate from the absoluteness of the Power, or the indefensibleness of our King's Title, for since these limitations of absolute, or imperial Power did not proceed from any other Original, than the free & voluntary concessions of our King●, & not from any compacts with their People; they do not at all derogate from the uncontrollable and unancountable Sovereignty thereof, 
It. I. p. 211.  so that we may very well distinguish between the Being, and Essence of Imperial or Sovereign Power, and the exercise or emanation thereof; as to the Being and Essence of it, it is in as full perfection in the Limited, as in the Arbitrary Sovereign, tho' the Law confines and limits him in the exercise thereof; but to be confined in the exercise doth not destroy the Being, nor diminish the perfection of Sovereign Power, for then the Power of God himself could not be Sovereign, because there are certain immutable Rules of Truth, and Justice within which it is necessarily limited, and confined; but God is nevertheless a perfect Imperial Sovereign over the Universe, tho' the exercise of his Government over his Creatures, be limited by the eternal Laws of Truth and Equity; it is true, that this limitation of Almighty God is intriasical, and proceeds from the perfection of his Righteous and Holy Nature; but yet it shows, that the most perfect and absolute imperial Powe, may, without a contradiction, be confined within bounds, and limited in the actual exercise thereof, and that such limitation of Absolute Imperial Power (proceeding wholly from itself) doth only qualify, and temper, but not destroy the essence of it; and therefore Cook in Cawdrey's Case, saith, that by the Ancient Laws of this Realm, England is an Absolute Empire and Monarchy, and that the King is furnished with plenary, and entire Power, Prerogative and Jurisdiction, and is Supreme Governor over all Persons within this Realm.  
Therefore whoever will consider the Original of this limitation of Sovereign Power, to have proceeded wholly ab intrinsico, from the voluntary Grants of our first Monarches after the conquest; and will also distinguish the Essence from the exercise of Sovereign Power, will find, there is no contradiction between the fullness of Sovereign Power in the Root, 
Ibid.  or Essence of it, and a legal limitation of the use and exercise thereof; and from hence it comes to pass, that the King of England, tho' he be thus limited in the use and exercise of his Power, yet he is still as much the Fountain of all Power, and Jurisdiction within his Dominions, as if he were Arbitrary; he hath none to share with him in the Sovereignty, but all Power and Authority is derived from him, like light from the Sun, in him alone it is radically and originally placed, he hath no sharers or copartners with him in the Sovereignty, none coordinate with him in the Government, no Equal, 
Lib. 1. c. 8.  no Superior, but only God to whom alone he is Subject. Hence saith Bracton, omnis quidem sub to, & ipse sub nullo sed tantum sub Deo, non est inferior sibi subjectis, non parem habet in regno suo, and afterwards, ips● autem Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo.  
Therefore I grant the King is obliged by his Coronation Oath, to keep to these limitations, which both he, and his Predecessors have sworn to; yet if he any ways fa●l in the performance of i●, this failure cannot give his People any manner of right to take up Arms against him, and to resist him in any such case, much less can it cause a forfeiture of his Royal Power; since being at first the sole Sovereign Power, he did not by putting this limitation thereunto, intent to part with any share of it to the great Council of the Kingdom or Parliament, but only to take them into a part of the care and trouble of the Government, and to limit his Prerogative Power from passing any Laws, or raising any Money without their assent, unless in cases of great necessity; and than if he is still judge of this necessity, as certainly he is in the intervals of Parliament, it can never be supposed, that the first Prince, or his Successors, that first parted with these Privileges to the People, ever intended to be so straight tied to them, as that in no case whatever, tho' never so pressing, they should not depart from them, much less that he should forfeit his Crown if he should wholly break them, nay should persist so to do, and resolve to turn this limited, into an absolute despotic Monarchy; since the observation of these Laws, being but concessions of his own, or his Predecessors, can never be looked upon as conditions of his holding the Crown, nor of the Subjects Allegiance to it, there being as you yourself confess no such clause expressed in either part, neither in the King's Coronation Oath, nor yet in their Allegiance to him, as you yourself cannot but acknowledge; and tho' it is true, the King swears at his Coronation, to keep and maintain the Laws; yet Grotius tells us, Lib. 1. cap. 3. that an Empire does not cease to be Absolute, altho' he who is to rule, promise some things to God, or to his Subjects, even such which may appertain to the manner of the Empire, and that not only concerning the observation of the natural or divine Law, but of certain Rules to which without a promise he were not obliged. So that in all Promises of this kind the manner of the obligation is not reciprocal, or of the same sort on both sides; as for example, it is only moral in respect of the King, and it is lef● wholly to God to judge between the King and his Subjects, and to punish him when he breaks his part; but, to the King as God's Lieutenant on Earth, it belongs not only to judge of his Subjects breach of their Oath and Contract, but also to punish them for so doing, and compel them to the performance of it: and of this Judgement are all the Modern Civilians; as for Bodin I have given you his opinion in the chapter I last cited, concerning this matter: and he as well as Grotius is clearly of opinion, that Absolute Monarches, such as he reckons the King of England to be, are not to be called in question or destroyed, let their breach of Laws and Tyranny be never so notorious, much less can they forfeit their Royal Dignity for such maladministration: and tho' Grotius is of opinion, that in cases of great and evident danger of Life, Subjects may have a right of resistance against absolute Princes, and those commissioned by them, what is this to the case in hand? viz. a resistance, against an Absolute Monarch for violation of those Privileges, and Liberties, that were granted by himself, or his Ancestors, and without which Subjects may very well live, and subsist as we see they do, under the most Absolute, Despotic Monarchies, where they enjoy no such thing; tho' perhaps they do not live so well, and freely as we do; 
L. VII. cap. 8. §. 6.  nay Pufendorf, the Author you so much make use of, in his seventh Book, will not allow Subjects to take up Arms or resist Absolute Princes, nor for too great cruelty in punishment, nor for imposing too immoderate Taxes, since the presumption of Justice, and necessity for the doing of these things is always on the Prince's side; nay, if his Promises are not kept, or privileges formerly granted are taken away, if the Prince be Absolute, and will pretend any fault, necessity, or remarkable benefit thereby to the commonwealth, he shall be deemed to have acted by a right, of which the faculty of judging is wholly wanting to the Subjects; since all Privileges have this exception; unless the welfare, or necessity of the Common weal forbid them to be observed.  F. 
Since your last Discourse consists of two parts; matter of Fact, and matter of right deducible from that fact, I shall speak to each of them in order: first as to the matter of Fact, it is a great mistake in you, and Dr. Brady to maintain that K. William I. was really a Conqueror, and by his Sword (without any other Title) obtained such an entire Victory over K. Harold, and the whole English Nation, as gave him an Hereditary Right for himself, and his Heirs to the Absolute Allegiance of the whole English Nation without any reserve, or conditions whatever; so that all our Ancient Liberties, and Privileges, being thereby lost and forfeited, this Nation can claim nothing of that kind, but from the grants and concessions of that King or his Successors: every one of which Propositions contain so many notorious mistakes in matter of Fact; for in the first place, King William never claimed the Crown by Conquest, but by the adoption, and Testament of King Edward the Confessor, and I defy you to show me any Ancient Law or Charter, either of his own, or any of his immediate descendants, wherein he is styled Conqueror; 'tis true, in his Charter to the Abbey of Westminster, 
Per Inspex. 1. E. IV. Part. 7. m. 26 vi. Selden's Review, p. 483.  he says in one, that by the Edge of the Sword he obtained the Kingdom, by the Conquest of Harold, and his accomplices; yet does not found his Right in that Victory, alone, but on the donation of King Edward his Cousin: the words are remarkable; in o'er gladii adeptus sum Regnum Anglorum, devicto Haraldo Rege, cum suis complicibus; qui mihi Regnum divinâ providentiâ destinatum & beneficio concessionis Domini & Cognati mei gloriosi Regis Edwardi concessum conati sunt auferre And this donation he calls an Hereditary Right in divers other Charters; as particularly in one also recorded by inspeximinus, 
Carta. 4. Ed. IU. m. 27. per Inspexi. Vi. Seldeni ad Eadmer: notae, etc. Fol. 211.  beginning thus, In nomine Patris & Filii & spiritus sancti. Am●n. Ego Williel●us, Rex Anglorum haereditatio jure factus. So likewise his Son K. Henry I. in his Charter to the Abbot of Ely, creating him a Bishop, calls himself the Son of William the Great, (not the Conqueror) Qui Edwardo Regi Haereditario jure successit in Regnum.  
And in virtue of this Donation; he was after his Victory against Harold, by public and full consent of the whole Nation, or People of England, as also of the Normans he brought with him, Elected and Crowned King, and at his Coronation took the same Oath at the High-Altar at Westminster, which his Predecessors the Saxon Kings, had taken before him; with this one Clause farther, which was very necessary to be done at that time, viz. quod aquo jure Anglos, & Francos, tracta●t; so that let his Title by Conquest have been what it would, it was either by a just right of War, to recover his due, or by none at all; if the former, he could only succeed to such Rights as K. Edward the Confessor before exercised and enjoyed; since he came hither only to take the Crown that was so bequeathed 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 just right to the Crown, of England, either for himself or his Successors; but if they will only insist upon their Title by the Sword without any preceding or subsequent right, they may be as lawfully turned out again by the Sword; since it is owned by all Writers on this Subject, that a Conqueror in an unjust War can obtain no right over a free People.  
So much for the matter of Fact, I come in the next place to point of Right in Law; I grant indeed that a simple Oath, or Pact between an Absolute Monarch and his Subjects, to do, or perform such or such a thing; or to let them enjoy such and such Privileges, does not immediately give the People a Power to compel such a Monarch, and his Successors, by Force of Arms, to the strict observance of them, in case of a violation on his part; but our case is very different from this; for here a Foreign Prince recovers a former Right to the Kingdom, and that by Force; and is invested with the Crown in Virtue of that Right by which he claimed it, and is also sworn to maintain the Ancient Government and Laws; according to which the whole Legislative Power was not in the King alone, but jointly in the King, and the great Council of the Nation; without whose grant, or consent, he ought not to have laid any Tax; upon the Nation, as I shall prove if there be occasion. Now all our Ancient Rights, being granted, and acknowledged by him, and a constant common Council of the Kingdom appointed to meet, to see them observed, as it did many times in this King's Reign, as also in those of his Successors; they were not bare Privileges conferred of favour, and which might be observed, or broken at the Will of the Prince that granted them; but a Form or Rule of Government by Laws to be made and agreed upon in a standing Council, appointed not only to make them, but also to see them observed; as appears by that passage so often cited, wherein the King is expressly said to have a Superior, viz. the Law, and the Court of Barons, who were to put a Bridle upon the King; in case of his governing without Law: and this farther appears by the great Charters of Henry I. K. Stephen, and K. john, etc. In the first of which it is declared, that the Nation having been oppressed by unjust (i. e. illegal) exactions he therefore forbids all Common Money, or Taxes; not taken through all Cities or Counties, in the time of K. Edward; and also confirms the Laws of his Father, whereby his Barons, and Tenants in Capite, should be free from all Taillage or Taxes; and he also thereby restored to them the Laws of K. Edward, with those 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 Charter of K. Henry I. which was at first demanded by the Barons to be again confirmed by this King, at the instigation of Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury, 
P. 240, 241▪  as Mat. Paris shows us at large.  
Now since neither K. William the I. nor his Successors, ever changed the fundamental constitution of the Government, as to the Legislative part of it, as (hath been already proved) and that those breaches that had been made upon it, by taking Taillage or Taxes, without the consent of the great Council, are all hereby expressly forbid: these are certainly more than such mere Privileges, which the King himself is the only keeper of, and can dispense with at his Pleasure; but are indeed such Fundamentals, as concern the very cos●i●uent form or Rule of Government; which, as I have also proved, was mixed not limited, in that very institution; and tho' the learned Pufendo●f agree● with you in the case of compacts between an Absolute Monarch and his Subjects; yet as to the point in hand, he is wholly of my mind, 
P. 272.  as you may see by this passage in his Academic Dissertations, in his Discourse de Interreguis; where arguing against Mr. Hobbs who will not allow of any compacts between an Absolute Prince and his Subjects, he has this passage, which I shall here read to you in English. That tho' in Pacts, in which submission is wanting, certain and defined performances may be set forth, to be observed on either side, from an intrinsic impulse of Conscience; when either of these refuse to perform them, nothing but War or the compulsion of a Superior Lord, common to both of them, remains; yet in pacts, by which one Party is made subject to the other, it belongs to the latter to define, what ought to be performed by him; as also a power over the other compelling him, to the performance whether he will, or not; which power does not belong reciprocally to the other party against the former; hence the party commanding cannot be questioned for a breach of compact, unless he either wilfully abdicate all care of the common wealth, or put on an hostile mind towards his Subjects; or manifestly, or deceitfully, (in latin, dolo malo) depart from the rule of governing; on whose observance as upon a condition, the subjects Allegiance depends▪ which is easily to be avoided by any Ruler; if he will consider, that not the highest of Mortals are free from the Laws of humane chance: so that let the power of your Conqueror have been never so great, or Absolute, it is plain he not only renounced it himself, but several of his Successors have done the same for themselves, and their heirs; therefore make the most of it, they must still claim by ●ertu● of the contract, to maintain the constitution, as they found it; or else resolve all their right into mere force; and then vim vi pellere licitum est.  M. 
It is no wonder that you and I differ in our conclusions, since we also differ so much in the premises; and in the very matter of fact, concerning King William the Conquerors coming to the Crown; you saying, he came to it partly by the Sword, but founded on a donation of Edward the Confessor; and partly by the consent and election of the People of England, yet you yourself cannot deny, but force or conquest had a great share in the business, and indeed was all the right he had; for as for that donation of K. Edward, it is either forged, or else K. William could claim nothing by it; since England was then either an Hereditary Kingdom, or elective; and take it which way you will, this donation of the Confessors could signify nothing, either to the prejudice of the People that were to Elect, or the next Heirs who were to succeed after K. Edward's decease; neither could he claim as Heir to him by blood, for the relation between him and K. Edward, was by his Mother Emma, Sister to Richard the second Duke of Normandy, this William's Uncle; so that the Conqueror was no way descended from the Blood Royal of England; Therefore his true quarrel with Harold, (Let his pretence be what it will) was not, because he kept a Kingdom bequeathed to him, by K. Edward; since some Writers relate this King named not him, but Harold for his Successor; 
Vi. Hoveden pars prima, p. 449. Will. Malms▪ Lib 2.  tho' others say, that he recommended Edgar to the good will of the English Nobility. So that the only true and just cause D. William had of making War upon Harold, was his breaking the Promises and Oath he had not long before made him of securing the Kingdom of England for him, upon the Death of K. Edward; instead of doing which, he had seized it for himself; and which is worse, refused to restore it, or so much as to hold it of Duke William as his Homager. So that tho' for the strengthening of his own Tide, he pretended to the Will or Donation of King Edward, and to avoid the envy of the name, might out of modesty or to put a better colour upon this matter, refuse to take the Title of Conqueror; and to insist upon the Donation of K. Edward: yet nothing is plainer than that he could claim by no other Title, but the Sword: and that he looked upon himself as no other than an Absolute Conqueror, may appear by these great and evident instances. 1. His change of the English Laws, and introducing the Norman Customs in their stead, and also changing the Tenors of Lands, not only of the Laity, but also of the Bishops and greater Abbeys. 2. By his debarring all those of the English Nation, from enjoying any Honour, Office or Preferment, either in Church or State; and also in taking away the Estates of all the Nobility and Gentry; not only from those of their Heirs, that had been slain in the Battle of Hastings, but also of the rest; so that they had left them, but what they could purchase of those Norman or French Noblemen, to whom King Wiiliam had given their Lands, as a reward of their good service; for the proof of both which Assertions, I have so very good authority on my side, and that of Writers of, or near those times in which these things were done, that I think no indifferent man can have any cause to doubt the matter of Fact to have been as I relate it; nor did he by any after act, ever renounce this right of Conquest, as you suppose, much less refer it to the Election of the English, or Normans; since the former were not in a condition to make any farther resistance against him, the Clergy and great men of the Kingdom having been forced to submit themselves to him without any other precedent conditions, or stipulations, than for the saving of their lives; and as for the Normans they were his Subjects, and they Conquered the Kingdom only for his use and benefit, as his Soldiers, and Vassal●; and it is not likely he would owe the Kingdom which he had thus acquired by the Sword, to their Votes, or Election; neither does any Author that I know of mention any Election before his Coronation; when tho' it is true, he took such an Oath as you mention, yet it was in too general terms to bind him to any observation of the ancient English Laws, much less to preserve their Rights and Privileges, farther than he thought fit; and therefore could never take the Crown upon your Conditions of Resistance or Forfeiture, in case of any alteration in that which you call the Fundamental Constitution.  
This being the true matter of Fact without any disguise, it is easy to answer all that you have said against K. William's requiring an Absolute, Hereditary Right to the Crown of England for himself, and all his descendants by the Sword; first then, as to the Justice of the War, and Conquest itself, I suppose you will not deny, but that Duke William had a good cause of War against Harold for the breach of his Oath; and if so, against all that took his part, at the Battle of Hastings; so that upon the Conquest of Harold, and those that were in that Fight, he also acquired a Right by Conquest to all that they enjoyed; and consequently had a right to Harold's Crown, as well as his other Estate; as also to the Estates of all those that were either slain, or escaped alive from that Battle, and not only to these, but also to all the Lands of the whole Kingdom; since the War was made not only against Harold's Person, but against the Kingdom of England; the People of which, according to their Allegiance assisted him in that War, either with Men or Money: 
Vi. Grot. l. II. cap. 4. Pufendorf, l. VII. cap. 6. § 16. cap. 7. § 3, 4.  but admitting the War to have been in itself never so unjust, yet all Writers on this Subject (even Grotius and Pufendorf) agree, that Conquest even in an unjust War, with a thorough settlement in the Conqueror and his Successors, by the non claim, dereliction, submission, or exstinction of the next Heirs of the former Kings, together with a long uninterrupted possession beyond all time of memory, will confer as good a Title; especially when all these confirmed by a constant submission, and recognition of the People, testified not only at the first Conquest, but in all succeeding times, by as absolute, and unconditioned Oaths of Allegiance, as can be invented; or that were ever taken to the most Absolute Monarch: and such Oaths are always to be interpreted in favour of the Prince, to whom they are sworn, and as strictly against the People that take them; as all Writers also agree: now granting this to be the case of K. William the Conqueror, that by all or some of these means he acquired a right to the Crown, not only for himself, but his Heirs; this Power was Absolute, without any conditions to be observed on their part, for the Oath of Allegiance is positive, without any condition or restriction; so that I can see no manner of pretence that the People of this Nation can have, of forcing their K's. to the maintenance, or observation of those rights, and privileges, which they or their Predecessors have so freely granted to them, or their Ancestors; As Pusendorf whom you now cited very rightly observes; and consequently can have no right to repel force, by force; since our Kings do not now hold their Crown by force, or right of Conquest alone, but by all things required by the Law of Nations to create a full, and absolute right, viz. a long uninterrupted Possession, and the Absolute submission of the People for themselves, and all their descendants; so that tho' I grant bare conquest considered as a Force can give no right alone, yet it may often be the Mother of Right, and may at last grow to a Right, by the means I have already mentioned.  F. 
Before I reply any thing farther to what you have now said to the matter of Right acquired by your Conqueror, and his Heirs, pray in the first place prove the matter of Fact to have been as you lay it; and therefore produce your quotations from the Authors you mention: but first give me leave to tell you, that Dr B. and you are the first I have heard to make so light of this Testamentary Do●●tion of Edward the Confessor; which the greatest part of the Writers nearest that time, do suppose to have been really made on the behalf of Duke William; and that notwithstanding this bequest, Harold unjustly, and contrary to his own Oath, did by force set the Crown upon his own Head, without any precedent Election of the Clergy, Nobility, and People, as was required at that time; since it was impossible for them to meet in so short a time; for King Edward dying on the Eve of Epiphany, was buried on Twelfth day, and on the same day Harold took upon himself the Crown, by the consent of some of the Bishops and Nobility of his Faction, then at London; so that he was certainly no better than an Usurper: and therefore by the Conquest of Harold and his party, your Conqueror could acquire no right upon the free People of England, since they never gave their consents to place Harold on the Throne; and consequently K. William could have no just cause of making a conquest upon the whole Nation, since neither did he ever in all his Reign (as I can find) call a common Council of the Kingdom 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 Acts of Grace, (which he had lost by his violent taking the Crown while Edgar Atheling the only remaining Male Heir of the Saxon Race was in being;) and found very many who were willing to fight for him, not only against the King of Norway, who had a little before Invaded the Kingdom, but also against Duke William; yet all those in his Army could amount to nothing near the whole Kingdom, who never contributed to the War by any public Vote, or Tax; and therefore did not countenance it by giving Money, or raising of Men as you suppose; so that D. William could not pretend a right of making War against any body, but only Harold and his Accomplices; but as for the Testamentary Donation of Edward the Confessor, tho' you make so light of it, yet Ingulph says expressly, 
P. 68 Edit. Oxon.  that Edward the Confessor some time before his Death, sent Robert Archbishop of Canterbury as his Ambassador to D. William to let him know That he had designed him his Successor, not only by Right of Kindred, but by the merit of his Virtue; and that after this Harold, coming into Normandy, promised upon Oath to assist him in it; and Will. Malmesbury says also, that Edward the Father of Edgar Atheling, 
P. 93.  dying almost as soon as he came into England, K. Edward his Cousin being dead, gave the Succession of this Kingdom to William Duke of Normandy; with whom also agree, Florence of Worcester, and William of Poi●tou, and all the rest of the Historians of that Age, as well English as Normans: nor do I know any of them except Simeon of Durham, and Roger Hoveden, who make Harold to have been appointed Successor by K. Edward, or to have been so much as solemnly Crowned by the Archbishop of York.  
But I confess your main objection is still to be answered, viz. what precedent Right Duke W●lliam could have to the Crown of England by this Testament of King Edward; since it was then either an Elective, or else an Hereditary Kingdom; and so this Donation could confer no right on this Duke in Prejudice of the People's right to Elect; or else of the next Heir to succeed? In answer to which I must tell you that which perhaps you may have never considered, that the Crown was then neither properly Elective nor Successive, but a mixture of both.  M. 
That seems a kind of a Paradox, and what I never heard before, pray explain yourself, for I do not understand how it could be.  F. 
Why then I will tell you, the Crown of England in those times, was very like what the Crowns of Denmark and Sweden were not long since, and as the Empire is at this day; in which tho' the Estates or Diet might choose whom they pleased for King or Emperor, yet they still kept to the same Family or Line, as long as there were any Males left of i●, fit to succeed; which custom 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 else at any time before, to nominate one of his Sons, or near Kinsmen to be his Successors, by his last Will or Testament: especially if he had no Sons of his own, as happened in the case of King Edward the Confessor; now this nomination, tho' it did not alone confer a right to the Crown, yet it made the person so named the fairest candidate for it; and was such a recommendation to the Estate●, or great Council of the Kingdom, as they never passed, by or denied, as I can ever find by the best inquiry I have made; and for proof of this, I shall appeal to the Testament of K. Alfred, as you will find it Printed from an Ancient Manuscript, in the second Appendix to his Life, in Latin, published at Oxford. Which begins thus. Ego Alfredus Divino munere, labour, ac Studio Athelredi Archiepiscopi, nec non totius Westsaxoniae Nobilitatis consensu, pariter & assensu, occidentalium Saxonum Rex; quos in Testimonium meae ultimae voluntatis complementi, ut sint advocati in disponendis pro salute animae meae regali electione, confirmo, tam de haereditate, quam Deus at Principes, cum senioribus Populi misericorditer ac benigne dederunt; quam de haereditate quam Pater meus Aethelwulfus Rex nobis tribus fratribus delegavit, viz. Aethelbaldo, Aethelredo, & mihi; ita, quod qui nostrum diutius foret superstes, ille totius Regni dominio congauderet, etc. From whence you may collect first, that tho' this King in the very beginning of his Testament ascribes his obtaining the Crown, not to any Hereditary Right, but the consent, and assent of the Nobility of West-Saxony; yet he also here mentions the entail of the Crown by his Father's Will, upon his two Elder Brothers, and himself successively, before any of his Elder Brother's Sons, who were living at the time of the making of this Testament of K. Alfred's, as appears by the Will itself, in which they are expressly mentioned: now how could this be that he was King, as well by the consent or election of the West-Saxon Nobility, as by his Father's Will, unless both these had been required to make him so? Also Will. of Malmesbury tells us of K. Athelstan, 
Lib. TWO cap. 6.  the Grandson of K. Alfred, that, jussu Patris in Testamento, Aethelstanus in Regem est acclamatus: but in the beginning of this chapter, he also tells us, that Aethelstanus electus apud Regiam aulam quae vocatur Kingston Coronatus est, quamvis quidem Alfredus cum factiosis suis obviare tentasset; upon that pretence that Athelstan was a Bastard: so that you may see, that his Father's Testament was not sufficient without the election of the Wittema Gemot; who preferred him, tho' perhaps Illegitimate, before this Alfred who was set up against him. And I doubt not, if more of the Testaments of the English Saxon Kings were now extant, that I could give you more instances of this Nature. But that the person so nominated, and elected, tho' not the nearest always of blood, claimed jure haereditario, is also as certain, since Bracton expressly tells us, That haereditamentum, or inheritance is not derived ab Haerede, but heir from the Inheritance; and that inheritance is the Succession to all the right which the Predecessor had; with whom also the Civil Law agrees, Haeredis significatione omnes significare successores credendum est, etsi verbis non sint expressi. Nor did this custom of thus recommending a Successor prevail in England alone in those times, but also was in use among the French Kings of the Race of Charlemagne, wherein the last will or Adoption of the King, in being confirmed by the Election or Recognition of the Estates of France, gave a sufficient Title to a Prince of the Blood Royal, tho' not Legitimate, nor the next heir by blood, to succeed; but the Will of the Prince was not alone sufficient; as Monsiour M●ze●a● has very well observed in his Chronological Abridgement of the History of France, in the Reign of King Clotair the second.  
So that to conclude; if Duke William of Normandy was thus adopted; named by K. Edward the Confessor for his Successor, by his last Will and Testament; and this had been without any blows confirmed by the Council of the Kingdom, by a subsequent Election, and Coronation, and that he had received the Oaths and Recognitions of the English Subjects, 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 English Saxon Line; I am sure a much better than Harold, who I am not satisfied came in either by the adoption of K, Edward, or by the Election of the People, and therefore Duke William had a good Title against him as an Usurper; and Conquering him, and those of his party in the Battle, and being thereupon Elected, and Recognized, and Crowned by the general consent both of the English, and Normans; I cannot see why his obtaining the Crown against Harold by force of Arms, should extinguish his former right, and create a new Title by Conquest, which he never claimed by; or suppose his renouncing the Confessors Will, which gave him a right to be Elected King, according to the custom of those times; and to demand the Crown from an Usurper, who had solemnly sworn to assist him in this Right. But since you so positively affirm, that no Author whatever mentions D. William's Election; I doubt not but to show it you from more than one Author, and those of, or near those very times.  
I shall in the first place give the account that a short History, Printed at the end of Mr. Tailor's History of Gavel-kind, from an Ancient Msc. in the Bodlia● Library, gives us of this affair, and who seems to be an Author that lived very near those times. Londoniam Convenientibus Francis, & Anglis (ad nativitatem Domini) illisque omnibus concedentibus, coronam totius Angliae, & Dominationem suscepit: and William of Poictou, this King's Chaplain in his History relates it thus; Die ordinationi decreto locutus ad Anglos condecenti sermone Eboraci Archiepiscopus sapiens, bonus, eloquens, an consentirent eum sibi Dominum Coronari inquisivit; protestati sunt hilarem consensum universi minime haesitantes, ac si caelitus unâ ment datâ, unâqu; voci; Anglorum quam facillime Normanni consonuerunt sermocinato apud eos, ac sententiam praecunctatoriam Constantini Praesule, sic electum consecravit Archiepiscopus, imposuit ei diadema, etc.  
So likewise Ordoricus Vitalis, a Norman Author, alive at the same time relates it thus. 
Lib. III. pa. 503.  Die natalis Domini Angli Londoniae ad ordinandum Regem convenerunt, & G●lielmum Ducem Normannorum in Regem Anglorum consecravit Archiepiscopus, etc. and goes on to relate the manner how, just as the nameless English Author had done before; but then agrees with William of Poictou in all the rest. Dum Aldredus Praesul Alloqueretur Anglos, & Godofredus Constantiniensis Normannos, an concederent Gulielmum Regnare super se, & Vniversi consensum hilarem protestarentur unâ voce non unius Linguae locutione; with whom also agrees Willielmus Gemmenicensis, 
P. 288.  in the History of the Dukes of Normandy, who was also an Author that lived in, or very near the times of this King: his words are; Anno incarnate. Domini, ab omnibus tam Normannorum, quam Anglorum proceribus Rex est electus, & sacro oleo ab Episcop●● R●gni delibutus, atque regal ●●●demate Coronatus?  
So that you see here are no less than four Ancient Authors, who all agree upon the solemn Election of King William; and yet your Dr. has the confidence to tell us, that Mr. Petye only endeavours to prove this Election of King William out of some fragments of Authors, who lived at some distance of time from his coming over hither.  M. 
I confess you have showed me more for this mixed slight of K William's by Testament, and Succession; than ever I knew before; But you had dealt more fairly, 
B. A. A. p 206.  if you had also added what Dr. B. takes notice of our of Guli●●●●● Pictaviensis concerning King William's being advanced to the Crown; for immediately after the mention of him being Crowned, he conludes thus, 〈◊〉 Liberi & napoles justa 〈…〉 Anglle terrae, quam haereditaria delegatione Sacramentes Anglorum firmata, & Jure Belli ipse possedit. So that here you see he grounds a Title to Him, and his postaerity, not only on his Hereditary, but the Oaths of the English, and the Right of War; but as for the word Electus made use of by those Ancient Authors, Dei B. hath made it very plain in his History of the Succession of the Crown of England, as also in his Glossary, that this word does not there signify Elected, but Recognized, and Acknowledged, that such a one is to be King. Yet I very much doubt whether this could be properly termed an Election or not, since the same Historians also tell us, that part of K. William's Army kept Guard without the Church door, during his Coronation, by this good token, that when they heard so great a shout given upon the People's declaring their Assents: the Soldiers suspecting some Treason, set Fire to the Houses; so that I cannot see how that could be properly an Election, when the People durst not refuse: and I know that even at this day, the King is shown to the People on all the four sides of the Scaffold on which he is Crowned, and their consent is formally asked, whether they will have this Man to be their King; yet no man will say that their Acclamations and crying, yea, yea, will make our Kings Elective, any more than it could do it in the Case of K. William, who had a Title by Conquest precedent to this pr●tended Election; tho' I grant this custom may have been in use ever fined this Coronation of the Conqueror.  
But that King William claimed indeed by Conquest, and by no other Title, let us not mind his specious colourable pretences, but his actions, which are the best Interpreters of the Thoughts of Princes; and we shall find that through all his Reign, he Governed this Kingdom as a Conqueror; and this I shall prove by making good the three Instances 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 first of these.  
For the proof of which, I shall make use of the Authority of Gervace of Ti●bury, a considerable Officer in the Exchequer, 
B. A. P. p. 33.  in the time of Henry the Second, and who received his information from Henry of Blo●s Bishop of Winchester, and Grandchild to the Conqueror, who is most full to that purpose, which he thus delivers in the Manuscript Treatise, called the black book of the Exchequer; which I shall read to you according to the Learned Dr. B's Translation of it. After the Conquest of the Kingdom, and the just subversion of the Rebels, when the King himself, and his great men, had viewed and surveyed their new acquests▪ there was a strict enquiry made who they were, which had fought against the King, and secured themselves by Flight; from these and the Heirs of such as were slain in the Field, all hopes of possessing either Lands or Rents were cut off, for they counted it a great favour to have their Lives given them; But such as were called and solicited to fight against King William, and did not, if by an humble submission they could gain the Favour of their Lords and Masters, they then had the liberty of possessing somewhat in their own persons, but without any right of leaving it to their Posterity, their Children enjoying it only at the Will of their Lords; to whom when they became unacceptable, they were every way outed of their Estates, neither would any restore what they had taken away.  
And when the miserable Natives represented their Grievances publicly to the King, informing him how they were spoiled of their Fortunes, and that without redress, they must be forced to pass into other Countries. At length upon consultation, it was ordered, that what they could obtain of their Lords by way of Desert or Lawful Bargain, they should hold by ●unqestionable Right; but should not claim any thing from the time the Nation was Conquered, under the Title of Succession or Descent; upon what great consideration this was done, is manifest (says Gervac●;) for they being obliged to compliance and obedience, to purchase their Lord's ●avour, therefore whoever of the Conquered Nation Possessed Lands, etc. obtained them not as if they were their Right by Succession or Inheritance, but as a reward of their service, or by some intervening agreement.  
This alone were sufficient, coming from an Author of such Credit, and living so very near the time: but besides his, I shall give you the Authority of divers other Authors to the same purpose, and particularly Ordericus Vitalis (whom you but now cited) tells us how William the first circumvented the two great Earls of More●a; and that after Edwin was slain▪ and Morcar imprisoned, than King William began to show himself, and gave his Assistants the best, and most considerable Counties in England and made Rich Colonels and Captains of very mean Normans: and that he thus disposed of whole Counties to divers great men, appears by doomsday Book, wherein it is seen that the whole County of Chester was given by the Conqueror to ●upus a Norman; so likewise the greatest part of Shropshire was given to Mon●gomery.  
And further he took away from the English their Estates, and gave them to his Normans; and this he did from his first coming in; for Fitz-Osbern was made Earl of Arundel and Hereford, at his first coming in, and was Lord of Bettivil in Normandy, and established the Laws of that Town at Hereford; Alan Earl of B●itain, had all Earl Edwin's Lands given to him at the Siege of York, about three years after his arrival; to these I may add the 795 Manors Robert Earl of Mor●ton in Normandy and Cornwall in England, had given to him by K. William; so likewise ●lan Earl of Britain and Richmond 442 Manors, and jeffery Bishop of Constance had 280 Manner's given him by the Conqueror, besides many other Lands of the Saxon, Earls, Thains, etc. were all given to the Normans, who took their Title from King William's Conquering Sword.  
So that I think it is very evident that this King had distributed most of the Lands of the Nation to his Norman's, long before the survey 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 English, who held that they had his new Title, and new services from the Conqueror or his great Lords, or became Tenants to, or Drudges upon their own Lands, as we heard before from Bracton and Fleta. Here is enough to satisfy any unbiased person, that th● Conqueror did not lay by his Sword after the Battle of Hastings.  F. 
In answer to what you have now said, concerning your Conquerors taking away the Lands of a great many of the English Nobility and Gentry, it is so apparent in matter of Fact, that it were a high piece of impudence to go about to deny it; yet will it not therefore follow, that what he thus disposed of were almost all the Lands of England, as I shall show, you by and by; but in the mean time to let you see that I am a fair adversary, I will at present suppose, that K. William took away all the Lands from the former owners, and gave them to his followers, who helped him in his Conquest; but these were not only the Normans his Subjects, but French, Flemings, Anjovins, Britain's, Poictovins, and People of other Natio●s, who made up a great part of his Army, and came in with him under great and considerable men their Leaders, and whom your Dr. tells us came not out of sta●k love and kindness, 
B. A. P. p. 35.  without any consideration of sharing with, and under him in the Conquest. Now I desire to know by what Law or Act of theirs, they thus constituted K. William an Absolute Monarch, over them and their Descendants. For as for the Normans tho' they were (its true) his subjects; yet they enjoyed divers considerable Rights and Privileges at home, and surely never intended to come over hither, to make themselves as great Slaves as the People, they had Conquered; much less can it be supposed of these of other Nations, who were not subjects to Duke William before he was made King; nor can I see how their taking of Lands from Him could make him become an Absolute and Irresistible Monarch over them, and their Descendants; so that if upon your supposition, all the owners of Lands in England, at this day, hold their Estates either by descent or purchase from those Ancient Normans, or French Proprietors they must also succeed to the same Liberties and Privileges, as those under whom they claim, did formerly enjoy. But before I conclude, I cannot but take notice of what you have said, against my proofs of the formal election of King William, for if the keeping of a guard about the place where the King is Elected and Crowned, should void the freedom of the Election; I doubt whether the election of any elective Kings, or Monarches, no not of the Germane Emperor himself would hold goods as for the other reason, that they could not choose but ●lect him that is yet more trivial, for there being no more than one tha● stood to be chosen, they could indeed choose no other; but if not having a Liberty to refuse, must void the Right of Election, pray consider (as I told you before▪) whether there be any Canonical Election of Bishops in the Church of England at this day: therefore I doubt not but that King William I. was as lawfully and freely elected as K. Edward the Confessor, his Predecessor, whom all Authors agree to have had no other Title; and Willi●lmus Gemeticensis in the place I now cited, tells us, he was Elected King as well of the Norman, as English Nobles: and if the custom had not ●●en ●●cen to El●●● the King before he was Crowned; it is not likely tha● your Conqueror would have introduced a new custom to the prejudice of his pretended right by Conquest; but indeed there is not only more cogent argument to prove that the Crown was formerly elective, than ●he constant usage (as you yourself confess) ever since your pre●ended Conquest to this day▪ of ask the People whether they are content to have such a one for their King▪ As for your Doctor's quotation out of William of ●oicto●, pray take notice that he places your Conquerors▪ Hereditary bequest together with the Oaths of the English as his best Title, and the right of War last, by which this Author did not understand a Conquest of the People of England, but his prevailing against Harold▪  M. 
I do own with the learned Dr. B. that the Descendants of those ancient. Norman and Fre●●h Earls and Barons▪ than came in with the Conqueror and their Posterity afterwards, seeing the Yoke of feudal Tenors, and other prerogatives this King and His Descendants exercised over them to press as hard upon them, as the Ancient English were, those that made such a disturbance for their Right and Liberties in the Reigns of H. john, and Henry the third; and tho' I grant their Ancestors were never conquered, and consequently could not be obliged to him as to a Conqueror, 〈◊〉 may for all this maintain▪ that they and their Posterity were as much bound to an Absolute Subjection without any resistance, a● the English whom they conquered; for they were either his own Subjects in A●●mand●▪ before his coming o●e● hither or else, were such Volunteers who followed him but of hopes of Estates, and Br●ferment was for all those of the former 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 were his subjects before, they were tied, not only by their 〈◊〉 Oaths of a Regiance, which they had taken (in Normandy, but, were also bound by the same obligation of Non resistance, as all other subjects must always be, both in that, and all other Governments; to all which was added another Obligation in respect of those who were not his subjects before his entrance, since this whole Kingdom was by Conquest the Conqueror's▪ as appears in that he bestowed the 〈◊〉 part of 〈◊〉 his Followe●● (whose blood runs at this day in the Veins of most of our English Gentry and Nobility▪) as a reward for their Service and Assistance▪ tho' he might have some part to the English Natives and their Heirs, yet so a● that he altered the Tenure, and made it descend with such burdens, as he pleased to lay upon them; so that as well ●his own Countrymen Normans, as those of all other Nations, who thus became Subjects and Feudataries to him for all the Lands they possessed in England, since he was the only Directus Dominus or Lord Paramount of the whole Kingdom; were also his Vassals and Subjects; for in case of Treason and Rebellion, or Death without Heir, those Lands were to return to him again▪ and to be a● his dispossal; so that all subjects as well Normans as other Foreigners, who had Lands granted to them by the Conqueror, thus became his homines Ligei, Liegemen, and did owe Faith and true Allegiance to him, as their Supreme and Liege Lord, as the King is called in several Statutes, and the definition of Liegeancy is set down to the grand Customary of Normandy, Ligeantia est ex quâ domino tementur vasalli sui, &c, that is, Liegeancy is an obligation upon all subjects, to take part with their Liege Lord against all men living, to aid and assist him with their Bodies and Goods, and with their advice and power, 〈◊〉 to lift up their hands against him, nor to support in any wise those who oppose him; and tho' I grant that the Supreme or Liege Lord, is likewise bound to govern and defend his Liege People, according to the Rights, Customs, and Laws of the Country; yet is he not liable to resistance, much less forfeiture if he neglect it; For tho' if Subjects break their Covenants, and prove disloyal, all their Lands and other Rights are forfeited to the King; yea if the King, or Supreme Lord break his Oa●●● notwithstanding his sailing therein, neither his Crown, nor any Rights belonging to his Royal Dignity are thereby forfeited: the reason of this inequality is, because the King gave Laws to the people, but the People did not give Laws to him, so that it is plain, that however you 〈◊〉 the Conqueror's entrance, whether by the Sword, or (to avoid the Envy of the Title of a Conqueror) by a voluntary submission of the English Nation to him, as to their Sovereign, the conclusion cannot vary, because the duty of Nonresistance arises from their own Act, they taking an Oath of Allegiance, to be, his True and Loyal Subjects; with which Oath Resistance can by no means consist.  F. 
I must beg your pardon if I cannot take what you have now said, for a satisfactory answer, since I doubt it will do you little service, whether you make use of it either in respect of the Normans, or other Foreigners; for as to the so●m●r, it appears from the Ancient Constitution of Normandy, that the Duke was no absolute Monarch there; but Feudatary to the King of France; and farther could make no Laws, nor impose Taxes in Normandy, without the consent of the Estates of that Duchy, as appears by the Title to the Latin Customs of Normandy, which are at the End of the Old French Edition of the Constumiers de Normandy; Printed at R●a●, 1515. The Title of which is thu●, jura & Consuetudines Ducatus No●maniae. The Prologue to which, begins thus. Quoniam Leges, & Instituta quae Normanorum Principes, non sint magna provisionis Industria Praelatorum, Comitum, & Baronum, nec non & Caeterorum virorum prudentum consilio, & Assensu ad salutem humani foederis Statuerunt. Whereby it is apparent, that the Ancient Laws of Normandy were made by the Advice and Consent of the Estates, for the Preservation of that humane Covenant they had formerly made with their first Duke, Rollo, when he had that Duchy granted him by the King of France; and whoever will consult the ancient Histories and Laws of that Duchy will find the●● Dukes of Normandy no more absolute Monarches there, than the Kings of Norway, from whence they came; so that if their Duke should have gone about to take away their Estates, or enslave the Persons of the Norman Nobility, and People, he might justly have been resisted by them; and therefore their taking Lands from K. William after his pretended Conquest here, must either have conferred an Estate upon them according to the Laws of England or Normandy; not according to the former; for you assert that Tenors in Capite, and Knight's service, were generally introduced by his coming; so that if they were by the Normans Law, (as you suppose) they were then no farther subjects to their Duke, by that Tenure, when made King of England, than they were whilst he was Duke of Normandy, viz. only according to the Laws and Customs by which they held these Estates: so that if their Duke was not irresistible by them in case of Tyranny in his own Country, so he was also here by the same reason; since whatever he did in respect of the English, he could acquire no new right over them.  
And that an Oath of Homage alone, doth not make the Person to whom it is taken irresistible, if he makes an unjust War upon his Vassals, appears by the Dukes of Normandy themselves, who tho' they held that Duchy by Homage to the King of France, and took the same Oath to him, upon every King's Accession to the Crown, of being his Liegeman; and to be True and Faithful to his Lord the King of France, for the said Duchy of Normandy: yet might the Dukes of Normandy without any Imputation of Rebellion have resisted the King of France, in case he made an unjust War upon them: nor were ever the Dukes of Normandy accused of Rebellion for so doing, in all the Wars that they had with the Kings of France; And therefore the holding of an Estate by Homage, doth not suppose that the Lord of whom it is held was irresistible, nor doth the word of Allegiance signify any more than that duty which the Liegemen, by the Old Norman Law, owed to their Supreme Lord of whom they held their Lands; and therefore when the King or Supreme Lord of the Fee did not perform his part of the Contract, but went about to turn them out of their Estates, or to invade any of their just rights by force, it was usual for the Tenants to defy the Lords, and renounce their Homage to them; 
Vi. Spelman's Glossary verbo diffidare. P. 388.  for which they used the Barbarous Latin word diffidare, in French to defy, that is, to renounce that Faith and Allegiance, which before they owed them; and the supreme Lords also oftentimes defied their Tenants, thus Mat. Paris tells in Anno 1233. that K. Henry the Third by the Counsel of the Bishop of Winchester, defied Richard the Earl Marshal: and the year following we find the Earl justifying himself in this manner, 
Ibid. P. 398.  (being then in Ireland;) First I answer, that I never acted Treasonably against the King; for he has unjustly spoiled me of my Office of Marshal, without the Judgement of my Peers, and has Proclaimed me banished through all England, he has burnt my Houses, destroyed my Lands, etc. he has more than once defied me, when I was always ready to stand to the Judgement of my Peers: from which time (said he) I ceased to be the King's Liegeman, and was absolved from his Homage not by myself, but by him: and whereas you say, that tho' the King or Supreme Lord cannot forfeit his Right, tho' he breaks his part of the Compact, because of the inequality, which there is between a King, and a Subject; then this Prerogative of Nonresistance doth not belong to the King, as he is Supreme Lord of the Land, but as he is King, and giveth Law to the Subjects; which may have some colour of Truth in Absolute Monarchies, but was of no Force, either in the Government of Normandy or England, where the Duke or King without the consent of his Estates, never could alone make Laws; but as I will not deny our Government to be a Monarchy, so it is as certain, that it is limited in the very constitution, either by the Saxons or Normans, begin where you please; and therefore my conclusion still holds good, that if the English have now succeeded to those very Lands and Privileges, which the Normans anciently enjoyed, than whatsoever Right or Liberty the English Proprietors of Estates do at this day enjoy, they do not only hold them as the Successors and Descendants of those Normans and Frenchmen but are also restored to them jure postliminii (as you Civilians Term it) since they never submitted themselves, or took an Oath of Allegiance to King William, and his heirs, but only to himself Personally, there being no such clause in any Oath of Allegiance, till it was so ordained many ages after in the Reign of K. Henry the fourth; nor was this Oath ever taken by our English Ancestors to K. William as to a Conqueror, but the lawful Successor of K. Edward the Confessor; and K. William's actual taking away the Estates of a great many of the English Nobility and Gentry, contrary to his own Oath, and without any just o●use, could no more give him a right so to do, than if Henry the fourth, or Henry the seventh, both which came to the Crown by the assistance of a Foreign force, should upon a pretence of being Conquerors have governed by an Army, and so have taken away whose Estate they pleased, and given them to their followers that came over with them.  M. 
I shall not dispute this matter with you any further, therefore pray proceed to the other Point you took upon you to prove, that King William did not take away so great a share of the Lands of England, as the Dr. and those of our Opinion affirm.  F. 
I shall observe your commands, and therefore in the first place I desire you to take notice, that according to the Doctors own showing your Conqueror never took away the Lands of all the Bishops and Abbots of England, much less those that belonged to Deans, and Chapters, or to private Churches, and if his Nobles or Followers had unjustly dissie●ed any Bishop or Abbot of their Estates, the King caused them to be restored again, as appears by many Precedents of this kind, which are to be found in Ingulphus and Eadmerus: this being premised, let us see in the next place what proportion the Lands belonging to the Church did in those days bear to the rest of the Lands in England; now we find in Sprot's Chronicle, as also from the old Legierbook, cited by Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour, and particularly from that Secretum Abbotis (formerly belonging to the Abbey of Glassenbury, and now in the Library of the University of Oxon) that there were not long after your Conquest, 60215 Knights fees in England, of which the Bishop's Abbots and other Churchmen than enjoyed 28015. When it is supposed this account was taken, than it will follow that in the Reign of your Conqueror there were above 28000 Knights Fees▪ which belonged to the Church; and in these we do not any where find that K. William dispossessed their Tenants of their Estates, most of which were held in Fee under them, and those Tenants were great and powerful men in their Countries; and hence we read in the ancient Records and Legier Books of the Barons and Knights that held of divers Bishops and great Abbots, 
P. 84.  several examples which you will find in Sir Henry spelman. Title Baro: now it is certain that King William could not turn all these men out of their Estates, and give them to his followers without committing sacrilege, and invading the Rights of the Church, which that King durst not commonly do; so that the utmost that you can suppose he could do, was to take the forfeitures of all such Tenants of the Church, who had taken part with King Harold, or had any ways committed Treason against himself, which were far from the whole number of them; so that here goes off at once almost a half of all the Lands held by Knight's service, which the King did never dispossess the ancient owners of: to these may be also added all Tenants in ancient Demesne, all Tenants in Socage, as also all Tenants in Gavel kind, which in those days made at least two thirds of the Lands of Kent, which by the way was never conquered but surrendered upon Terms, to ●are their ancient Customs and Tenors, as Mr. Cambden himself acknowledges in his description of this County; besides what was held in other Counties by the same Tenure, as you will find in Mr. Tailor's History of Gavel kind: all which being not Tenors in chief by Knight's Service, are not Registered in doomsday book; nor does it appear, that the owners were ever dispossessed of them; to which may also be added the Lands of those smaller Thanes; or Officers of King Edward, whose names are found in doomsday book, who held their Lands ratione officii.  
To all these we may also add, all such Norman Noblemen and Gentlemen, who having come into England in Edward the Confessors time, and having Honours and Lands given them by him, had continued here ever since; and these were so numerous, 
Vi. Leges Guliel●i.  that it was thought worth while by King William, to make a particular Law concerning them, that they should partake of all the Customs, the Rights and Privileges of Native Englishmen, and pay Scot and Lot as they did: of these was the Earl of Mo●ton; besides many others whose names appear in Doomsday book; and not only these men, but also divers Cities and Towns held Lands of King William by the same Rents and Services, as they had formerly paid in the time of King Edward the Confessor, as Oxford for example. But to give an answer to some of your instances, 
A. A. Vi. 92, 93.  as when you say that King William gave away whole Counties, as all Cheshire to Hugh Lupus, and the greatest part of Shropshire to Roger de Montgomery, etc.  
It is a great error to suppose that these Earls had all the Lands mentioned in these Counties to dispose of at their Pleasure, and that they turned out all the Old Proprietors, which it is certain they did not, as I could prove to you by several instances of Ancient English Families who have held their Lands, and enjoyed the same seats they had in the Conqueror's time; so that you see there is a great deal of difference between a grant of all the Land of a County, and that of the whole County; what is meant by the former is plain, but as for the latter it generally implies not any thing more than the Government of that County. Thus whereas your Dr. would have it, that the greatest part of Shropshire was given to Roger de Montgomery, Doomsday says, only that he had the City of Shrewsbury, & totum Comitatum, and the whole County; But that is soon explained by what follows, & totum Dominum quod Rex ipse tenebat; where it is plain that by Dominium is meant no more than that power to govern it which King Edward had, for otherwise the Grant of totum Comitatum, had been sufficient.  M. 
I confess this is more than I ever heard, or considered before concerning this matter, but you do not give me any positive proof that at the time when Doom's day Book was made, there were any Englishmen who held Earldoms, or Baronies, or other great Estates of the King, or any of his great Men; so that what you have said hitherto, tho' it carry a great show of probability, yet is no positive proof against the Doctor's assertion.  F. 
I shall not go about to deny what William of Malmesbury, and Henry of Huntingdon so positively affirm, that for sometime before the end of King William's Reign, there was no Englishman, a Bishop, Abbot or Earl, in England; yet does it not therefore follow, that it was thus through his whole Reign; or if it were so, that it will therefore follows, that there were few Englishmen, who, when doomsday Book was made, possessed any Lands in England: but that in part of King William's Reign there were many English Earls and Barons appears by above a dozen Charters cited by Sir William Dugdale, in the Saxon and Latin Tongues, in his Monast. Anglic. which are either directed by K. William to all his Earls, and Thains, or else in Latin, Omnibus Baronibus, Francigenis & Anglis, or else Omnibus Baronibus & Fidelibus suis, Francis, & Anglis salutem; the like Charters also appear of Henry J. and the Empress Maud his Daughter; so that if Francigena and Francus signify a Frenchman, and Anglus and Englishman, and if Fidelis does (as your Dr. would have it signify a Tenant in Capite, than I think nothing is plainer than that there were, for great part of King William's Reign, both Earls, Barons, and Tenants in Capite of English Extraction.  
But to come to particular persons, it will appear by the Saxon or English names in Doomsday book, as also by several recitals therein, that there were divers English Noblemen or Gentlemen, who held Lands in divers Counties of England, at the time when that Survey was made; and for proof of this, since so short a conversation as ours will not permit me to run into a long Bead-roll of names, I refer you to what the learned and ingenious Mr. Atwood in his Ius Anglorum ab antiqua, 
P. 8. & deinde, ad P. 92.  has observed out of Doomsday book upon this subject, where tho' he has not only gone through, but gone over Fifteen Counties of Thirty, that are surveyed in that book, yet it will thereby sufficiently appear that your Dr. is much mistaken, when he so positively affirms, that there were few or no Englishmen that held Lands in England: but to give you a taste of this I shall run through as many Counties as Mr. Atwood has given us the names of; To begin which survey, where besides the Earl of Morton above mentioned, (who tho' he was a Norman born, yet he was here before the entrance of the Norman Duke, and held Estrehaw in Tenrige▪ Hundred in the time of King Edward) there was also Hugo de Port, an Englishman who was a very great Proprietor, as may be found under this Title in Doomsday book, Terra Hugonis de Port: many Manors he had; and as thereby appears in Hampshire, he had at least two Manors, Cerdeford and Eschetune, from his Ancestors before King William's entrance; and besides this Gentleman, (and the Earl above mentioned,) there are no less than Ten or Eleven, who as it appears either by their English Names, or else by this note which so frequently occurs, Idem tenu●t T. R. E. i e. tempore Edwardi Regis; the like I may say for the other Counties there mentioned, as Hampshire in the next place, where besides Ralph de Mortimer who had several Lands, T. R. E. there are no less than above Thirty Freeholders' more, who by their Saxon names and want of Surnames seem to be English, divers of whom held the same Thane Lands, which themselves or their Fathers did in the time of King Edward's and though in Buckinghamshire and Berkshire, indeed there are but five or six, who held the same Lands which they or their Ancestors possessed in the time of their Conqueror; but yet in Wiltshire and Dorcetshire, there appears between Twenty and Thirty English Proprietors, many of whom held whole Townships when this Survey was made, in Sommersetshire, Devonshire, Staffordshire, Yorkshire and Glostershire, their does appear in most of them a dozen or more English Saxon names, who held whole Manors; 'tis true that in Nottinghamshire, Linco●shire and Herefordshire, their appear fewest English names, and yet the least of these have three a piece.  
So much may suffice for Doomsday book; and I doubt not if any one will take the pains to look over the Titles of the rest of the Counties, he may find enough Instances of the like Nature, sufficient to prove that the English were not wholly dispossessed of their Estates, at the end of K. William's Reign when this Survey was made. Not to mention Northumberland, Westmoreland, and the Bishopric of Durham, all which are omitted.  
But that the number of English, which held the Lands in the time of King William, the first and second, was very considerable, may appear by William of Malmesburies' relating how the Norman Lords then in England, would have dethroned William Rufus and ha●e set up his Brother Robert in his place, there also shows the manner how that King prevented it. Rex Videns Normannos penned in una Rabie conspiratos, Anglos probos, & fortes viros, qui adhuc residui ●rant invitatoriis scriptis arcessit; quibus super injuriis suis Querimoniam faci●us, bonasque Leges & Tributorum livamen Liberasque venationes po●licens, fidelitati suae obligavit; where Residui must certainly be meant of the residue of those English Gentry, whose Estates were still left; and herein Ordericus Vitalis is more express, that King William as soon as he saw the contrivance against him; Lanfrancum Archiepiscopum cum Suffraganeis praesulibus, & Comites, Anglosque Naturales convocavit, & Conatus Adversariorum, & velle suum expugnandi eos indicavit.  M. 
As for Mr. Atwood's Catalogue of English names from Doomsday book, I have not yet examined them, and tho' I grant there are, may be divers who held the same Lands that they, or their Fathers did, yet they are but a few in respect of the rest; nor are we certain that all these were Native English, and not Normans who held Lands as well then, as before the Conquest; since the Normans, and the English names were often the same; and as for the want of Surnames, that is no argument, that they must needs be English, since in those days very few even of the Normans, but persons of Quality and Estates, had any, as Mr. Cambden shows us in his remains; but as for those expressions in the Charters of King William and his Sons, wherein the English; as well as the French Earls and Barons, are mentioned; those Charters might be either made during the three, or four first years of King William's Reign, when I grant the English were not wholly dispossessed of their Estates, but that there were some of them that still held Earldoms, and Baronies in their own right; but when the same expressions occur after that time, 
B. A. A.  the word Angli, or Angligenae must be understood in another sense, tho' it seems to be put in opposition to Francis; son as by these last are to be understood such French or Norman Barons, who had Estates in England as well as in France, so by the former could be only mean● such Frenchman, or Normans who had their Estates in England only; Or else tho' French by Original, were Englishmen by Birth, are here called Angli, and Angligenae, to distinguish them from such French Barons as are above mentioned, o● from such as were born in Franc●s and for the truth of this I desire you would consult Dr. ●●'s learned Glossary at the end of the Folio Edition of his answer to Mr. P. and his two seconds, Tit. Angli and Angligenae, where he tells us, that these Angli and Barones, Anglae mentioned in these Authors and Ancient Charters, were not English but Normans, and those men of no mean or ordinary Ranks, but Earls or Barons, for they could never have met in such numbers as were requisite for them to do, to protect and defend King William Rufus, had not they been headed by such, if they had either Power or Estates lest, that depended not upon the Normans; and if you or any man can show me an English Saxon that was then either E●●l or Baron, or had any share in the Government, or any that had considerable Estates, that did not hold them of the Normans, or had at that time any great Woods, Forests, or Privileges of Hunting in them, than I will confess myself mistaken. As for W. Malmesbury, saying these were Angli probi qui residui grant these were only the antiqui & Legitimi Barones, who as Ordericus tells us came in with his Father▪ and settled themselves here after the Conquest.  
But as for your Quotations out of William of Malmesbury and Ordericus Vitalis ●●ncerning the English assisting King William Rufus against his Brother Robert, 
B.A.P. p. 50.  by using the common bait of Liberty, (viz.) promising that he would alleviate the Rigid Laws of his Father, and give free Liberty of Hunting in his Forests; 'tis true he thereupon raised an indifferent Army consisting chiefly of English, who as Matthew Paris tells us, were no better than Mercenary or Stipendiary Souldi●●●, and who had either no Estates, or else had been turned out of them before: so that this does not prove that they were men of any Fortunes who thus assisted William Rufus.  F. 
As for what you have now said against the citations of the names out of Doomsday book is not material, since if English names were then common to the Normans and them, than the Norman names might be as well common to the English; and then many of those in England, whom by their names we suppose to have been Normans, might be Native Englishmen, and as for what you urge against the express words of the Charters I have now cited, I think it is a downright wresting of the words Francis and Anglis since no Author that I know of, but your Dr. and is of that opinion. For that the word Franci or Fran●igenae does signify such Frenchmen who held Baronies in England, is granted on all hands, but how Angli must also signify Frenchmen, seems a Paradox to me; for how could these Frenchmen or Normans, be termed Englishmen, only because they held Estates here and not in Normandy? for if the having such and such Estates in England, would have turned Frenchmen into Englishmen, there needed no such distinction to have been made between French and English Barons in these Charters; since according to your Doctor's Notion, the French Barons could be no other ways mentioned here, but as they had Estates here, and therefore could be only writ to in that capacity, since as mere Frenchmen they had nothing to do here; so that if this Epithet was so in respect of the Tenure of their Lands, they would have been styled English Barons as well as the other; nor is your other evasion more to the purpose, that by the Angli might be meant in the Charters of Henry the I. such Norman or French Barons, who because they were born in England, might therefore be called English; for who can believe that in so small a time, as from the beginning of the Reign of King William the I. to that of King Henry the I. which was but a little above 30 years, so many of the Norman Nobility were dead, as should make it necessary to use this distinction of French and English Barons; since by their Tenors they were both alike English? and thus to make Angli signify Normans, is to confound and make all words tho' never so plain; uncertain and equivocal: but that a residue of the English. And as for what Ordericus says of the old Norman Barons, it would have signified if you could have proved he had called them Englishmen, as he does not; But if you carry it further to the time of the Empress Maud and King Stephen, when all the Old Race of Normans were certainly dead, then there was much less need of this distinction, when all that were born in England were English alike, and therefore the word French could only extend to those few Barons who being born in Normandy had Estates here.  
But since you are forced to confess, that for the first four or five years of King William the I. Reign, there were both English Earls and Barons, till the King had by degrees rooted them out, there cannot be a better argument against your pretended right of Conquest; since it is plain, King William could never pretend to take away their Honours and Estates as a Conqueror; since by his Coronation Oath he was sworn to restrain all Rapines, and unjust Judgements, and that he would behave himself modestly toward his Subjects, and Treat both the English and French with equal right; so that if he afterwards took away the estates of English Nobility or Gentry, it was either because they deserved it by Rebelling against him, & then it was justly done, or else it was done without any cause at all, but only to oppress and root out the English Proprietors; and if so, such actions being contrary to his own claim from Edward the Confessor, as also to his Coronation Oath, could no more give him any such right to Rob or Spoil Men of their Estates without any just cause, than it could give him a right to Rob the Churches and Monasteries of all the Plate, Money and Jewels which he found in them, even to the very Chalaws and Shrines, as Matthew Paris and other Authors tell us he did in the fourth year of his Reign, when likewise (according as you yourself set forth) he began to show himself a Conqueror, or rather a Tyrant in the taking away the Estates of the English without any just cause.  
But however the Authors of that time do not make so great a Tyrant of your Conqueror as the Doctor; for William of Poictou expressly tells us, who was Chaplain to this King, 
P. 208.  concerning his taking away the Estates of the English, and giving them to the Normans, that nulli tamen Gallo datum est quod Anglo cuiquam injustè fuerit ablatum.  
And Ordoricus Vitalis speaking of his dealing with the English it the beginning of his Reign says expressly, 
Lib. IU. p. 505, 506.  neminem, nisi quèm non damnare iniquum foret damnavit, and therefore Sir Henry Spelman shows us in his Glossary out of an Ancient Manuscript, belonging to the Family of Shurnborn in Norfolk; 
Title Dreuges p. 184.  That Edwin of Sharborn, and several others that were ejected out of their Estates and Possessions, went to the Conqueror and told him, that never either before, or in, or after the Conquest; they were against him the said King, either by their Advice, or any other aid; but kept themselves peaceably and quietly. And this they were ready to make out, which way soever the King pleased to appoint, whereupon the said King ordered an Inquisition to be made throughout all England, whether it were so or no; which was plainly proved; therefore he presently commanded, that all those who so kept themselves peaceably in manner aforesaid, as these had done, should be repossessed of all their Estates and Inheritances, as fully, amply, and quietly, as ever they had or held them before this Conquest. This is so plain an Authority, that it needs no Comment.  
I shall now conclude with a reply to what you have said, to evade the Authorities of those Ancient Authors I have brought to prove, that in the beginning of the Reign of King William the Second, there were many English Gentlemen left of considerable Estates, which you and your Doctor would ●ain make to be no better than mere mercenaries, which is expressly contrary to the Authority of Mat. Paris, whom your sel● have cited in this point, as also other Authors who have writ of this matter, for Matthew has immediately before these words, Videns igitur Rex Willielmus, omnes penè regni proceres unâ rabie conspiratos, Anglos fortitudine & probitate insignes, faciles leges & tributorum levamen, illis venationes Hibarasque promittendo sibi primò devinxit, and almost make use of the very words that Malmesbury had done before; now I desire you or your Dr. would satisfy me, how men who were remarkable for their Valour and Honesty, and who were so considerable▪ as to be sent for by Letters writ on purpose, and when they came should be promised easier Laws, and free Hunt, and relaxation of Taxes, all which are privileges which belong to men of Estates, could be mean Soldiers of Fortune? And to make it plain that they were not the Kings, but their own Woods they were to Hunt in, Roger Hoveden speaking of this very matter tells us, & concessit omnibus sylvas suas, & venationem. Sed quicquid promisit parvo tempore custodivit, Angli tum fideliter ●um juvabant: but that he did not keep his promise as to hunting, as well as other things, appears by a passage in Eadmerus where he gives us as an example of K. William Rufus harsh nature, that about fifty men of the ancient English Gentry, who seemed to please themselves in those days, with some remains of Riches, were taken and accused, 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 sufficient to show you, that there were at this time many English Gentlemen left, of sufficient Estates to use Hunting, either in their own or the King's Woods. As for what you urge farther against Mr. A's instances out of Doomsday Book are not very considerable, since it is only an exception against the names of persons there mentioned, that they were not Native English, but Normans who either were born, or had Lands in England, or else had the same names with the English, both which are gratis dicta; for Doomsday book plainly proves, either that they or their Ancestors were here before your Conquest, or else their names being wholly English Saxon, it lies upon your side to prove that they were Frenchmen or Normans by Original, which I believe is more than you or your Dr. is able to do.  M. 
I shall not say any further about Doomsday book, until I have either examined it myself, or can procure it to be done by some I can trust; but in the mean time, as for what you say concerning Edwin of Sharborn the Learned Dr. hath so confuted this Story, 
B. A. P. p. 25, 26. Fol. 118. Coll. out of the Book of the Family of Sharborr.  in his answer to Mr. P. that notwithstanding some learned and great men have given too much credit to it, I think it will appear to have been altogether false; and tho' Sir William Dugdale in the first Tome of his Barronage, hath this story otherwise, and says, that notwithstanding the King's Mandate, all he could get was to become Tenant to Warren, and William de Albius of part of his own Land, under certain services; and he is there called Edwin the Dane, and this (if any) is most likely to be true, being taken out of the Book sometime belonging to the Family of the Sharborns. Here we see he applied himself to William, but got not the Propriety of his Estate; what he obtained was but to hold part of it from others; and this was then a common practice, as Bracton and Fleta two of our most ancient Lawyers, and one of them at least a Judge do inform us. That are the time of the Conquest, there were Freemen that held their Possessions by free Services and free Customs, and when they were thrown out of them by powerful men, afterwards returning to them, received their own, and the very same Tenements or Possessions to hold in Villeinage by performing servile works, but such as were certain and nominated; to this may be added, what Mat. Paris says, that King William gave liberally to such as were with him in the Battle of Hastings, when he Conquered England; and that little which was left, he put under the Yoke of perpetual Servitude; yet further as to this particular Report of Sharaborn, there could be no such thing, for his name is not to be found as any Proprietor in Norfolk, in Sharnborn, in Doomesday-book; and the owners of Sharnborn, whi●h are there only to be found, are William de Warrenna (from whom this Story says it was restored to Edwin) Odo Bishop of Bajeux, Benerius Arbalistarius, and William de Pertenai, whence it is evident, that Warren and others were possessed of these Lands in the 20 of the Conqueror, not long before he died, and no Edwin to be found as Proprietor of any of them, or other Lands; nor is the name of William de Albeni, or William Pincerna to be found as a Proprietor in Norfolk, or in Doomsday, though this Manuscript of the Family of Sharnborn says, he had that Village and several Towns thereabouts, given him by the Conqueror, by which it appears that this Report is groundless.  F. 
I cannot blame you if you do what you can to evade this testimony from Sharnborn's Book, which gives so exact an account of the Original of those Tenants, 
Glossary Title Drenches.  who held of the King, as Sir H. Spelman tells us per servitium Dreugarii, and such Tenants were called Dreuches or Dreuges, as this Book of Sharnborn tells us; but tho' it is true, as this Book itself sets forth, Edwin of Sharnborn was never restored to all the Lands he held before the Conquest; yet it is plain that he had the King's Mandate for his restitution, and if he could not obtain, it, by reason of the great power of the present possessors, yet that is no argument against his Right, or King William's Intention to restore him, since Ingulph tells us, that Ivo Talboi seized the Cell of Spalding, 
Hist. p. 71.72.95. Edit. Oxon.  and Divers Lands belonging to the Monastery of Cr●yland, and kept them by force, notwithstand- a solemn hearing before the King and Council: and if a great man could do this with the Lands of the Church, It is no wonder that so powerful a person as Earl Warren, could by his power, or perhaps by the connivance of K. William himself, keep another Man's Estate, and make him contented with such a share as he would allow him, when he found he could have no other remedy against those that thus unjustly detained it.  
But tho' in the beginning of your Discourse, you seem to allow a part of the Story, as it is related in Sharnborn's Manuscript, and produce the Testimony of Bracton and Fleta, to prove that divers Ancient English Proprietors, who being thrown●out of their Estates, by powerful men, presently after the Conquest, were ●ain to take them again upon performing of Villain-Services, tho' they themselves remained free men; but your Dr. from whom you borrow this, is very much out in his application of those passages he citys; for neither of those Authors do affirm this of all owners of Lands whatsoever, but only there to give us the Original of Soccage Tenants on the King's Demesnes, as appears by Bracton's Title to that Chapter, from whence the Dr. citys this passage, which is, de diversis conditionibus personarum tenentium in dominicis Domini Regis, and the first words of this chapter make it yet plainer, beginning thus, in Dominico Domini Regis plura sunt genera hominum, sunt enim ibi servi sive Nativi, ante Conquestum, in Conquestu, & post Conquestum; and under these last ranges the persons you mentioned; but Fleta is more exact in his Chapter de Sokemannis, where he tells us, that these men were Tenants of the King's Ancient Manors in Demean; & quia hujusmodi cultores Regis dignoscuntur, provisa fuit quies, n● sectas facerent ad Comitatum, vel hundredum tamen pro terra, quorum congregationem tune socam appellarunt hinc est quod Sokemanni hodie dicuntur esse; So that tho' King William might permit his Ancient Tenants to be thus outed of their Estates they held in his own Demesnes, yet does it not therefore follow, that he took away the Estates of the Ancient Owners, all over England, of whatsoever Tenure they were, or of whomsoever held. But as for your quotation out of Mat. Paris it proves no more than what I readily grant, that King William after his return out of Normandy liberally rewarded his Followers with the Estates of the English, which might he only of such as fought against him at the Battle of Hastings; and as for that little which was left them, which he says, was put under the Yoke of a perpetual servitude, he means no more by this expression, than that new Tenure of Knight's service which King William imposed upon them, as this Author in the very next leaf, speaking of the Lands of the Bishoprics and Abbeys, which were held before free from all secular servitude, sub servitute statuit Militari, and therefore you seem to contradict yourself when contrary to your own Author Sir William Dugdale, you deny the truth of any part of the Story, because that in Doomsday book the name of Edwin of Sharnborn is not to be found, and that William de Albeni is not named amongst the owners of that Manor, which is not material, since this William might obtain a share therein after this Survey was made; 
I. A. A. p. 103.  and as for Sharnborn himself, his not being there mentioned is no argument that he had no Lands within that Manor, or the other that is mentioned in that Narrative; since oftentimes the chief Lords of the Fee are only mentioned in Doomsday book, tho' all the Proprietors under them are not particularly named, but it is in vain to discourse any longer with you upon the Subject of your Conquerors taking away the Lands of English owners; I have given you my opinion, and the reasons against it, and if you are not of my mind I cannot help it, therefore pray go on to your next head, and show me by sufficient Authorities, that King William as a Conqueror altered all the Laws, and Customs of this Kingdom.  M. 
I will not undertake to prove that he altered all the Laws of England, and brought in quite new ones, yet that he did so in great part, and that by his sole Authority, I think I can prove by sufficient Testimonies; and therefore I shall begin with that of Eadmer, a Monk of Canterbury, a companion of Archbishop Lanfranc's who tells us in his History that William designing to establish in England those Usages and Laws, 
Hist. Nou. Fol. 6. n. 10.20, 30. B.A.P. p. 32.  which his Ancestors and he observed in Normandy, made such persons Bishops, Abbots, and other Principal men, through the whole Nation, who could not be thought so unworthy, as to be guilty of any reluctancy, and disobedience to them; knowing by whom, and to what they were raised; all Divine and Humane things he ordered at his pleasure. And after the Historian hath recounted in what things he disallowed the Authority of the Pope, and Archbishop, he concludes thus. But what he did in secular matters I forbear to write, because it is not my purpose, and because also any one may from what hath been delivered, guess what he did in seculars. From which I think nothing is plainer than that K. William did not only design to alter many things in the Laws and Customs, of England, but did also actually do it, since to that end he made the Bishops, Abbots, and other Principal men, who were to be Judges in all Courts, such as he could wholly confide in: now that K. William governed the Nation as Conqueror, and did so live and repute himself so to be, and as such brought in and imposed new Laws upon the People of this Nation, is as clear as I shall prove from these particulars; first, The Justiciaries, or chief Justices, the Chancellors, the Lawyers, the Ministerial Officers, and under Judges, Earls, Sheriffs, Bailiffs, Hundre duties were all Normans, from his first coming until above a hundred years after, as I can make it out by particular instances, and undeniable Reasons were not the Catalogues too long to be here inserted. If therefore the Justiciaries, Chancellors, Earls, Sheriffs, Lords of Manors, such as heard Causes, and gave Judgement, were Normans; if the Lawyers, and Pleaders were also Normans, the Plead, and Judgements in their several Courts musts of necessity have been in that Language, and the Law also, I mean the Norman Law; otherwise they had said, and done they knew not what, and Judged they knew not how; especially when the controversies, were to be determined by Military Men, as Earls, Sheriffs, Lords of Manors, etc. that understood not the English Tongue, or Law, or when the chief Justiciary himself was a Military Man, as it often happened, and understood only the Norman Language, and 'tis hardly to be believed these Men would give themselves the trouble of learning and understanding the English Law and Language.  
Secondly, Tho' we have many Laws and Customs from the Northern People, and North parts of Germany, from whence both Saxons and Normans came; yet after the Conquest, the Bulk and Main of our Laws were brought hither from Normandy by the Conqueror, from whence we received the Tenors, and the manner of holding our Estates in every respect; from whence also have we received the Customs incident to those Estates: And likewise the Quality of them being most of them feudal; and enjoyed under several Military Conditions, and services, so that of necessary consequence from thence we must receive the Laws also, by which these Tenors, and the Customs incident to them were regulated, and by which every man's right in such Estates was secured; according to the Nature of them; from Normandy (and brought in by the Conqueror) we received most, if not all our ancient Tenors, and manner of holding and enjoying our Lands and Estates, as will appear by comparing our Ancient Tenors with theirs.  F. 
I shall not deny but that a great part of the matter of Fact is true, as you have now put it; yet tho' I grant that the Bishop, Abbots, Chancellors, Chief Justices, and other great Officers of the Crown, were all or the greatest part of them Normans, during the Reigns of the two first Kings of the Norman Race; it do●s not therefore follow, that these Men must have made a change in the very substance of our Laws, tho' in matters of form of pleading or judicial proceedings they might have introduced great alterations; for as to the Civil or Municipal Laws of this Kingdom concerning the Descent and Conveyance of Estates, 
Glia 〈◊〉. Lib. 7. cap. 2.  they continued the same after the coming in of the Normans, and Lands held by Knight's Service, descended to the Eldest Son, and Lands in free Soccage, and Gavel-kind to all the Sons alike so likewise there were Estates, In tail, and Fee simple as now, and there were also the like Customs of the Courtesy of England, Burrough English, etc. as there are also at this day, as I can prove to you by several passages out of our English Saxon Laws; so likewise for Conveyance of Estates, those of the better sort of People called Bookland, were conveyed by Deeds, with Livery and Seisin, either with, or without warranty as they are now; but that which was called Fol●land held by the meaner sort, were only by Livery and Seisin without any Writing; And tho' I grant that the custom of sealing of Deeds is derived from the Normans, yet that is an alteration only in matter of forn; and as for Goods and Money they were bequeathable by a Man's last Will, as well after as before your Conquest; And if you can have the opportunity to peruse a Manuscript Treatise of Sir Roger Owen's upon this Subject, you will find it there sufficiently proved: That Livery of Seisin, Licenses, or Fines for Alienation, Daughters to Inherit, Trials by Juries, Abjurations, Utlaries, Coroners, disposing of Lands by Will, Escheats, Gaols, 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 so as to the common Law, let us see what alterations there were in the Criminal, or Crown part of the Law; first, as to Treason and wilful Murder, they were punished with Death in the Saxon times, as well as after, as were also Robery, and Burglary in the night time; but as for lesser offence, such as Batteries, Maims, Robberies, and other breaches of the Peace, they were punished by Fine, as well before the Conquest as after; but as for the Law of Englisheries, which was, that if a Man were found Murdered, it should be presumed he was an Alien or Frenchman, and the Town thereupon where the Body was found was to be fined, unless Englisheries was proved, i. e. that the person was an Englishman; this Custom tho' it lasted to the Reign of Edward the Third, when it was taken away by a Statute made on purpose, though it may seem a badge of the Norman Conquest, yet was it indeed a Law introduced by King Knute in behalf of his Danes, who being often found killed, and none could tell by whom, he obtained this Law to be made to prevent it; as you will see at large in Bracton, and the Mirror of Justices; But as for trial of all offences, it was either by Juries, Fire, or Water ordinal, by Dewel or Battle; or else by Witnesses, or Compurgators upon Oath, as well before as after King William's entrance; so that I can find nothing material as to the alterations of the Laws, either in matters Criminal or Civil, from what they were in the Saxons time; and this being so it is easily answered, how the Judges, and Officers might be Normans, and yet the Laws continue English still; for first it is certain that for four or five years, in the beginning of K. William's Reign, he made no great alteration in the Judges, and other great Officers of the Kingdom, and by that time those whom he was afterwards pleased to employ in the Rooms of such as either died or were turned out, might very well come to understand the Laws of England, as far as they distered from those of Normandy, which was not in many particulars; since, as yourself very well observed, the Saxons and Normans being both Northern People, had many of the same Laws and Customs common to both, and the same persons might in three or four years' time, have very well learned English enough to have under stood the Evidence that the Witnesses gave before them, without any Interpreter.  
But, say you, all the Plead and Judgements were in French, and therefore the Lawyers and Pleaders must be Frenchmen, which is likewise a false consequence; for Pray tell me, why might not the English Lawyers have learned French enough to Plead in three or four years' time, which must necessarily be required before so great an alteration could be made, or Lawyers enough he brought out of Normandy and sufficiently instructed in our Laws and Customs could be fitted for their employments: again supposing all Plead and other Proceedings to have been in French, it does not follow that this practice could have obtained in all the Courts of England; for tho' I grant that in the King's Court at Westminster, where the Judges (as you say) were for the most part Frenchmen, or Normans; 
Vi. Coke Proem.  yet this could only have some effect either in that great Court, or Curia Regis, where the King often sat in person together with his Chief Justiciary, and other Justices; or else in the Court of Common Pleas, which followed the King's Court, till it was ordained otherwise by Magna Charta; or else the Court of Exchequer, where in those days only matters concerning the King's Debts, Lands, and Revenues were chiefly heard and dispatched: but as for the Court of Chancery, it was not then used as a Court of Equity, nor long after till the Reign of Henry the IV, V, and VI when it arose by degrees, as you will find in Sir William Dugdale's Origines juridiciales.  
So that granting all the proceedings in these Supreme Courts to have been in French, because the King himself, who sat there with the chief Justice, and the rest of the Judges were either Normans or Frenchmen; yet was this of no great importance in comparison of the Suits, and Causes which were first begun, and tried in the Inferior Courts in the Country, before ever they could be brought up to London, by Writ, of Error, or Appeal, which could only be in Causes of great Moment, or between the King's Tenants in Capite; So that now to let you see that what say I say is true, we will Survey all the inferior Cour●s of that time, beginning with the lowest and going up to the highest of them. The first Court we find of this kind, was that of the free burrow or Tything, 
Vi. Spelman's Glos. Tit. Fribargus.  wherein by the Laws of King Edward the Confessor, the Tythingman or Head burrow was the Judge; who, as that Law tells us, determined all suits and differences arising among Neighbours of the same Tything, concerning petty Trespasses on one another's grounds, which if they could not be there determined, might then be brought before the Court Baron, which was incident to every Manor, and wherein the Suitors, and not the Lord nor his Steward, were the Judges: 
Vi. IU. Inst. cap. 55, 56, 57  and this, as Sir Edward Coke tells us, was first instituted for the ease of the Tenants, and for the ending of Debts and Damages under Potty Shillings at home, as it were at their own doors; and let me tell you by the way, that forty Shillings was theo near as much as forty pound is now; 
Vide Spel. Glossary Tit. Hundredus & comitatus.  and if the business could not be ended here, or was of too high a nature, it was then brought into the Hundred Court, where the Hundreder together with the Suitors were Judges; and if they had not Justice there, they might then remove it into the Court of Trithing or Lathe, which was not the smaller Court of the Tithing mentioned, nor yet the Court Leet, but a particular Court consisting of three or four Hundreds; which tho' now quite lost, was in being at the time of the Statute of Merton, as I shall show you by and by; and if the business could not be decided in the Trithing, it was then removed to the Shire, or County Court, as Mr. Lambert shows in 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 (unless it be by Writ of Justices) of any Debt or Damage to the value of Forty Shillings, or above, yet we ●ind from ancient Authors, that this Court was so considerable. that we have divers examples of Causes between the greatest Persons of England, and for Lands of great value, begun and determined in this Court: thus Eadmertes relates the great Trial at Pinnesden-heath, between Odo Bishop of Bayen●, 
Vide Hist. Ead. Lib. p. 8, 9  half Brother to your Conqueror, and by him created Earl of Kent, and Lanfrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, concerning divers Manors in Kent, and other Counties, whereof Earl Odo had diseized the See of Canterbury, in the time of Archbishop Stigand his Predecessor; whereupon the Archbishop Petitioned the King, that Justice might be done him, secundem Legem Terrae, and the King thereupon sends forth a Writ to summon a County Court: the debate lasted three days, before the Freemen of the County of Kent, in the presence of many Chiefmen, Bishops, and Lords, and others skilful in the Laws; and Judgement passed for the Archbishop Lanfrank by the Votes of the Freemen, Or primorum, or probo●●● hominum, as the Historian calls them.  
So that to conclude this head, if no suit could be begun in those days, but what was first commenced in the Hundred Court, no distringas could issue forth till three demands were made in the Hundred, and from thence to be removed to the County Court, where regularly all civil causes were tried by the Suitors as the only Judges, as well as in the Hundred Court, and Court Baron; than it will necessarily follow, that, unless you can prove, (which I think is impossible) that all the English were at that time Slaves and Villains, and had no freehold of any sort left them; that all Pleading and Proceedings in any of those Courts, being before mere Englishmen, must have been in English, and no other Language; so that after all this great cry, nor a twentieth part of the Suits in England, were brought to London; And as for Criminal Causes, unless in cases of Treason, all Murders and other Felonies were Tried and Judged in the Country, either within the particular Jurisdictions of Bishops, Abbots or great Lords, or else of such Cities and Towns who had the Privileges of Infangthief and Outfangthief together with Fossa and Furca, that is, a Pit to drown, and a Gallows to hang Malefactors; and if the offence was done in the body of the County, they were then tried and condemned in the County Court; Justices Itinerant not being in use till Henry the seconds Reign.  M 
I must confess you have given me a great deal of light in these matters more than I had before; but as I shall not dispute whether in the lowest Courts, such as the tithings and Court Barons, the smaller English Freeholders' might not Judge of Petty causes amongst themselves; yet that in those greater causes, were brought in the Hundred, and County Courts, which only the greater Fleemen of the Hundred, 
B.A. P. p. 38, 39 Glos.  or County were Judges: who these Freemen were, Dr. B. hath sufficiently taught us in his Commenes upon the Conqueror's Laws, as also in his Glossary, (viz.) That they were Tenants in Military Service, who in those times were the only great Freemen of the Kingdom, and quite different from our ordinary Freeholders' at this day; These were the Men the only legal Men, that named and chose Juries; and served on Juries themselves, both in the County and Hundred Court, and dispatched all Country business under the great Officers; I do not deny but that there might be other lesser Freemen in those times, 
Glos. p. 29, 30.  but what their quality was, farther than that their Persons and Blood was Free, that is, they were not Nativi, or Bondmen, it will give a knowing man trouble to discover it to us: we find in every leaf of Doomsday, Socmen, & liberi homines, Possessors of small parcels of Land, but what there quality was, and of what interest in the Nation, Dicat Apollo, 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 last passed.  
And for further proof of this; That none but Tenants in Capite or Military Tenants at least could be Judges in the County Court, appears by the Laws of King Henry the first, 
Cap. 1.  wherein it is expressly said. Regis judices Barones Comitatus qui liberas in 'tis terras habent, per quos debent causae singulorum alterna prosecutione tractari, etc. So that these Barons of the County being certainly Feudal Tenants, this service of being suitors to the County and Hundred Courts, was a service incident to their Tenors; and than it will also follow, 
B. I. A. p. 36.  that those Primores, and probi Viri, who as you have now related, tried this Cause between Earl Odo, and Archbishop Lanfranc, and who (let me tell you) were not only of the County of Kent, but of other Counties in England, where the Manors and Lands lay, as Eadmerus shows us, and who were the Jurors in this great Cause, consisted of the great Military Tenants, that were not Barons, and the less which were the Probi Viri; for it can be no ways probable, that the ordinary Freemen which made the greatest number, and were all bound to their good behaviour, could be the Probi, & legales homines, who served upon Juries; to conclude, if I have already proved (as I think I have sufficiently) that K. William took away the greatest 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 such owed Suit and Service to the Hundred and County Court, in which (as you yourself set forth) all the considerable Actions as well Real as Personal were then commenced and tried, it will also follow, that the Suitors, who were the Judges in those Courts, being for the greatest part at least Frenchmen, all the Trials and Proceedings therein must have been in French, and not in English, which is contrary to what you have undertaken to prove.  F. 
If this be all you have to object against what I have now said, that all Plead in the Inferior Courts in the Country, must in the time of your Conqueror have been in French, and not in English, I hope I shall give you very good satisfaction to the contrary, and therefore I shall prove to you, that the very same persons who were the Suitors or Judges in the Hundred Court, were also Suitors in that of the County, tho' they were of never so small Estates of freehold; and those that were thus Judges in the Hundred Court, were also the same persons of which the lowest Court (Viz) that of the Headborough or Tythingman did consist, appears by the very definition of a Hundred, as you may see it in Sir. H. Spelman's Glossary, 
'tis Hundredus.  Est autem Hundredus portio Comitatus, quâ Olim degebant Centum pacis regiae fideiussores, uti Decuria quâ decem, complexus est igitur Hundredus decem Decurias, ut centenarius numerus decies denarium: now that the County Court consisted of the same sort of persons, of that of the hundred, is also as certain, since all England was then and is now divided into Counties, Hundreds, and tithings; so that as the Hundred Court consisted of a hundred Persons, who had all given Pledges to the King, so did the County Court consist of all the Freeholders' or Freemen of the several Hundreds of the County, who all owed Suit and Service to the County Court, and as such were returnable upon Juries in all Trials in that Court, tho' they had never so small Estates of freehold; for there were no Laws that limited the estates of Freeholders' returnable upon Juries, on Assizes or Trials, to the yearly value of Forty Shillings, until the Statute of West. II. But that these Suitors to the Hundred Court, 
Cap. 38.  must have been for the most English in all your Conquerors Reign, your Dr. has given us a sufficient testimony in his answer to Mr. A's janus Anglorum, p. 35. where he tells us, the Jurors were anciently called Tests, and often in Doomesday-book it is thus sound, Testatur Hundredus, Teste Hundredâ, the Hundred Witnesseth that such Lands is such a Man's, or by the Witness of the hundred such Land is a such Man's. See the claims in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, and Suffolk, at the end of the Book. Now the use that I shall make of these words of the Drs. is this, that in many of these claims the Issue is, 
I. A. A. p. 95, 201.  that such a one held the Land die quo Rex Edwardus suit vivus & mortuus: now I desire you to tell me, if the freeholders' of the Hundred, were all Strangers and Normans at this time, as your Dr. supposes, they all were that served on Jurles in the Hundred and County Court; how these men could testify who held the Land at the time of K. Edward's Death, and by what Services? and I desire you to be pleased to read and consider the Trial mentioned in Doomesday-book, between Will. de Chornet and Picot the Sheriff, where the proof was by the best and most ancient Men of the whole County and Hundred, that this Land in question belonged to Chornet per haereditatem sui Antecessoris. So that then the best and ancientest Freeholders' of the County of Berks, were the same who were so in the time of K. Edward, or else how could they Witness this Land to have been held by Chornets Ancestor.  
But because you have two or three small objections against this truth, I shall endeavour to remove them. The first is, that those who tried one another's Causes in the County Court, are in the Law of K. Henry I. (which you now cited) called Barones Comitatus qui liberas Terras habent. Therefore you imagine that these Barones Comitatus must needs have been all Tenants in Capite, or by Knight's Service at least, who by virtue of that Tenure owed Suit and Service to the County Court, which is a great mistake; since every Freeholder of whatsoever Tenure, who was resident within the County, owed Suit and Service to that Court, and it is only by virtue of the twentieth of Henry the sixth, which (as I have already showed you) limited that Service only to Free holder's of Forty Shillings per annum, or above: now that every Free holder tho' of never so small Estate was anciently a Baron of the County, is also as certain in the ancient and larger acceptation of the word Baron, which did not originally signify only a Tenant in Capite, or by Knight Service, but any other Freeholder, who could be returned upon a Jury concerning freehold in the County Court; now that every Lord of a Manor, and Freeholder, was anciently called a Thane before the Conquest, appears by this Law of K. Knutes, 
Cap. 52.  & habet omnis dominus familiam suam in plegio suo; & si accusetur in aliquo, respondeat in Hundredo, ubi compellabitur sicut recta Lex, sit: Quod fi accusetur, & fugiat, reddat Dominus ejus Regi Weraem, i e. precium nativitatis hominis illius; & si Dominus accusetur, quod ejas consilio sugerit, adlegiet se cum quinque Thanis, (id est Nobilibus) & idem sit sextus, si purgatio frangat ti, reddat ei (scil Regi) Weram suam, & qui fugerit, extra legem habeatur. I shall nor trouble myself to translate this Law, since the Latin is plain enough; only take notice that by this word adlegiet, he shall wage Law, or make Oath together with five Thanes, that is Noblemen or Gentlemen, & idem sit sextus, whereof he himself should be the sixth; where you may see that every Freeholder, being Master of a Family is here called a Thane, who was to give pledge or security, that all his Family should answer the Law in the Hundred Court for any offence they should commit; and these Thanes were such as Mr. Lambert expresses by Ascitus sibi ingenuis quinque; 
I. A. A. p. p. 197. Lamb leges Ethelred●. Cap. I.  for what he calls ingenuus, Brompton calls liber homo, that is every Freeholder, so that you see Thane, ingenuus and liber homo signify all the same thing, that is the lower sort of Thane, or Freeholders' who owed Suit and Service to the Hundred and County Courts; and that these very men were such as after your Conquest were called Barones Comitatus, appears in this, that those who before the Conquest were called Thanes, are afterwards called Barons of Counties, in all our Ancient Laws and Charters; and for this I shall give you the Authority of Sir H. Spelman in his Glossary, who tho' he does chiefly understand by this word all sort of feudal Barons dwelling in each County, 
Tit. Barones Comitatus.  Proceres nempe & Maneriorum domini, yet nor only these, but necnon liberi quique Tenentes, hoc est fundo●um proprietarii, Anglice Freeholders, ut superius dectum est. So that take it in which sense you will, this word cannot signify only Tenants in Capite, or so much as Military Tenants, as you suppose, since a man might hold a Manor by other Tenors than Knight's Service, as by grand or petty Serjeanty, or in Soccage by a certain Rent, and so likewise might he hold any other lesser Estate of freehold by the like Tenors; which if it were so, your Drs. Fancy of Tenants in Military service being then the only Freemen of the Kingdom, and who were capable of serving upon Juries in the Hundred and County Court, is a mere Chimaera, without any ground, as I have already proved at our third meeting; when I showed you by the words liberi homines, so often mentioned in King William's Laws, are to be understood not only Tenants by Knight's Service, but any other Freemen or Free holder's, who held Lands or other Possessions, which may be also proved farther by the Stat. of Merton Cap. 10. as appears by this clause, Provisum est insuper, quod quilibet liber ●omoq●● sectam debet ad comitatum, trithingum, hundredum, & Wapentagium, vel ad 〈◊〉 domini sui, libere possit facere Attornatum suum, ad sectas illas pro eo faciendas. Whereby you may see, that every Freeman, who was a Master of a Family, and not under the power of another, was then obliged to pay Suit and Service to the County, Trithing, and Hundred Courts.  
But, say you, these persons who were Jurors in this great Cause between Earl Odo, and Archbishop Lanfranc are there called Primores, and Probi viri, not only of the County of Kent, but other Counties where the Lands lay, and it is not probable, that the ordinary Freemen, which made the greatest number, and were all bound to their good behaviour, could be the Probi & Legales homines, who served upon this Jury: well I grant it, that these Gentlemen you speak of, might be Lords of Manors and considerable for Quality and Estate, and who alone were impanelled upon Juries in this, and other such great trials of Novel Dissei●in; and yet for all that those lesser Freemen, or Freeholders' you mention, were Legales homines, and as such were capable of trying all Causes, of what nature soever, since Sir H Spelman tells us in his Glossary, Title Legalis, that In jure nostro de eo dicitur qui stat rectus in Curia, non exlex seu utlegatus, non excommunicatus, vel infamis, etc. sed qui & in lege postulat & postul●tur. Hoc sensu vulgare illud in formulis juridicis; probi & legalis homines. So that he does not make (as you do) that a Man's legality must depend upon his Tenure, but upon his being rectus in Curia. So that it is no more an Argument, that because in some great Trials in those times, none but the chief, and most considerable Men in the County, were impanelled upon Juries in the County Court; therefore none but they could ever serve there upon Juries at all; than it would be now for a man to affirm, that because in great Trials at the Assizes, or at the Bar at Westminster, only Knights, and Gentlemen are Impanelled; therefore none but they, and not any Yeomen, or Countrymen can ever serve upon Juries at all.  
But let these Gentlemen you mention have been all Tenants in Capite, or by Knights, Service, if you please, yet will it not make good your assertion, that they were only Normans or Frenchmen, who, as the only Proprietors of Estates, served upon this and other Juries at that time, for they must have certainly been such, who of their own knowledge, knew the laud's in question, and to whom they did belong before K. William's entrance into England, and your Dr. himself in his answer to Mr. Atwood's janus, 
B. A. I. p. 34.  fully agrees to this truth, as appears by this passage, which I desire you would read; In Trials of Novel Diss●isin, and for the Possession of Lands, Customs, Services, etc. the Juries at the time of the Conquest, and in several of the King's Reigns next succeeding were Impanelled out of the same Town and Neighbourhood, of such as did know the Land and things in question, and who had been possessed of it, and for what time; And to this purpose in an Assize, if none of the Jurors knew the right itself, or truth of the matter, and did testify so much to the Court upon Oath, recourse was then had to others, until such were found who did know the truth; but if some did know the truth, and others not, those that knew it not were put by, and others called into the Court, until twelve at the least should be found to agree therein; and for this purpose it was that all Suitors to Hundred and Country Courts were bound to appear there under great penalties, that th●re might be a Jury of such as knew whose the Land was; and so far your Dr. is very much in the right; but then, that all the Gentlemen that served upon this Jury must be Englishmen, is as plain from the reason he hath now given us; and if he had not told us so, we have an undeniable authority for it, to wit the ancient Mss. called Codex Roff●nsis, 
P. 197.  quoted by Mr. Sel●en in his notes upon Eadmerus, where speaking of this Trial; Praecipit Rex Comitatum totum (viz. of Kent) absque mora considere, & homines Comitatus omnes Francigenas & praeciput Anglos in antiquis legibus & consuetudinibus peritos in●unum convenire. But it also adds, & alii aliorum Comitatuum homines, and so confirms what Eadmerus says, so that nothing is more evident by your Doctors own showing, as also by the Testimony of this ancient Author, that this great cause was Tried either by Tenants in Capite, and other great Freeholders' were all Englishmen, or such Frenchmen as were here before your Conquest; so that from this famous Trial we may draw two of three confusions directly contrary to your assertions: First, That there were many great Proprietors not only in Kent but in other Counties, as appears by Eadmerus, who were a sufficient number to try Causes in the County Courts, a good while after your Conquerors coming over. Secondly, That the Plead and Verdict in this Cause being before Englishmen, and given by them, must have been all in English; and if it were so in this cause, it will follow for the same reason in all other Counties all over England. Lastly, That these Gentlemen were well skilled in the Ancient Laws and Customs of England, which had been in vain if they had been altered as you suppose.  M. 
I will not deny but that in the beginning of the Conqueror's Reign, many Englishmen might have Estates left them, which might not be taken away till some years after, and Mr. Selden in his Titles of honour places this Trial between Earl Odo and Archbishop Lanfranc, about the first year of K. William, and I suppose that it happened before the fifth year of his Reign; when Matthew Paris tells us, that the Earls Eadwin, Morcar, and Siward together with Egelwin Bishop of Durham, as also many thousands of Clerks and Laics not being able to bear the severity of K. William fled into Woody and Desert places, and from thence got into the Isle of Ely, where they fortified themselves, and whither K. William followed them, and taking the Island made them submit to mercy; and then this Author tells us, that the K. put the Bishop of Durham in Prison; and as for the rest, some of them he killed, some he put to ransom, and others he committed to perpetual imprisonment; so that I reckon from this time, the King took away most of the Englishmen Estates, as not trusting them any more.  F. 
If this had all happened as you have put it, yet would it not prove what you have maintained; for if those Englishmem who had not been engaged with Harold, or else had been pardoned for it still held their Estates; and as you say they forfeited them afterwards for Rebellion; than it is certain K. William did not proceed against the English as a Conqueror; since if he had, he would have taken away their Estates jure belli; which since as you yourself confess he did not, whatever Estates he took away afterwards, was either for Treason committed by the English, or else wrongfully; if the former, he did it as a lawful King; if wrongfully, then as a Tyrant, and as such could, obtain no just right against the English Nation, by his unjust proceedings.  
But indeed after all, you are quite out in your account concerning this matter, for as to the great Trial you now mentioned, it could not be in the first or second year of King William's Reign, nor could happen sooner than the sixth or seventh of his Reign, for Archbishop Stigand was not deposed till the year 1070. which was the Fourth year of K. William; and in the next year being 1071. the Annals of Mailros, as also the Chronicle of Thomas Wiks' place Archbishop Lanfranc's Consecration, and fetching of his Pall from Rome, so that it could not be until the year after this Rebellion at the soon, when Lanfranc was settled in his Bishopric, that this suit was commenced by him against Earl Odo, and therefore a great many of the English Nobility and Gentry, had still Estates let them after this Rebellion.  
And that they continued to have so some years after this time, appears by those Writs of K. William, which Mr. Atwood hath given us in his janus A●glorum, 
Page 42. B. I. A. p.  etc. concerning the restitution of the Lands belonging to the Church of Ely, which are also transcribed and allowed by your Dr. in his answer to it; and I desire you particularly to consider that writ of K. William's directed to Archbishop Lanfranc, Roger E. of Morton, and jeoffery Bishop of Constance, commanding them to cause to be assembled all those shires who were present at the Plea had concerning the Lands of the Church of Ely, before the Queen went last into Normandy; the rest being most material to the cause in hand, I shall give you in Latin, Cum quibus ●tiam since de Baronibus m●is qui competenter adesse pot●●unt & praedicto placito intersuerunt, & qui ter●●s ejusdem Ecclesiae tenent, Quibus in ●num congragatis eligantur plures de illis Angli● quisciunt quo modo terrae jacebant praefatae Ecclesiae, die qua Rex Edwardus obiit, & quod inde dixerint ibidem jurando testentur. From whence we may also gather, that this Trial concerning the Lands which is here ordered was to be in like ma●ner, and by a Jury of the same sort of Englishmen, who tried the cause between Earl Od● and Arch bishop Lanfranc, that is, they were English Gentlemen of sufficient Estates, or Tenants in Capite, if you please Now. let us look into the time when this happened, since 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 last going into Normandy, so that this trial here mentioned could not happen till after the fourteenth year of K. William's Reign, which I prove thus; this Queen did not come over into England, till the year 1068. when the King returned with his Queen out of Normandy after his Coronation, at which she was not present; after which K. William went not into Normandy till the seventh year of his Reign, when he went over and took Man's, and then whether he carried the Queen with him is uncertain; but the Annals of Waverly tells us, he went over again the next year, and then he might carry the Queen with him, which might be the first time she returned into Normandy, but it appears by the same Annals, that the King went over the year after; and staying but a little while returned into Normandy to fight against his Rebellious Son Prince Robert, where staying not long, he returned as soon as he had driven his Son out of Normandy: nor do we find he went over again till the 14 year of his Reign, being the year 1080. and then I suppose since he stayed there for some time, he carried the Queen with him, and to this last going over I suppose this Writ we have cited refers, for tho' the Queen went over again after this, yet she returned no more, because she died in Normandy in the year 1083. as jogulph who was then alive relates; the use I make of these particulars is this, that long after the time you suppose the English to have lost all their Estates, we here find a great Jury of Englishmen, summoned out of several shires in England, to try this great Cause, concerning the Lands which the Church of Ely had been unjustly Disseised of; so that here you see after the fourteenth year of this King, the English still continued to keep their Estates, and to serve upon Juries, and consequently the Plead before them, as well as their Verdict must have been in English.  M. 
I shall not insist upon this point any farther, yet this much you cannot deny, but that all the Plead and Proceedings at W●stminster, as also the old Law books were all in French, as appears by the Mirror of Justices, Britton, not to mention those of latter days, as Littleton's Tenors, and others; and so were also the ancient year Books or Reports of cases, all written in Norman French, even in our own age; so that since this proceeded from that great alteration which the Conqueror made in our Laws, it is also a badge of that yoke which he imposed upon the Nation by his Conquest: and to make this yet more plain, that very Copy of K. Edward the Confessors Laws is in old Norman French, which (together with K. William's Additions to them) Ingulph tells us, he brought down with him to his Monastery, and which he has inserted into his History, as you may find them in the last Edition Printed at Oxford, and were before published by Mr. Seld●n in his Notes upon Eadmerus.  F. 
I cannot deny but that some part of the matter of fact to be as you have here laid down; yet it will not follow that this common use of the French Tongue in our Reports and Laws, did proceed from the Norman Conquest, or is any badge of Conquest; for first, the most Ancient Laws of K. William, which we find in Spelman and Lambert's Collections are in Latin, as they were before the pretended Conquest; I grant indeed those you mention in Ingulph are in French, but they being most of them criminal or penal laws, or else concerning Tenors, it is no wonder that they were published in the Language of his Country, that the Normans and other Frenchmen he brought over with him might understand them; and tho' they were written in French, yet they were proclaimed in the English Tongue, that the English as well as Normans might take notice of them: but after these Laws, you will not find any ancient Charter or Statute in French, till the Statute of West. I. which was above 200 years after your pretended Conquest; for all the Charters of this K. William, are in Latin or Saxon, as that particularly granted by him to the City of London; so likewise were all the Ancient Charters and Laws of the other succeeding Kings, as those of K. William Rufus, Henry I. Henry II. King Stephen, Richard I. are all in Latin or Saxon, and none of them in French, as appears by several of them still to be seen in the Archbishops Library at Lambeth, and in Sir Robert Cotton's, and also Magna Charta, and all other Statutes and Charters of K. john and Henry the third till the Statute of West. I. above mentioned, and therefore it is not likely that this custom should have taken its original from Normandy, for if it had, it would have been begun immediately after your Conquest; and as for our Law Books, tho' I grant those you mentioned to be written in French, yet is it not the Norman French, since it differs very much from the Language in which K. Edward's Laws are written, which are in Ingulph, the French of which is so obsolete and obscure, that he that understands our Law French very well, can scarcely make any sense of them; but our first Writers concerning the Laws of England, writ in Latin and not in French, as you may see by Glanvil, Bracton and Flet●, who writ before Horns Mirror of Justices, or Britton's Treatise of the Laws of England.  
As for your Books and Reports, I grant they are in French; but that this custom was not derived from Normandy, is also as certain, since the first Reports we have begin with the first year of Edward the second, except some few Memorandums of cases adjudged in the Exchequer in the Reign of his Father, above 200 years after K W●lliam's coming in (as I but now noted;) nor could they be writ in the Norman dialect, since we had then nothing to do in that Duchy, which had been Conquered by the French in the beginning of K. John's Reign, above eighty years before any Report, or Law book was writ in French at all; and therefore we must ascribe the original of this custom to some other cause than the mere will and pleasure of your Conqueror, and for this we must go as high as the Reign of K. Edward the Confessor; who as Engulf tells us, having lived long in Normandy and bringing over divers Normans with him, the whole Nation began under this K. to forsake the English customs, and to imitate the French manners in many things, so that all great men looked upon it as a piece of good breeding, to speak French in their Houses, and to make their Deeds and Charters after the French manner so that it was very easy for K. William after his coming in, who (as Ingulph also tells us) abhorred the English Tongue, 
Ibid. p. 71.  to make the Laws of the Land to be pleaded in the French Tongue, and to make the Boys to learn at School the first rudiments of their Grammar in French, and also the Saxon or English hand to be altered, and the French hand to come in use in all Books, and Writings; and tho' I confess most of the chief Justices and Judges, were Frenchmen or Normans, during the three or four first Kings of that Race; yet that alone could not have caused this Tongue to be so generally used, not only in the King's Court, but also in all the Courts at Westminster, after Englishmen began again to sit there, had it not been for the Tacite consent not only of the King, and People of Quality, but also of the Lawyers themselves; for the Law Terms being for the most part French, they did not only thereby make the Law the greater mystery to the Vulgar, but they also supposed that these Terms being French, could not be rendered into any other Language; but for all that, it had been impossible for this Tongue, which was spoke by so small a number of Persons in respect of the whole Nation, to have prevailed so long among the better sort of People, had not our Kings for many Ages enjoyed large Territories in France, which occasioning their frequent going over thither about affairs of War or Peace, as also the French Gentry and Nobilities frequent coming over hither, it is no wonder if that Tongue being the Language of the Court, was generally understood and spoken by all Noblemen, Gentlemen and Lawyers; so that I have heard it from a very good hand, a person who is very well versed in Antiquity, that a Gentleman being returned on a J●ry in the Reign of Edward II. was excepted against, because he did not understand French; and hence it is, that not only the Terms of our Law, but also those of Heraldry, Hawking, and Hunting, are almost all French to this day; and tho' by the Statute of Edward the third which you but now mentioned, all Pleas should be in English, and not in French, yet I desire you to take notice, that this did no way extend to any matters of Process upon which suits are founded, but that the Writs, Declarations, and all other matters of Record were always entered and enroled in Latin, from before the Conquest to this very day, so that there was never any alteration as to that point; these things being considered it is no wonder if the Judges and Clerks of Parliament, who were in those days entrusted with the drawing up all Acts of Parliament, being greater Masters of the French than Latin Tongues, chose rather to draw them up in the former, and thus it continued until the Reign of Henry the seventh, when our Statutes began first to be drawn up, and enroled in English.  M 
I confess you have given me a greater light in this matter than I had before, yet I suppose you cannot deny that the Tenure of Knight's Service, with those clogs that belong to it of Wardship, Marriage, and Relief were all derived from the Normans as appears by the grand customer of Normandy, which I have already mentioned; so that tho' it be true that all these are now taken away by a late Statute of K. Charles the second, yet since this Tenure, and those services are not found among the Saxon Laws, there cannot be a greater proof of the ancient power of the Conqueror, or of the servitude imposed upon the Nation by him; and therefore I look upon it as a very imprudent part of the late K. Charles, to part with so great a tye, which his Father and all his Predecessors had over the Persons and Estates of all the Nobility and Gentry of the Kingdom.  F. 
I shall not take upon me to decide whether it were Politicly done or not of K. Charles the second, to part with the Wardship, and Services of his Tenants by Knight's Service; but this much is certain, that considering the abuses and corruptions that had crept into that Tenure by degrees, since the first institution, both by the unfit Marriages of the Heirs, as also by the waste that was often times committed on the Wards Estate during his Minority, it was certainly a very great grievance and burden to the subject, and considering how many of those Wardships were begged by hungry Courtiers, they were of no considerable profit to the Crown; and tho' I grant they were a very great tye, (or rather clog) upon the Estates of the Nobility and Gentry of this Kingdom; yet it did not thereby produce any such love or obedience, as would retain the Tenants better in their duty before than since they were granted away for the forfeitures for Treason and Felony, and also Fines for Alienations, and are reserved to the Grown now as they were before; and as for any love or respect which was anciently paid by the Heir, how could there be any such thing? since the King granted away the custody of the Heir, and his Lands, to persons who for the most part made a mere prey of them; so that they were often Married against their consents, and their Estates were delivered to them wasted and spoiled; besides also what was exacted from them for reliefs, and Ouster lismaines we need not wonder if it were rather a cause of secret discontent and hatred of the King's Prerogative than otherwise▪ and therefore I cannot think it was not so unpolitickly done by the King, to render himself gracious, and acceptable to his People upon his return to grant their request, and pass that Act for taking away Wards and Liveries, and to accept of a Revenue by excise of treble the value in stead of it.  
But to come to the Original of Knight's Service itself, I do not think it was derived from the Normans, since we are certain there were Thane Lands in England; which were held of the King, and that by Knight's Service, before King William's coming over, and there were also middle Thanes who held of those Lords above them by the like Service▪ insomuch that in the Laws of K. Knut● there is one concerning the Heriots, 
Cap 69.  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 almost the same as were afterwards reserved by the Laws of K. Edward the Confessor, confirmed by K. William, as you will find them in Ingulph; only there is no Gold reserved, but only Horses and Arms, whereas by the Law of K. Knute, each E. was to pay two hundred Manenses of Gold, each King's Thane fifty, and each inferior Thane two pounds; only note that he who is called E. in K. Knutes' Laws, is called a Count in these, the Thane a Baron, and the inferior Thane a Vavasor: and that which is there called a 〈◊〉 is here termed a Relief.  
And that this Tenure by Knight's Service, which is now called Escuage or Servitium Scuti, was of ancient time named expeditio hominum cum scutis, and was in use before the coming in of the Danes, 
Cap. 35. p. 192.  is also as certain, for Sir E. Coke in his fourth Inst. tells us, that we may in the Charter of K. Kenulph, who Anno Domini 821. granted to the Abbot of Abbindon many Manors and Lands, and reserved, quod expeditionem duodecim virorum cum tantis scutis exerceant, antiq●os pontes & arces renovent, and also he mentions a like Charter of K. Ethelred to a Knight called Athel●e●, Anno Domini 995, so that you see not only Spiritual Persons, and great Thanes or Barons, but also Knights held Lands by the service of so many men before your Conqueror, and your Dr. also himself allows it, for in his answer to Mr. P. in all ancient Charters in the Saxon times he translates the word fidel●s by Tenants in Capite, or Military Service.  M. 
I will not deny that Military Fees were in use before the Conquest, and also that the feudal Law did obtain here in many things, and therefore I am so far of the Doctor's opinion, who in his Gossary Tit. Feudal Laws tells us, The Feudal Law obtained to most Nations of Europe, and in Normandy was in its full Vigour at the time of the coming over of the Conqueror, 
P. 3.  but afterwards grew more mild and qualified, as also the Tenure itself, a perfect description of which with all its incidents of Homage, Relief, Ward, Marriage, Escuage, aids, etc. are to be found in the Grand Customer, Cap. 29.33, 34, 35. and although there were Military Fiefs, or Fees, here in the Saxon times, yet not in such manner as after the Conquest established here by William the Conqueror, and according to the usage in Normandy; when as it appears by Doomesday-book, in every County he divided most if not all the Land of England, amongst his Normans and Followers; Now that this custom of Wardships is wholly derived from the Norman Conquest, you shall find in Sir E. Cooks fourth Institutes in the same Chapter you last cited, 
P. 193.  as you may here read, You have heard before de regali servitio, before the Conquest; but that regal● servicium, (which was, Knight's service) drew unto it relief, but neither Wardship of the Body or of the Land, as hath been said; it is true that the Conqueror in respect of that Royal service, as a badge of the Conquest, took the Wardship of the Land, and the Marriage of the Heirs within age of such Tenants, but this extended not to the Tenors of the Subjects by Knight's Service, as it appeareth by Bracton, Dicitur Regale se●vitium, quia spectat ad dominum Regem & non alium, & secundum quod in Conquestis fuit adinventum, etc. Whereupon Sir E. C. notes (in the Margin,) the Tenure (as before it appeareth) was not then invented, but the fruits of this Tenure of the K. (viz.) Wardship and Marriage, which was Bracton's meaning, so as the Conqueror provided for himself; but other Lords at the first by special reservation, since the Conquest provided upon gifts of Lands for themselves, Regis ad exemplum totu● componitur orbis, wherein that which we had from the Conqueror we freely confess.  F. 
I shall not dispute his matter since it is doubtful whether this custom of Wardship was Norman, or whether it was derived from the Saxons, who possibly might have some respect to Orphans in such cases, to train them up for the public Service in point of War; especially, being possessors of a known right of Relief, as well as Alfred the Saxon King did undertake the work for the training of some particular persons in learning, for the service of the public in time of Peace, and Civil Government, and tho' Sir H. Spelman is of opinion in his Title de Wardi●, that Wardship of the Heir came in with the Conqueror, yet Sir john his son, (who was also a learned Antiquary) in his Epilogue to his second book of K. Alfred's Life, Printed at Oxford, speaking of Military Fees granted to the King's Thanes, 
P. 117.  has this passage. Haec etiam Fioda baeredibus sub Hereoti, si●e relevaminis cujus piam quod haeres in terrae redemptionem Regi solvere tenebatur conditione plerumque transibat; & si haeres minor natu à Patre moriente relinquebatur, Regi educatio ●jus (utpo●● Regis Hominis) committebatur, in utilitatem etiam & commodum ipsius Regis. But whether the Wardship of the Body of the Heir, was in use in K. William's time or before, is uncertain; for the land is in the Charter of Henry the first in Mat. Paris, granted either to the Widow or next heir.  
But let these customs be derived from whence you please, it is a plain case it could be no badge of Conquest upon the People of this Nation, and that by the Doctors own showing; for were it a Norman custom never so much, if your Conqueror first of all imposed it upon those he brought over along with him, it could never be a badge of Slavery upon the English Nation, but rather upon the Normans, upon whom it was chiefly imposed; and if they afterwards granted Lands to the English upon the same terms they held them themselves, they were no more Slaves to whom they were granted, than they were under whom they held them; but indeed this was so far from being looked upon as my badge of servitude, that if the Dr. himself is to be believed, these were the only Freemen, 
Glossary. Tit. liberi homines.  and their services, (Bracton says) were so notoriously free; that in Writs of Right it was never mentioned, because so well known Notandum in servitio Militari non dicitur per Liberum servitium, & ideo quod Constat, Quia tale Servitium Liberum est. And hour Rigorous the Feudal Law might be at the beginning, it was when your Conqueror came in so far mitigated as to the rigour of it, that the Tenants by Knight Service were not only free by K. William's Law, from all Arbitrary Taxes and Tallies. but also obtained a settled Inheritance to them and their Heirs, as appears by that clause in K. William's Charter; and therefore in the Reign of Henry the Third, when William of Warren Earl of Surrey was questioned after the Statute of Quo Warranto by the King's Justices, by what Warrant he held his Lands, 
Vid. An Ancient Msc. in the Bodlian Library cited by Sir Will. Dugdale in his Baronage of England, Page 79.  pulling out an old Sword, he answered to this Effect; behold my Lords here is my warranty, my Ancestors came into this Land with William the Bastard, and obtained those Lands by the Sword, and I am resolved with this Sword to defend them against any whosoever shall go about to dispossess me, for the K. did not himself alone Conquer the Land, but our Progenitors were sharers with him and assistants therein.  
As for what you say, That the Laws in the Customary of Normandy, are the same with the Laws of England; It is no more than what divers French Writers have taken notice of, but do not attribute their agreement to their being borrowed from the Normans, 
Vid. Mr. Whitlock's Speech in Parliament, 1650. Printed in his Memorial, p. 461.  but quite contrary; for in the first place most of the Learned Men say, That the first establishing of the Customary of Normandy, was in Henry the first's time, and afterwards again about the beginning of Edward the seconds time, when Normandy was not under the King of England; and S●querius a French Author relates, that K. Henry I, established the English Laws in Normandy, and with him do also agree Gulielmus Brito, Rutilarius, and other French Writers, who mention also that the Laws in the Customary of Normandy are the same with the Laws collected by our English K. Edward the Confessor, who was before the Conqueror; an additional Testimony hereof is out of William de Reville de Alenson, who in his Latin Comment upon the Customary, 
Vid. Coke. Preface.  proves and demonstrates that the Laws and Customs of Normandy came from the English Laws and Nation, either not long before or after Edward the Confessor's time.  
In the Customary, there is a Chapter of Nampes or Distresses, and it is there decreed; that one should not bring his action upon any seizure, but from the time of the Coronation of K. Richard, and this must be our K. Richard the first, because no K. of France was ever of that name; and the words Nampes, and Withernams, were Saxon words, taken out of the English Laws, signifying a Pawn or Distress, and in the same sense are used in the Customary. But if you have nothing more to object against what I have now said, pray proceed to your last head, and let me see how you will prove, that the English lost all their ancient Liberties and Privileges which they enjoyed under the English Saxon Kings.  M. 
I never heard so much before concerning the Original use of the French Tongue in our Reports and Law Books, but yet this much I think you will not deny; first, that the Norman French was never used in our Courts of Justice, till after the Conqueror's entrance, Secondly, That he did his endeavour totally to root out the English Tongue, by ordering of Children to learn the first rudiments of their Grammar in French: and as for what you have said concerning the Customary of Normandy being especially as to Tenors derived from the English Laws and Customs, I do not deny but that it may be the opinion of some French Writers that it was so, but I shall believe it, when they can prove that the Wardships and Marriage of the Heir of the Tenants by Knight's service, as also those aids they were to pay the King, or any other Lord they held of towards making his eldest Son a Knight, and Marrying his eldest Daughter, were in use in England before the Conqueror came over.  
But to observe your commands, I shall now proceed to show that by the Conquest, the English for a time lost all their ancient Rights and Privileges, till they again obtained them either by their mixing with the Normans, so that all distinction between them and the English were taken away, or else they were restored by the Charters of K. Henry the first, K. john, and K. Henry the third▪ I shall therefore divide the privileges of Englishmen into these three heads; first, Either such as concerned their Offices or Dignities; Or, secondly, Such as concerned their Estates; Or lastly, Such as concerned the Trial for their lives: in every one of which, if I can prove the English Natives as well of the Clergy and Nobility suffered confideracie loesses and abridgements of their ancient 〈…〉 liberties which they formerly enjoyed. I think I shall sufficiently prove the point in hand; As to the first head Ing●ph tel●s us, that the English were so hated by the Normans in his time, 
P. 70, 71. Edit. Oxon.  that how well soever they deserved, they were driven from their Dignities; and strangers, tho' much less fit, of any Nation under Heaven were taken in their places; 
P. 93.  and Malmesbury who lived and writ in the time of Henry the first says, that England was then become the habitation of foreigners, and the Rule and Government of strangers; and that there was at that day no Englishman an Earl, Bishop, or Abbot, but that strangers devoured the Riches, and gnawed the Bowels of England, neither is there any hope of ending this misery. So that it is plain they were now totally deprived of all Offices and Dignities in the Common Weal, and consequently could have then no place in the great Council, the Parliament of the Nation, both for the raising of Taxes, and the making of Laws: and tho' I grant Mr. Petyt and yourself suppose you found a clause in the Conquerors Magna Charta, 
B. A. P. p. 36.  whereby you would prove, that all the Freemen of this Kingdom, should hold their Lands and Possessions Well and in Peace, free from all unjust Exactions and Taillage, so as nothing be exacted or taken unless their Free-services, which of right they ought and are bound to perform to us; and as it was appointed to them, and given and granted to them by us as a perpetual right of Inheritance, by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom. This Common Council will not help you, for without doubt here were no Englishmen in it; for certainly they would not grant away their own Lands to strangers; These were the Saxon Lands which William had given in Fee to his Soldiers to hold them under such services as he had appointed them, and that by right of Succession or Inheritance.  
We will now come to the second point, viz. the Privileges the Englishmen lost as to their Estates, for whereas before the Conquest you affirm, the K. could nor make Laws, nor raise Taxes without the Common Councils of the Kingdom; it is certain K. William, and his immediate Successors, did by their sole Authority exercise both these Prerogatives: as for his Legislative power, it appears from the words of his Coronation Oath, (as you yourself have repeated it out of Florence of Worcester, and Roger Hoveden,) the conclusion of which Oath is, se velle re●●am legem statuere & tenere, Rapinas Injustaque judicia penitus interdicire; Now the Legislative power was then lodged in him, why else did he swear to appoint right Laws? For if the constitution had been settled as it is at present, the Parliament could have hindered him from making any other; and that he could do so appears by that yoke of servitude, 
Pag. 7.  which Matthew Paris (as well as other Authors) tells us, K. William by his own Authority imposed upon the Bishoprics and Abbeys in England which held Baronies, which they had hitherto enjoyed free from all secular servitude, he now, says he, put under Military service sessing all those Bishoprics and Abbeys, according to his pleasure, how many Knights or Soldiers each of them should find to the King and his Successors: and putting the Rolls of this Ecclesiastical Service in his Treasury, he caused to fly out of the Kingdom many ecclesiastics who opposed this wicked constitution: now if he could do this upon so powerful a Body, as the Bishops and Abbots were at this time, he might certainly as well raise what Taxes he pleased upon all the People of England, and therefore Henry of Huntingdon tells us, that K. William upon his return out of Normandy into England, Anglis importabile tributum imposuit. Lib. 3. p. 278. And that his Son William Rufus imposed what Taxes he would upon the People, without consent of the Parliament appears, by that passage of William of Malmesbury, which he relates in the Reign of this K. as also in his third book de Gestis, Pontific●m, concerning Ranul●, whom from a very mean Clerk he made Bishop of Du●ham, and Lord Treasurer; the rest I will give you in Latin, Isle, siquando edictum regium processisset ut nominatum tributum Anglia penderet, duplum adjici●bat, subinde▪ idente Rege ac dicente solum esse hominem, qui sciret sic agitare ingenium, nec aliorum curares odium, dummodo complaceret dominum. So that you may here see that the King's Edict or Proclamation, did not only impose the Tax at his pleasure, but his Treasurer could double it when he had a mind to it, without consent of the great Council or Parliament, as we now call it; and this Prerogative was exercised by divers of his Successors, till the Statute de Tallagi● non concedendo was made.  
But to come to the last head concerning the alteration of Trials for men's Lives and Estates by the Conqueror, from what they were before; it is certain that whereas before the Conquest there were no other Trials for men's lives but by Juries, or else by Fire or Water Ordeal, which was brought in by the Danes; the Conqueror, tho' he did not take way these, yet also added the law then in use in Normandy, of Trying not only Criminal but Civil Causes by Duel or Combat; all the difference was, that in criminal cases where there was no other Proof, the accuser and accused fought with their Swords, and the party vanquished was to lose his Eyes and Stones; but in civil causes they only fought with Bas●oons headed with Horn, and Bucklers, and he or his Champion who was overcome lost the Land, that was contended for; from whence you may take notice also of a great alteration in the Law, not only concerning Trials, but capital Punishments; so that whereas before the Conquest, all crimes, even Man slaughter itself, were either ●ineable according to the Quality of the Person, and the Rates set upon each man's pepzylo, or price of his head, as you will find them set by the Laws of K. Ath●lstan.  
I shall not insist much upon divers lesser things, which K. William as a Conqueror imposed upon the People of England, as disarming them of all offensive Weapons, forbidding them to Hunt or Kill any Deer in his Chases or Forests under the penalties of loss of Eyes and Members, as also keeping up and reinforcing the Ancient Laws of Decenaries or tithings, whereby every Ten Families were bound with their tenth man or tything man, body for body of each others good abearance; as also that Law forbidding all sitting up late at Night, or Assemblies after eight of the clock, but that every one should go to Bed, and put out both Fire and Candle at the ringing of the Coverte● Bell; these things I think are very sufficient to prove that K. William as a Conqueror did very much abridge, and in some things wholly take away the Ancient Privileges and Liberties of the L●gi●sh Nobility, Clergy and Commons, and did also make many and great alterations, not only in the forms of Plead, but also in the very 〈◊〉 of our Laws, both Criminal and Civil; and if he did not make more ●●●erations of th● kind, it was wholly owing to his free Will and Pleasure, since, a● E●dmerus tells us, he ordered all Divine and Secular things according to his pleasure.  F. 
That I may the better answer what you have said, I shall partly grant and partly deny the matters of Fact you have alleged, and also further prove, that if they had been all as you have laid them, yet would they not prove your conclusion, that K. William by his own Arbitrary and Tyrannical Actions, could create any Right by Conquest, either to him or to his Successors: And therefore to begin with your first head, (viz.) the Privileges of the English Nobility as to Offices and Dignities, tho' I grant it was true, as the Authors you have cited relate, that s●arce any Englishman was, when they Writ, either a Bishop, Earl or Abbot, yet this is to be understood only of the latter end, and not the beginning of his Reigns; for as to the Bishops and Abbots, I do not read of any more than Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury, and Egelric Bishop of Durham, who being deprived of their Bishoprics, had Successors put in their rooms in their life times; and yet in the place of this last, not any Norman, but one Walcher an English man was named by the K. to succeed: and as for the Earls, of all those who had been against him and opposed his coming in, there was not one but he received them into savour, and continued in his Dignity and Estate, as in particular the Earls Eadwin and Morchar Brothers, together with Waltheof and Siward, and Edgar A●●eling, whom they had named K. of England, all who kept their Earldoms and Estates till terrified by the King's severe and Tyrannical proceedings, the three first of these ●led away as you have already shown, tho' I confess Prince Edgar had for two or three years before this, fled into Scotland; but yet was afterwards restored to the King's Favour and his Estate; nor do I find any considerable alteration in the King's manner of disposing of his Honours or Preferments, either Ecclesiastical or Civil, till Earl Waltheo being convicted of being in the Plot, with Ralph de Waher Earl of Norfolk, and other Lords, as well English as Normans, to expel K. William; and from that time (being the eighth year of his Reign) I grant he changed his whole course of Government, and put no more Englishmen into any places of honour or profit; tho' W. Malmesbury endeavours to excuse the King's severity in these words, Ind pr●positum regis fortassis meritò excusatur, si●aliquando durior in Anglos ●u●rit, quod pen● nullum eorum fidelem invenerit; tho' with this Authors good leave, the K. had been the cause of this conspiracy, by his own Tyranny and breach of Oaths, as I shall show you by and by.  
So that either this K. was moved by just provocations thus to debar all Englishmen from being preferred to Dignities or Offices, or he was not; if the former, and that he had just cause so 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 case; But if the latter, it was not only contrary to Justice, but also to his own Coronation Oath, one clause of which, as Malmesbury shows us in his de Gestis, 
Lib. 3. p. 271.  Pontificum was, quod se modeste erga subditos ageret, & aequo jure Anglos, & Francos tractaret; so that this Kings Arbitrary and violent proceedings, after he had ●or some time governed as a lawful King, tho' they might prove him 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 Englishmen in the great Councils of the Kingdom, that can only be understood (in the strictest sense) of the times after the great Conspiracy I have now mentioned; for before, it is very evident that there were many Bishops, Earls and Barons still left, who must have been members of the great Council. Nor can you prove that the Law I have mentioned against the King's taking the Taillage or Taxes, without their consent, was made after that time; but let it be made when it will, you shall never persuade me it was enacted without any Englishmen's being present, till y●u can prove to me that there were no English Tenants in C●pite towards the end of 〈◊〉 Reign, and that there were then no Knights, Citizens or Burgesses that represented the Commons in the great Council, and can give a better answer to those Arguments I have given you to prove they were there; especially that remarkable clause in the conclusion of this King's Charter, to the Abbey of Westminster, which mentions divers Principal Persons, both of the Clergy and Laity, to have been summoned to 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 Abridgement of English Privileges as to their Estates and Properties; to begin with that of the Legislative Power, which as you say, was then wholly in the King; admit it were so, it will not prove that for which you urge it, viz. that it is a sign of the King's Absolute Conquest over the English; for if the great Council of the Kingdom had then lost its ancient right, it was only his Normans and Frenchmen, as well as the English, that he bereft of their Ancient Privilege, of giving their consent to Laws; since it is very certain that neither the K. of France, nor the D. of Normandy could at that time make any Laws without the consent of their Estates.  
But the truth is, that your Conqueror could not do it neither; for if the Normans he brought over with him, had, as you suppose, the greatest share of all the Lands in England, they would have been too powerful a body of Men to be thus made Slaves at his pleasure, but indeed his own Laws show the contrary, for in that very Law it appears otherwise, Whereby all the Freemen of the Kingdom were to hold their Lands and Possessions free from all unjust Exactions and Taillage, 
L. L. Guil. 55.  and that nothing should be exacted of them, but their free service, which they were bound to do according as it is appointed them by the K. and it is granted them by an Hereditary Right for ever, by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom; whereby you may see, that they had their Lands and Liberties granted them, for an Hereditary Right, not only by the K. but by the Common Council of the Kingdom, and that the K. could not alter K. Edward's Laws without their consent; the Charter of K. Henry I. says expressly, Legem Regis Edwardi vobis reddo cum illis emendationibus quibus Pater eam emendavit Concilio Baronum suorum; Therefore as for that Authority you have brought out of H. Huntingdon, that upon this King's return from Normandy, he imposed a heavy Tax upon the English, this is either to be understood of such a Tax as they gave him voluntarily, tho' perhaps they durst not do otherwise, as the States of Provence and Langu●doc are fain to do to the K. of France at this day, when he requires it, and yet he does not claim those Countries by right of Conquest; or if K. William imposed this Tribute without their consents, it was not only contrary to the Law just now mentioned, but also to his own Coronation Oath; whereby he swore to prohibit all unjust Rapines, and that he should behave himself equitably towards his Subjects, with which certainly his taking away their Money without their consents would by no means consist: but to answer that part of the Coronation Oath which you think makes most for you, that whereby he swore only to make Right Laws, which must have supposed the Power to have been in himself, because the Parliament might have hindered him from doing otherwise, this is but a cavil, for it is already proved that he was to make Laws and raise Taxes by the Common Council of the Kingdom, and therefore these words may very well bear another sense, and do only give the K. a Negative voice of passing such Laws as the great Council should offer to him, or else such as he might propose to them for their consent; and I suppose you▪ will not deny but that it is very possible, that either the K. or the Parliament may propose such Laws as may not seem equitable, or Just, and then certainly both the one and the other have a negative vote, and ought not to give their consents to them.  
But to answer your last instance whereby you would prove that this King as a Conqueror imposed what Taxes and Services he pleased, not only upon the Laity but the Clergy too, by making the Bishoprics, and greater Abbeys liable to Knight's Service, which you suppose to have been done by his own sole Authority, without any consent of the Common Council of the Kingdom, this is only gratis Dict●m, and is indeed altogether improbable, for if the K had done this by his sole Power, he would have imposed this Service upon all the Abbeys in England, whose Lands might have been as well reduced to Knights Fees, as those that were put under that service, and so might have been forced to find as many Soldiers as they had Fees, as well as the Bishoprics and greater Abbeys; but indeed the Clergy were too powerful a body to be thus Arbitrarily imposed upon, and they would soon have complained to the Pope against the K. for this new servitude he had imposed upon them; and therefore I think we may with much more safety conclude with Mr. Selden in his Titles of honour, that this imposition of Knight's Service upon the Bishoprics and Abbeys was done by the Common Council of the Kingdom, It being too great a matter to be done without it, for it appears by Eadmerus that the K. held a Council this very year, tho' the Laws; and Proceedings of it are all lost; and this is the more likely to be so, because this imposition was not laid upon all the Abbeys in England, but only upon the Bishoprics, and such Abbeys as were of Royal Foundation, and held immediately of the King before your Conquest, and were only such as enjoyed whole Baronies, as Mat. Paris there tells us.  
I shall now come to your last head, whereby you would prove that your Conqueror by his sole power, altered the Course of Trials, and introduced the custom of Duel or single Combat, in Civil as well as Criminal Causes; the chief argument you have for this, is, that there is no mention made of this trial by Duel in our English Saxon Laws before the Conquest, which is but a negative argument at the best, and you can show me no Ancient Author that says expressly that K. William introduced it, and tho' I grant it is first mentioned in his Laws, yet does it not therefore prove that it was not here before, since it was certainly in use among the Francs and Longobards, who were German Nations as well as the Saxons; but admit it were first introduced by the Conqueror, this was no badge of Conquest, for the Normans as well as the English, were subject to this Trial, which was in use in France and Normandy long before this King's coming in; so that admit he first established it here, it might not have been done by his sole Power, but by some Law made in the great Council of the Kingdom, tho' it be now lost; as we have very few of the Laws that were made by this K. now left us, besides those which are called the Laws of K. Edward with this King's alteration of them, all which was certainly done in the Common Council: the like I may say concerning the alteration of Punishment for Deer stealing and other crimes, which were either Punishable by Pecuniary Mulc●s, or else by death, before the coming in of the Normans; since those alterations might be also made by the consent of the great Council▪ but that the same Forest Laws, were in use before the Conquest as after you may see in the Forest Laws of King Knute, as you will find in Sir H. Spelman's Glossary, Title Foresta, only the Punishments are there Pecuniary▪ or else loss of liberty, which after your Conquest was changed into the loss of Eyes and Members.  
But as for other lesser matters, as his disarming the English and forbidding Night Meetings, if these things were done, (as I do not find any express Law for them, for there is no such thing mentioned in the Law de nocturnis Custodiis) they were either practised by this K. for his own security, after the English had by their frequent insurrections made him use all the means he could to prevent it for the future, so that at the most they were but temporary constitutions, and did not last long; nor could this Law of the Conver●e● Bell be any badge of slavery on the English, since we find the same custom to have been used in Scotland, whom you will not say are a Conquered Nation; nor do I find the Normans after they came over, were any more exempted from this Law than the English Natives: but I much wonder you should reckon the Laws of Decenaries, or tithings, among the badges of Norman slavery, since if you have read any thing in our Saxon Laws you will find, 
Vid Ingulph History.  as Ingulph tells us, that K. Alfred first appointed ut omnis indigena l●galis, in aliqua centuria & decima existerit, & si quis suspectus de aliquo latrocinio per suam centuriam, vel decariam condimnatus, paenam demeri●am incurreret? So that whatever other Laws you find, either of our Saxon or Danish Kings, or else among those of K. William, concerning Triburghs, and Tything●, It was only to confirm or reinforce this Ancient constitution: but that not only the meanest sort of F●●emen, but the greatest and best Nobility and Gentry were subject to this Law of tithings, may appear by that Law I have already quoted of King Knutes, whereby every Freeholder was to have his Family in his Pledge, that is, was bound to answer for him to the K. and if he were accused to have let him run away by his consent, he was to purge himself by his own Oath, and also the Oaths of five other Thanes, that he was innocent; so likewise the Laws of K. Edward confirmed by K. William are very particular on this Subject; 
Vi. Hoveden.  that all Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, and Barons, should keep their Knights and Servants there mentioned in their Frithborg, that is, in their Fran● Pledge, whereof the Lords themselves were to be the sureties, a● appears by what follows, viz. that if any of them offended, their Lords should be obliged to do right in their Courts, and to the same purpose is the 49th Law in Ingulph's Copy of these Laws, the words are these, Echascun Seniour ait sun seria●●u sun pledge, que si nile rete que ait a dreit el Hundred, that is, that every Lord keep his Servant in his Pledge, that if he offend right may be done in the Hundred.  
So that upon the whole matter, I can see nothing considerable imposed by your Conqueror upon the free born English Subjects, which they were not tied to before the Conquest; or which did not reach all the Normans he brought over with him, as well as they.  M. 
I do confess I did not believe there was so much to be said to prove that William the Conqueror never altered the Laws of England, in any of its material parts; but since you have gone thus far, pray proceed to show me, that he any ways confirmed all the Laws of the Saxon Kings his Predecessors, since I conceive as a Conqueror he might justly have vacated what of them he would, and I do not see any thing in his Coronation Oath, that could have obliged him from it.  F. 
I doubt not but to give you very good satisfaction in this point, for not only your Conquerors Will was never declared, that the former La●s should be Abrogated, and till such declaration all Laws ought to remain in force, even in the Conquest of Christians against Christians, according to Sir Ed. Coke's opinion in Calvin's case; 
P. 17.  but indeed the Ancient and Former Laws of the Kingdom, were so far from being abrogated, that they were all confirmed by him; for in his fourth year, by the advice of his Baronage he summoned to London, as the words are in the book of Litch field, Omnes Nebiles, sapientes & lege sud eruditos, sut eorum leges & Consuetudines audiret; Or as Hoveden relates it out of a Collection of Laws written by Glanvil, Fecit, summoniri per universos Consulatus Angliae, Anglos Nobiles, & sapientes, etc. and twelve were returned out of every County, who showed what the Customs of the Kingdom were, which (as Mr. Selden tells us in his History of Tithes) being written by the hands of Aldred Archbishop of York, and Hugo Bishop of London, were with the request of the same Barons, confirmed in that Assembly, which was a Parliament of that time: and then in Hoveden follow the Laws of Edward the Confessor so confirmed by K. William, among which is that Law concerning the Office of a King, which I have now given you; and before this at the very beginning of his Reign, he also confirmed the Privileges of the City of London, as appears by his Charter in Saxon, which is to be seen at this day, which is also confirmed by Ordoricus Vitalis, 
Id. lib. IU. fol. 505, and 506.  Guli●lmus Rex multa Lundoniae postquam Coronatus est, prudent●r, justè, clemen●●que disposuit quaedam odipsius Civitatis commoda, vel dienitatem, alia 〈◊〉 genti proficerent Vniversae; Nonnulla quibus consuleret●r Eccles●is terrae▪ ●ura quaecumquedictavit optimis rationibus, sanxit, Iu●icium Rectum nulla persona nequicquam ab eo postulavit? So that nothing is plainer than that at the beginning of ●wor●●eign he strove to oblige all sorts of People as well of the Clergy as Laity to a good 〈◊〉 of his Government.  M. 
But yet for all 〈…〉 self have granted, that after the time of his Confirmation of these 〈…〉 you cannot deny, whether provoked by the frequent 〈…〉 or else resolving to make use of his Right by Conquest, 〈…〉 upon the English Nobility and Gentry, and outed most of 〈…〉 and forced them to flee into Foreign Countries; so 〈…〉 Sword, as soon as ever he came to the 〈…〉 whatsoever English he thought might be dangerous 〈…〉 notwithstanding his Confirmation of K. Edward's Law he 〈…〉 by Conquest. And as for your 〈…〉 Conqueror's confirming these Laws the 〈…〉, 
B. A. A. p. 299.  whether he admitted any of the 〈…〉 consult of the weighty Affairs of the 〈…〉 throughly settled himself on the English Throne, especially if it be considered that K. William kept not all the promises which he made at all times; Now as yourself allow, this grant was made in the fourth year of his Reign, but he had not then settled himself so well as he would, nor had he then made an entire Conquest of the Nation; that was not done until after the great appearance of the Natural English in Arms, and the great meeting which Frederick Abbot of St. Alban with others headed at Berkhamslead, which was not until above four or five years after this confirmation; so that your Testimony from the Litchfield Chronicle and Roger Hoveden, being before he settled himself as he could, and intended to do, signifies nothing: and that it was from sometime after this transaction, that Mat. Paris reckons the thorough Conquest and subduing the Nation; as appears by this note in the beginning of the Life of Abbot Paul Successor to Frederick, Hic primus Abbas hujus Ecclesi●●suti, postquam Anglia Normannis penitus fuit s●bjugata.  F. 
I will not deny the matter of Fact in great part to be as you say: but whether the English were to blame to make these Insu●rections, or whether they were provoked to it by the King's unreasonable severities, I have not now time to dispute; if it were their fault, he had no doubt very good cause to do as he did, and to punish such as were guilty; But it was altogether unjust and tyrannical, to punish the innocent with the guilty; Nor could he have any right to do it as a Conqueror, since by taking his Coronation Oath to deal mercifully with his Subjects, and to treat both English and French with equal right, he had renounced that Title; and that he looked upon himself as a Tyrant, if he had Governed without being Crowned or taking the same Oath as his Predecessors, I shall prove to you from Abbot Bro●ton's Chronicle, the Author of which lived in the time of K Richard, I. who has (Col 962.) these words, Cumque Willelmus Dux Normannorum Conquestor Angliae Tyranni nomen exhorresce●et & nomen Legitimi Principis induere vellet, a Stigando Cant. Archiepiscopo in Reg●ia petiit consecrari, etc. as  
But your reply that he did not show himself a perfect Conqueror till he w●n throughly settled, is very pleasant; as if being solemnly Crowned, and taking a Oath to govern Justly and according to Law, and after four years quiet possession and a voluntary confirmation of the Laws of his Predecessors, were not sufficient signs of his peaceable settlement upon the Throne; unless you will have a King to be never settled until he has by the force of a standing Army, got sufficient power to do all he designs, that is, to take away his Subjects Liberties and Estates at his pleasure, contrary to his own Oath, and the Laws he has made; If those be signs of a thorough settlement, pray consider whether the King that is gone away, was ever thoroughly settled at this Rate tho' I confess he was in a very fair way to give us such a thorough settlement; But since you date this thorough settlement from that great transaction of Abbot Frederick, I am not afraid to appeal to Mat. Paris, 
Vi. Mat. Paris in vita Frederici Abbatu.  from whom you have borrowed this relation; where he tells us thus; That after Lanfranc was made Archbishop, the K. being now strengthened with both Swords, began more severely and manifestly to oppress the English; who seeing it nearly concerned their very lives, calling a great many together, they made Edgar Atheling their Leader, in whom the English placed all their hopes; but among all the English Frederick Abbot of St. Alban, was the chief promoter thereof, being a generous Man, and to be seared for his Riches and Power; Therefore the K. began to be vehemently afraid left he should lose the whole Kingdom which he had gained by so much effusion of Blood, and also hazard of his life; and therefore being luckily taught by the Archbishop's Prudence, he began to act more mildly with the chief men of the Kingdom, humbly proposing Terms of Peace, and with a pleasant countenance inviting them to a Treaty (tho' deceitful, as the end at last declared) therefore the said English met him at Berkhamstead thinking no harm, under the leading of Abbot Frederick, where after many disputes, Archbishop Lanfranc being present, the K. swore upon all the Relics of the Church of St. Alban, as also upon the Holy Evangelists, Inviolably to observe the good ancient approved Laws of the Kingdom, which the Picus Kings of England his Predecessors, and chiefly K. Edward had Established and so being pacified they all returned home very well satisfied. So that you see this was the third time, whereby he renounced all right of Conquest (if ever he had any) by swearing expressly to observed all the ancient Laws of the Kingdom, since they found his Coronation Oath would not bind him, besides his so solemn confirmation of K. Edward's Laws, in the great Council of the Kingdom not long before.  M. 
But pray read a little farther, and see how he resented this force now put upon him, and whether at all he intended to keep what he had sworn, or to divest himself of his Right of Conquest; and therefore give me now leave to read the rest out of this Author; But the K. cunningly hiding his designs, within a few days after, studied how to overcome and supplant those dispersed and asunder, whom he could not, when joined and confederate together; which he performed by killing, disinheriting, and banishing many of them, and violating the above mentioned Laws; and the English being thus spoiled at pleasure, and impoverished, without any legal Judgement, he therewith enriched his Normans, to the great provocation of his natural English subjects, who had of their own accord thus exalted him; So that you see 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 answer both as to his Coronation Oath, 
B. A. A. p. 289.  as also to this now mentioned, from an old English Proverb, that there was never any Oath, but was either broken or kept; more Conquerors than one have used fair pretences, and made smooth promises, and dealt cunningly with the People to carry on their designs, and have at first taken plausible Oaths, and broken them afterwards, nay took them when they intended not to keep them, and knew th●y could not; and for Oath breaking Harold in his answer to Duke William, when he demanded the Kingdom of him, had given him a fair example, that Stu●tum Sacramentum est frangendum, many specious Oaths, Vows, and Covenants were contrived, and taken by crafty and designing men in the late times, and imposed 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 discovered too late, when they were under the power of an Army, and could not help themselves; as I could prove at large would the time 〈◊〉.  F. 
Before I give you a positive answer to what you have said, tho' I do believe a great deal of the matter of Fact to be true, as Mat. Paris hath related it either from Tradition, or else from the Legier book of his own Abbey, yet I very much doubt whether out of hatred to this Kings severe proceedings, they did not represent K. William's cruelty and severity much greater than it was; for tho' I grant after this time, he turned a great many more of the English Nobility and Gentry out of their Estates, and put divers of them to death; yet whether he did this without any colour of Law or Legal Process, is very much to be doubted, since we find many forfeitures mentioned in Doomsday book, which had been needless if the King had seized all the English Estates without any Legal Trial; 
I. A. A. p. 100, 101.  as for example, in Essex, in Barnstable hundred. In Burâ de istis Hidis est una de hominibus soris sactis erga Regem; and this was the way of expression in the Active Voice; we find in No●folk, Earl Ralf held such Lands Quando se foris fecit; But more particularly in Cambridgeshire in Wardune, Hardwin holds of Richard's Ancestors, but Ralf Waders held it, Die quo deliqui● contra Regem; all which would never have been inserted, could this King have taken away men's Lives and Estates without any colour of Law or Justice, and therefore you may find in all the Historians of his time, that after the great Plot wherein so many Norman as well as English Lords were concerned, and for which Roger Earl of Hereford, and Ralph Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk both Normans, had conspired with Earl Waltheof and other English Lords to call in the Danes, and dispossess the King; yet they were convicted by a legal Trial of their Peers, and suffered death for it; So that in this he distributed equal Justice to the Normans as well as the English, who thereupon forfeited all their Estates; and yet notwithstanding this, there were some Native Englishmen still lest, who tho' they had been in Arms against the King, at the beginning of his Reign, yet were nevertheless reconciled to him, and restored to their Estates; as for example, Ederic Surnamed the Forester, 
F. 636.  who, as Florence of Worcester tells us, was reconciled to King William, and accompanied him into Scotland soon after; as also Herward the Son of Leofric Lord of Brunne, who having lost his Estate, and being Outlawed, (as Ingulph tells us) Took Arms against the King William, 
P. 67, 68  and joined himself with those in the Isle of Ely; and yet after divers great Battles, as well against the King as his Commanders, yet at length having obtained his Inheritance by the King's allowance, he finished his days in Peace: and now here were two considerable English Barons which still enjoyed their Estates, 
I A. A. 105.  notwithstanding all King William's severity; and yet I do believe it will puzzle your Dr. to show me their names in Doomesday-book; so that that Book alone is not it seems a certain Rule to discover what Englishmen were then Barons or Tenants in Capite.  
But admit all this to be true as you yourself have represented it, can this King's perjury to his Subjects, and breach of all Laws, after so many solemn Oaths; give him a right as a Conqueror over the Lives and Estates of his English Subjects▪ and that after he had solemnly renounced his Right of Conquest, by so many solemn transactions with his Subjects, with whom you suppose he still made War, after he had for so many years laid down his arms, at this rate I cannot tell when subjects may be safe; for let Kings that come to a Crown by a mixed title, partly by force, and partly by right, take never so many Oaths, to maintain the ancient constitution of the Government, together with the Rights and Privileges of the People; 'tis but his saying afterwards, when he hath sufficient power, that they were forced upon him, and that he never designed to keep them, and his business is done, and he may then take away his Subjects Lives and Estates by this pretended right of Conquest whenever he pleases; nor does this only extend to himself alone, but to all his Heirs and Successors, who claim under that Title, let them take never so many Coronation Oaths, or make never so many Declarations to the contrary; since they all claim under the same divine Title of the Sword, that is, as you will have it, receive their Crowns immediately from God, and then can never forfeit them, let them tyrannize to the utmost degree imaginable; for you have provided them with two easy and pleasant excuses, that all promises are either broken or kept, and Stultám Sacramentum est Frangendum; and I cannot but smile to see what an excellent excuse you have found out, for all the breach of Oaths and Covenants, of those engaged in the late Civil Wars, since they might very well plead they had so many Royal Precedents for so doing, as sufficiently authorised it; unless you will have that to be Perjury in Subjects, which must be a Divine Prerogative in Kings.  
And therefore let me tell you, I am very glad for your own sake, that there is no body here but you and I, since all the company would have cried out, and said, that this way of arguing were to make open War, not only upon all the Laws and Privileges of this Nation, but also to put the King and People in a state of War against each other; for if he once declares by such Overt Acts as these of King William's, that he will not be tied, neither by his Coronation Oath, nor 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 also be cast off by the like means; and when a King and his People are brought once into this state, it is easy to foretell what will be the event; either he must turn out, or they must be all Slaves: and I wish it was not owing to such Jesuitical flattering Councils as this, that the King first lost the Affections of his People, and then his Crown: since Father Peter's himself with the rest of the Jesuits, and Arbitrary Ministers of the Cabal, could never have instilled worse Principles than these; therefore I pray for the future either get better reasons or keep those to yourself.  
But God be thanked both King james and K. Charles the First, had much better thoughts of the Laws and Liberties of the Nation, since the former hath solemnly declared in a Preamble to the second Act of Parliament, in the first year of his Reign; 
1. jacobi. Cap. 2. Fol. 1157.  That not only the Royal Prerogative, but the People's security of their Lands, Livings and Privileges, were secured and maintained by the ancient fundamental Laws, Privileges and Customs of this Realm; and that by the abolishing or altering of them, it was impossible, but that present confusion will fall upon the whole state and frame of this Kingdom. And his Son was of the same opinion in his first declaration at the beginning of the late Wars. The Law (says he) is the Inheritance of every Subject, 
P. 28.  and the only security he can have for his Life or Estate; and the which being neglected, or disesteemed (under what specious show soever) a great measure of infelicity, if not irreparable confusion must without doubt fall upon them.  M. 
If I had no love at all for the Government and Liberties of my Country, (as I thank God I have a great affection for both) yet should I not have the Impudence to contradict the sense of two Kings, and a Parliament; neither have I so little value for those things which are the foundations of our happiness, as to desire they should be Sacrificed to an Arbitrary Power; nor on the other side have I so great a value for them, as to endeavour their preservation by Rebellion, and deposing the King, which since I look upon as altogether unlawful, we are then to follow the Apostles Rule, and not do Evil that Good may come of it: but as for what I have urged in excuse of the Conqueror's Perjury, and breach of Laws, I confess I have said more than the matter will well bear, but I hope you will excuse it; since I confess the argument is none of mine, but the Doctors from whom I borrowed it, and I did not consider the bad consequences of it; yet this much I must still freely affirm that neither King William the Conqueror, nor his present Majesty, who is his heir by an Hereditary Right of Succession, either could then, or can now at this day be lawfully resisted, much less can be deposed, or can forfeit their Royal Dignity for any Male administration or Tyranny whatsoever.  F. 
Pray give me your reason for that, since I think you may be very well satisfied, that this King's Title by Conquest from King William his Ancestors can signify nothing, tho' I should grant the utmost you can demand: and therefore tho' I am as much against Rebellion and Deposing of Princes as you can be, and doing of evil that good may come of it; yet the question remains still to be decided between us, whether that resistance I maintain be Rebellion or not, and whether it be Treason to deny obedience to a Prince, who hath done his utmost to lose the very name of King▪ by not observing those conditions on the performance of which he can only keep his Royal Dignity: now since I think I have fully proved the two Points I undertook, (viz.) both that of the Kings forfeiting the Crown in the cases I have put, as also that of the matter of Fact, whereby you would maintain that the King has an indeseasable Right to the Crown of this Realm, ●as an Absolute Monarch by the Conquest: now since you decline arguing this Point any farther, because you find it is not to be maintained, pray let me know what other reasons you have why you cannot come over to my opinion.  M. 
Though I am not yet satisfied, but that a great deal more may be farther urged by those who are better versed in this controversy, to prove that his Majesty hath an unforfeitable Right to our Allegiance by the Conquest of King William and his Predecessors; yet I shall not now insist any longer upon that Title, which tho' our Kings have by so many gracious condescensions to the People of this Nation, seemed to wave, yet have they never renounced it as I know of; but since his Majesty was settled in the Throne as an Absolute and Lawful King, without any Competitor, by a long series of a●, Hereditary Succession of above six hundred years standing, and confirmed by the Oaths of Allegiance of the People of this Nation both to him and his Ancestors, he is not only our King by the Laws of Man, but God also; to whom, and not to the People, he owes his Crown; and can therefore neither forfeit it, nor be accountable 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 discourses, concerning the lawfulness of resistance, but since perhaps you may have still somewhat farther to urge upon so important a question, I desire to hear the utmost you can say, to prove that Kings owe their Crowns to none but God, and therefore ought never to be resisted, neither can forfeit their Crown upon any pretence whatsoever, and therefore pray appoint me some other time when I may wait on you again, and fully discuss this Point, since it is now very late.  M. 
I am sorry I cannot appoint you any certain time, for since I see so great a confusion reigns every where, and that there is like to be no Term, and consequently no business for men of my Profession, I am resolved to retire for two or three months into the Country, till I see things a little better settled than they are at present, and I heartily wish that the Convention (which I hear is like to meet in some time) may endeavour the Peace and Settlement of the Nation, by sending for the King and the Prince of Wales, out of France; since I do not desire any more Conquests, 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 soon as I return to Town you shall be sure to know it; In the mean time I am your Servant.  F. 
I am yours and wish you a good Journey.  
FINIS.   

Bibliotheca Politica: OR A DISCOURSE By WAY of DIALOGUE, On these following Questions; 

I. In what Sense all Civil Power is derived from God, and in what Sense may be also from the People.  
II. Whether His Present Majesty King William, when Prince of Orange, had a Just Cause of War against King james the II.  
III. Whether the Proceedings of His Present Majesty, before he was King, as also of the late Convention, in respect of the said King james, is justifiable by the Law of Nations, and the Constitution of our Government.    
Collected out of the Best Authors, as well Ancient as Modern.  
Dialogue the Eleventh.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, near the Oxford-Arms; where also may be had the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, six, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Dialogues. 1694.   

Authors made use of in this Dialogue, and how denoted in the Margin.  

The History of the Desertion, H. D.  
The Desertion discussed, D. D.  
Some Observations upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Kings of England, O. E. I.  
A Discourse of the Illegality of the Late Ecclesiastical Commission, I. E. C.    

ADVERTISEMENT.  
ON tke first Day of the next Term will be published the Twelfth and Last Dialogue, and also a large Index to the whole Work.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
BEing almost arrived at the end of my intended design, I thought fit to let you know, that I hoped to have made this the last Discourse, that I should have troubled the World with upon these Subjects; but when I came to reduce my Notes into form, I found that these few sheets would not contain all that could well be said on either side upon the foregoing questions; and therefore am forced to refer what remains to be said concerning the Vacancy of the Throne, and Their Present Majesty's Title thereunto till the next Dialogue, which I intent shall be the last; And which I should not have drawn to that length, had it not been for the benefit of those Gentlemen and others, who have not Time or Money to buy or peruse the vast quantity of Pamphlets that have been written upon these Subjects; as also that such as have perused them, may find together in this and the following Discourse, all that hath been urged on the one side or other upon these important Subjects.  
And since the great number of Treatises of this kind, have rather served to confound than instruct ordinary Readers, I resolved to make use of the words of very few of them, only to take the chiefest and strongest Arguments on either side, and fairly to represent them at once to the Readers View, who I hope hath the discretion to judge which are best, since I declare I write for no Party but purely for Truth; and therefore I have now, and shall still endeavour to avoid all Personal Reflections in this as well as the ensuing Dialogue, not only on Their Present Majesties, but also on King James, since I remember he was a Crowned Head, and is still the Father of our Illustrious Queen, let his failings have been what they will.  
But I hope the Reader will not be scandalised, if I have so far followed the opinions of the ablest Divines as well as Lawyers, of this and other Nations, in making one of the Parties in this Dialogue assert the consent of the People, us the only just and natural means of conferring a just right to Civil Power, since the learned Mr. Hooker in his first book of Ecclesiastical Policy lays it down as a Principle, 
P. 70.  that in every Politic Society●●●t is impossible that any should have complete, lawful Pow●●, bu●●y the consent of men, or the immediate appointment of God; and Chancellor Fortescue in his Discourse de Laudibus Legum Angliae, (12, and 13. Chapters) supposes all Kingly ●ower, as well what is Absolute, as that which is Politic or limited by Laws, to have proceeded at first from the People's consent, not that the Power itself is otherwise than from God, only he has made use of the People as an Instrument whereby to convey it; and I hope none of those who are still for King James' Interest will be offended at this Doctrine, since those that have writ with the greatest judgement for his absolute indefeasible Title to the Crown, have placed it in his Legal Right to it, by the Laws of the Land, which all must own, could not have been made without the People's Consent.  
I have but one thing more to desire of you, which is your Patience and Attention, if some of the Speeches in this Dialogue are longer than ordinary, since they are upon subjects that would not well bear interruption; and to tell you farther, the Press staying for the Sheets, I had not time to make them shorter.   

THE Eleventh Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian, AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman.  F. 
DEar Sir, you are welcome to Town, you have been absent a long time, and indeed I wonder how you could stay away so long, when such grea● things, as the King to have Abdicated, and placing his Son and Daughter in the Throne have been transacted.  M. 
I thank you kindly Sir, but yet I must tell you, that I have been so little satisfied with what your Convention has done in these matters, that the very hearing of it hath been a great affliction to me, and it would have certainly been a much greater, had I been upon the place and seen such horrid things as the Deposition of a King, the disinheriting of his right Heir, and the setting up the Prince and Princess of Orange, who certainly could have no right to the Crown as long 〈◊〉 the King lives, nor yet after his death as long as the Prince of Wales is in being.  F. 
I confess these are very high Charges if they would hold, but if you please to consider the Hypothesis I proposed at our last Meeting, That the King had by breach of the Original Contract made between his Ancestors and Predecessors, and the People of this Nation, to observe the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom, forfeited his Right to the Crown: All that hath been done in this great Affair, I suppose may be very well maintained and justified from the necessity of the thing, and of maintaining the Fundamental Constitution of the Government; and therefore pray give me leave to put you in mind how far I have proceeded in the p●oo● of this Assertion: First, I have made out that the King of this Real● is not the sole Supreme Power thereof, neither ever was so from the very Institution of Kingly Government in this Island.  
Secondly, I have also proved that the King, not having the sole Power, must hold that share thereof which he enjoys upon this employed or tacit condition, that if he usurp, what does not belong to him, and the People do assert their Right by opposing his Unjust Violence and Usurpations, and that he still obstinately persists in this Violation, he certainly thereby loses, and forfeits not only that part of the Power which he so unjustly usurped, but also his own too; and for this I gave you the Authority of the Learned Grotius at our last Meeting.  
Thirdly, I have also answered your main Argument of King William the Conquerors obtaining by the Sword, and Conquest▪ of King Harold an Absolute Right, and unconditioned Power fo● himself and his Successor● descended from him, over the People of this Kingdom; for I think I have sufficiently made out, that King William had no other Right to the Crown of England than by the Testament of King Edward the Confessor, and the E●ection and Recognition of the People; and this I have proved from the unexceptionable Authorities of the best Historians of that Time; so that if he afterwards acted otherwise, and contrary to his Coronation Oath, it was not as a Lawful King, but as a Tyrant and an Usurper on the Rights and Liberties of the People, and could not by his own Unjust Act acquire any Lawful Power so to Govern this Kingdom; and therefore whatever Title King William or his Successors can pretend to, it must be by virtue of the Election of the first King of the Saxon Line, from whom all the Kings of England since Henry Y. are descended, and consequently a●e obliged to hold the Crown under the same Conditions on which it was first conferred: And tho' I grant, that ever since the Reign of Edward I. the Crown has been no longer claimed by Election, but by Succession of him that really was or else was presumed to be the Right Heir; yet this different way of acquiring the Crown does not at all alter the condition or manner of holding it, s●●e ou● Kings have always after that time as before been, tied to the same, or rather ●●●cter Ter●● in their Coronation Oaths, to observe and keep the Laws and Customs of this Realm; and also that the Power of the Great Council of the Kingdom or Parliament making Laws, raising Taxes, and redressing of Grievances arising 〈◊〉 the Unjust Exercise, and Illegal Encroachments of the King's Prerogative, hath been exerted ever since the Crown became Elective, as much as ever it was before.  
Last; I think I have sufficiently made out that King james hath violated the Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom, in those several Instances I have already given, and am also ready farther to make it out if you require it; so that this being the case, I can see no reason to the contrary, why the Crown or Legal Authority should not become forfeited to the People who at first conferred this Power on the first King of the West Saxons.  M. 
I must confess you have done your endeavour to prove those Assertions you have now laid down, but I am not yet satisfied that you truly have done it: But however, not to run into unneccessary disputes, and repetition of what has been already argued, and which I see you are too obstinate to recede from, I shall now only oppose what you last asserted concerning the Crown's being forfeited to the People upon the King's pretended Breach of the Original Contract; for besides the absurdity of making the Crown forfeitable to the People, who are and ever were Subjects, and not Princes or Governors; whereas all forfeitures still supposed a Right in the persons who are to take it as superior to the party forfeiting; there is also a greater error and mistake in your supposing all Civil and Legal Power to be derived from the People, and by them conferred upon their Kings or Governors; whereas the Scriptures plainly affirm, and all Divines so interpret them, that all Civil Power and Authority is wholly from God, and not from the people, who even in Elective Kingdoms, though they may name and design the Person whom they will 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, so neither can it be forfeitable to them from whom it was never derived; and so much I told you at the Conclusion of our last Meeting, though I had not then time fully to urge this Argument, as now I have; and this will press the more upon you, because you yourself have already granted at several Meetings, that all Civil and Regal power is derived from God, and not from the people; and therefore your notion of a Prince or Monarches forfeiting to them, is wholly false and precarious.  F. 
If this be all that you have to object against our Assertion of the King's forfeiting his Royal Authority to the people, I think I can easily answer those Objections; for as to the first absurdity which you lay to our charge, how an Authority can be forfeited by a King or Superior to his Subjects or Vassals, the absurdity lies on your side; for I do not suppose this forfeiture to be made to the people as Subjects, but to them considered as a Community of Masters of Families, and Freemen, who as the Descendants and Representatives of those who made the first King upon a certain Contract, or Condition upon the non-performance of this Original Contract, do thereupon cease to be Subjects, as a Servant ceases to be so, and becomes again sui furis upon his Master's non-performance of the bargain made between them; and so this Authority thus forfeited, returns to the Community of Masters of Families and Freemen, who once conferred it upon the first King; nor needs this forfeiture any more suppose a Superiority in the persons who are to take it over the Prince that commits it, than when by the Law of England Tenant for Life aliens in Fee, He in reversion may immediately enter upon the Estate as forfeited to him, 
Vide Cook up●● Litt. p. 251.  though the person that held it was perhaps his own Father.  M. 
But is not this then to recede from your former concession, whereby you grant that Civil Authority is derived from God, and not from the people at all, whereas you now suppose them the only Original or Fountain of Civil Authority, and from them to be derived to all Princes and Monarches?  F. 
This difficulty wholly proceeds from your not rightly understanding the manner of God's conferring Civil Power or Authority upon those that exercise it: For the better clearing of which difficulty, pray let me ask you two or three Questions; First, pray tell me whether you are still of the Opinion that Monarchy is so much of Divine Institution, as that no Government but that may be lawfully Instituted by Men?  M. 
I will not now affirm, that Monarchy is of Divine Right; but this much I may safely over, by what we can find in Scripture, that God instituted no sort of Government but that; and he did not make Saul or David to be only like those Equivocal Kings, who might be deposable at the will of the Estates, but conferred part of his own Divine Power upon them without any conditions or limitations whatsoever; but as for those Governments called Commonwealths, though without doubt they are not of Divine Institution, yet certainly the power of Life and Death which they exercise, is wholly from God; since, as I have already said, a Man not having power over his own life, cannot confer that upon another which he had not in himself.  F. 
Well, I am glad we are so far agreed, that Commonwealths are endued with real Authority or Majesty as well as Monarches, and that from no less Author than from God himself; so that whatever you have said concerning God's Institution of no other Government than Monarchy, is either not true, or not to the matter in hand; for in the first place, I have already proved at our thi●d Meeting, that the first Government God Instituted among the Jews, was an Aristocracy, under Moses, joshua, and the Judges, reserving the Kingly Power over them to himself: And though it is likewise true, that God divested himself of great part of this Kingly Power when he anointed Saul King, yet God's Institution of Monarchy among the Jews, does not render it unlawful for other Nations to institute such other sorts of Government as may best suit with the Genius of the people, and the public good and safety of the whole Community: But as for your Argument whereby you would prove the necessity of all Civil Powers being derived from God, because otherwise they could not be endued with the power of life, and death over their Subjects; I have sufficiently taken off that difficulty at our second Meeting, and shown you, that a Man in the state of Nature has not only power over another Man's life, but also over his own; not only to hazard it, but also to lay down or lose it for some greater public benefit to Mankind, which is also acknowledged by the Apostle Paul himself, For a good man some would even dare to die.  
But further, to show you the absurdity of this Principle, let me put you this case; suppose that a Kingdom or Commonwealth were so instituted at the first, that no Subject, or Freeman should suffer death for any Crime how great soever, which that I do not suppose as a thing impossible it was, for divers Ages exercised in the Roman Commonwealth, wherein no Civil Magistrate could lay any greater punishment upon a Roman Citizen, 
Vid. Grot. Annot. in Mat. cap. p. 125. Vid. LL. Will. 1.  than banishment or deportation: And if that Copy we have of the Laws of King William the first, be authentic, it is by the 67th Law in his Charter ordained, That no English or French Subject should suffer death for any Crime whatsoever, but only be punished either by pecuniary Fines, Imprisonment, or else by loss of Ryes' Hands, Feet, or Members, which Law, though I do not say was ever observed; yet it shows it was then supposed to be both possible and lawful. Now if this could be so, there would be no necessity of supposing the Authority of the Commonwealth of Rome, or of King William I. to have been derived from God, since they had renounced and refused the great Character thereof; viz. the inflicting capital punishments; but if for all that, they still continued to be Lawful Civil Governments, than it is evident that this power of life, and death, is not that which alone constitutes a 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 digress from, pray let me ●sk you another Question; After the Expulsion of King Tarquin, and before the Commonwealth of Rome was formed, where was the Supreme Authority lodged?  M. 
Why in the same Body it was afterwards the people of Rome, comprehended under the Patritions and Plebtians, that is, the Nobility and Commons, who yet retained the power of life and death over those of their own Children and Slaves, though they communicated a great part of their power to the Senate and Consuls.  F. 
Very well; Was this Authority they so conferred on the Senate and Consuls the same which they themselves could have exercised? or was it any new Authority immediately derived from God, and created for that purpose?  M. 
I do not think it was any new created Authority, but only a part of their former power, which they so made over to the Senate and Consuls, since they reserved one great part of it, (viz.) the Legislative Power wholly in themselves; but however, this power which the Fathers of Families, and Freemen among the Romans had over the lives of their Children, and Slaves, as also over others who were declared public Enemies, was derived wholly from God; yet there arose likewise a new power which these Fathers of Families were not invested with before, (viz.) that of making Laws, as also 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 I also agree with you, but then mark what follows; it then plainly appears, that the natural Subject of Civil Authority was the Fathers of Families, and Freemen of Rome; and that what share thereof was committed to the Senate and Consuls, it was wholly personal, and as their Representatives; this being so, pray answer me another Question; when the Senate and People of Rome did afterwards confer their whole power upon the Roman Emperors by that Law (mentioned in your Institutions) Lex Regi was there then created or produced any new Authority from God to the first Emperor? or was it the same Authority or Majesty which the Senate and People were endued with before▪ for either it must be the same, or else God must create a new parcel of this Royal Majesty or Authority wherewith to endue this first Emperor, which if you suppose, I can show you a great many difficulties and absurdities that will follow from this Opinion; for than I might ask you, whether this Royal Majesty be like the Stoics Anima mundi, whose parts are distributed among all the Kings in the World? or whether each King has his particular Majesty to himself? or whether the King dying, his Majesty also dies with him? or whether it exist without him, as the Soul does when separated from the Body, and by a certain kind of Metempsychosis is transferred to the new Monarch?  M. 
I shall not flick at present to affirm, that this Authority or Majesty of the Roman Emperors was originally derived from God, though not immediately, but by the mediation of the people of Rome as his Instruments, especially ordained for the derivation of this Imperial power.  F. 
Well then, I see you and I are at last agreed; for I suppose all Civil power to be so derived from God to the people, and by them as an Instrumental Cause conveyed to the person whom they agree to make their King: But if this were so in the Roman Commonwealth, why are not all the rest of the Nations of the World endued with the like privilege; so that no man may justly make himself King over them without their Election, or Recognition at least.  M. 
Perhaps in those Nations where the people have from the first Institution of the Government retained the whole Civil power in themselves, or else by the Extinction of the Royal Family they became possessed of it; this power ●●y afterwards by them be transferred or made over to one single person or more; but this can by no means hold in divers other cases, where God immediately bestows a Civil Power or Authority without the consent of the people, as it is in the case of Kingdoms acquired by a Conquest in a Just War, (for as to Unjust Wars, or Conquests, I freely own they confer no Right at all) but since you will not (I suppose) deny that such a Rightful Conquest confers an Absolute power on the Conqueror over the Lives and Estates of the Conquered, as also an Obligation in them to submit to, and obey the Conqueror, hence must arise a new Civil power without any consent of the people intervening; which Authority, since no man can confer it upon himself, must necessarily be immediately conferred by God; since, as I said before, the people are only passive, and have no hand at all in the conveying of it; and this is the more remarkable, because I suppose you will not deny, but that where one Kingdom or Empire has owed its beginning to the Election or Consent of the people, I could name ten that have begun from Conquest: So that it is evident, the people are very rarely the Efficient Causes of Civil power.  F. 
Though this Question concerning Conquest does not immediately concern our Kings, who, as I have already proved, do not owe their Regal Authority to Conquest, but to the consent of the People: Yet since the Title to a great part of our King's Dominions begun at first from Conquest, I shall now say something of it: First, than you grant that only Conquest in a just War can confer a Right to the People's obedience. And therefore since the greatest part of the Governments have commenced from unjust Conquests; it will therefore follow that the Right of such Princes to those Kingdoms Territories so unjustly acquired, could not owe its Original to Conquest; but either to a long possession, the Extinction, or at least Dereliction of the right Heirs; together with the consent of the People to confirm their Titles. So that it is not only my Opinion, but that of the most Learned Writers in your own faculty, such as Grotius and Pufendo●f; that Conquest alone, though in the justest War can confer no Right over a Free People without their recognition or consent; I have added, of a Free People because I much doubt, upon the Conquest of a Kingdom or Territory (as for example) where the People do own themselves mere slaves to their Sultan: Whether their consents be at all necessary or not, since they fall to the Victor as the movable goods of the Prince Conquered; But then the Power he has over them is not properly a Civil Authority, but that of a Lord over his Slaves. And hence it is that in all Kingdoms and Territories obtained by Conquest among us in Europe, Princes do not think themselves to have any Title to their Subject's Allegiance before they have acknowledged them for their Lawful Soveraign●, by some public Act either of the Estates or Representatives of the Kingdom; or else by the particular Oaths of all the chief Subjects or Inhabitants of those places.  M. 
I shall not at present dispute this point any farther with you, but yet there remains one great difficulty behind concerning the manner of Gods conferring this Supreme Power upon Princes, and States: For you yourself have already granted that the Power of Fathers and Masters of Families is not of the kind, but somewhat specifically different from Civil Power or Authority: And if so, since they had not this Civil Power in themselves, I cannot see how they could confer it upon another; since nemo dat quod non habet. And therefore there still seems a necessity of Gods conferring a new Power upon that Prince, or upon those Persons whom they shall pitch upon to Rule over them.  F. 
I hope I shall as easily remove this difficulty if you will please to consider the manner how God confers this Civil Authority upon men, which is certainly by Natural Means, and is to be found out by Natural Reason without any Divine Revelation; since Civil Government was instituted, and men were obliged to obey it long before the old Testament was written: 
Vi. Pufendorf de jure Gentium. l. 3. c. 7.  But the true Original of it is thus to be traced. First, It is without doubt that right Reason sufficiently taught Mankind when it began to multiply, and that they were sensible from the great wickedness and corruptions of men's Natures that their common peace and safety could not be well maintained unless Commonwealths were instituted, which could not subsist without a Supreme Authority placed in some one, or more persons. This being a dictate of the Law of Nature or Right Reason, and so highly conducing to the good of Mankind; it must needs owe its Original to God the Author of all Truth, and the Giver of every good and perfect Gift: From whence it follows, that not only the Institution of Commonwealths themselves, but also the Supreme Power with which they are endued, does not proceed merely from men, but from Gods command expressed by the Law of Nature or Right Reason. So that the same Legislator who first prescribed Civil Society, also prescribed the order of that Society; but a Supreme Civil Authority either in one or more persons, is the Life and Soul thereof; without which it cannot Live or Subsist.  
Now it is certain that those things are not only said to proceed from God, which he immediately Institutes without any human act intervening; but those also which men by the conduct of Right Reason, and according to their present occasions and necessities have introduced to fulfil that Obligation that lay upon them to promote the common good and safety of Mankind; and since in a promiscuous ungoverned multitude, that great Law of Nature which prescribes the public Peace and Concord of Mankind cannot well be exercised, (the unruliness of men's passions considered) nor be well maintained without some Supreme Civil Authority to keep men in order; it is plain, that God who enjoined men this, does also command that Civil Societies should not be only Instituted, but their Authority also obeyed, as derived from himself, and as the necessary means of obtaining this great end of all the Laws of Nature, the common good and safety of Mankind; and hence it is that he hath not any where prescribed or instituted any particular Form of Government, but leaves the choice of it to the particular Genius and Temper of each Nation and People.  
This being settled, your Objection is easily answered, how Civil power can be conferred without an immediate conferring of it from God, since the people in the state of Nature had it not before; which proceeds from your not considering, that this Supreme Authority is not like the Soul of Man, an immaterial form, that gives knowledge and understanding to the Body, and may be separated from it; but is only a moral quality which may be produced by the mutual consent of those that institute it, as the productive cause thereof, tho' they had it not formally in themselves before, just as from many Voices singing in Consort, though in different Tones there arises a Harmony, which was not in any single Voloe alone: Therefore since Civil Authority proceeds from the nonresistance of the Subjects, and their Concession that the Supreme Powers should freely dispose of their Bodies and Goods for the public safety, it plainly appears, that in each particular Master of a Family and Freeman there lay (though hidden and dispersed) the seeds or rudiments of Supreme Power, which by mutual Compacts did afterwards grow into a perfect Civil Authority; And thus not only many Masters of Families and Freemen may combine together for their mutual safety to er●ct a Commonwealth by appointing one or many men to rule over them for their mutual safety; but it is not impossible, but that from the Government of a Master of a Family, having many Villages and Slaves under his power, there may ●ise ● perfect Kingdom; for though Paternal power does chiefly respect the Education of Children, and that of a Master, the Government of Servan●●, for his own advantage; yet is there not so great a distance between the power of a Master of a Family and Civil Authority, that there can be no passing from one to the other, without a new Authority immediately created by God for that purpose; for suppose a Master of a Family, having a numerous train of Children and Servants, should permit both of them by way of emancipation, or manumission, to enjoy such a portion of Lands, or other Goods to their own use, as also to Govern their own private Families and Affairs as they shall think fit, provided they will still obey him, and contribute the utmost assistance of their Lives and Fortunes for the public safety, I cannot see any thing that would be wanting to the making such a Master of a Family a lawful and absolute Prince, provided he was endued with such power as to be able to protect them; yet all this while, without supposing any new Divine Authority to be infused by God upon his accession to this Dignity.  M. 
I confess you have given me a more exact account concerning your sense of this matter than ever I had before, and therefore I shall not further dispute this point with you; only let me tell you, that upon this Hypothesis of yours is founded that desperate Opinion concerning the real Authority or Majesty of the People; which the Commonwealths men suppose still to reside in the diffusive body thereof after the Government is Instituted; And by virtue of which they suppose there still remains a power in them to call their Kings or Governors to an Account, and punishing them for Tyranny or any other supposed Faults against the fundamental constitution of the Government, or the Original Contract, as those of your party are pleased to term it.  F. 
Well then, to let you see I am none of those Commonwealths men who maintain any such desperate Doctrine▪  
Here I do freely own, that where the People have parted with their whole Power either to a Monarch or else to a Supreme Council or Senate, from thenceforth they have nothing at all to do to call such Governors to an Account, or to punish them for the highest Tyranny or Oppression they can commit: The utmost I have allowed as lawful to be done in this case in all the Conversations we have had, is no more than this▪ That the People, in case they see themselves like to be destroyed and ruined both in their Perso●●, Consciences and Estates, may even under the most Absolute Governments stand upon their own defence, and prevent their being thus totally ruined; and may also cast off all Allegiance to such Powers, in case they refuse to treat them with greater justice and moderation for the future's But as for such limited or mixed Governments as ours are, where the People have still retained a share in the Legislature, and also in the raising of public Taxes, yet since the King is by Law exempted from punishment or rendering any account of his Actions either to the People or their Representatives; the utmost that I contend for, is, that since the King receives only a Limited Power of ruling according to such and such Laws, and will Usurp that share of the Government that does not belong to him; In such cases if he refuse to amend, than they may resist his Officers and Ministers, nay himself in Person in the executions of such Violent and Illegal Actions: And if he still prsist, and rce●use to amend; that then at last they may proceed to Declare that he hath forfeited his Crown or Regal Right of Ruling over them: And then in such Case, I hold that it again devolves to the People from whom it first proceeded; and that this is no new Doctrine; I have the Authority of Fortescut on my side; 
Cap. 〈…〉.  who in his Treatise De Laudibus● Legum Angliae, Where after having shown that all Political or Limited Governments proceeded at first from the consent of the People, proceeds thus; Addressing himself to Prince Henry, Son of King Henry the VI (For whom he composed this work) Hab●s ex h●c 〈◊〉 Princ●●s, institutionis Politici Regni formam, ex q●● metiri poteris potestatem, quam Rex eju● 〈◊〉 legis ipsius aut subditos, valeat exercire. Ad Tutelam ●amous legis, ac subdit orum, ●●rum Corporum, & ●onorum Rex huju●modi erectus est, & ad hanc Potestatem a Populo affluxam ipsi habet, quo ei●no● lic●t potestate aliâ su● Popule D●minar●. From whence we may observe, that he calls the Government of this Kingdom not Regnum Simply, but Regnum Politicum, that is, a Politic or Limited Kingdom; (in opposition to Regnum Absolutum) made up of divers parts: This he calls a ●ower flowing or proceeding from the People, and if it thus proceeds from the People, it must certainly return to them again upon the failure of the conditions to be performed on his part. No● does this suppose any real Majesty or Authority in them who take this forfeiture, any more than is ●o's suppose it in the People according to your own Hypothesis; when the Civil Authority does again devolve to them upon the Death of a King without Lawful Heirs.  M. 
I do now very well understand your Hypothesis, but I think Princes are not thereby in a better condition by being thus unaccountable to, and unpunishable by the people? But that they are father in a much worse; since you say they may resist, nay kill them when they are once entered into a state of War against them: For whereas where Princes are accountable to their People or Senate, they may then be admitted to be heard to make their defence in case of any Oppression or Misgovernment laid to their charge: As the King of Poland may at this day, to the great Assembly of Estates or Dye● of the Nation. Whereas in the case of the King, as you have put it, though he is not accountable to the Parliament, yet he is still liable to that which is more dangerous, (viz.) To be Judged, Censured and Declared forfeit by every considerable fellow of the Rabble, on pretence of violating this Original Contract, and having broken the fundamental constitution of the Government; and so shall be condemned unheard, and perhaps without any just cause. So that I think a man had as good be a B●●ward, as a King upon such Term.  F. 
The men of your Principles I see are not to be pleased, unless Princes may do whatever they have a mind to without control; or any man's judging or opposing the Illegality of their Actions. For if a Parliament takes upon its self to judge of the King's Actions, this is calling their Princes to an Account, and a thing against the Laws of the Land▪ as also 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 Contract, and thereupon resist him: This is making the King liable to be Judged and Censured by every mean fellow of the Rabble. But to let you see that both Judging and Disobeying the King's commands, if contrary to Law, is not a thing of such dangerous consequence as you would make it, appears by the late Petition of the Seven Bishops, wherein they take upon them to Judge that the King's 〈◊〉, Declaration of Liberty of Conscience being against several Acts of Parliament, they cannot with a safe Conscience Publish it, or agree to the Re●ding of ●t in the Churches. Now I desire to know whether this be 〈◊〉 a making the King's Actions liable to be Judged and Censured by every one of the Rabble, since these Bishops acted thus, neither as Privy Councillors, no● as Peers in Parliaments for by the same right by which they took upon them to make this Declaration, by the same right not only every Curate of a Parish, but also every Layman in England was free to Judge of the King's breach of this Law, and consequently of denying obedience thereunto; which disobedience, if it once prove general, will quickly make the King's personal commands wholly insignificant. So that it seems it is not the People● Judging of the Illegality of the King's Actions and Commands which is the thing you 〈◊〉 fault with since when these Bishops acted thus, all the high men of the Church of England praised it to the Sky. So that it seems it is now the bare Censuring and Disobedience that makes it a crime, but it is the i●sisting such Violent and Illegal orders and commands, and at last Declaring that Power void and forfeited by which they were made. That sticks in your stomach, which is as much as to say, that this Judging and Disobedience in its self is no Crime; but the pushing it home, and doing it in such a way as that it may be mended for the future; though this is never lawful to be done, but when things come to that extremity that all milder remedies are become ineffectual.  
But to answer your Objections a little more closely, the consequences of my Opinion are not so dangerous as you suppose them, if you will please to consider what I have already laid down at our last Meeting; As first, That this Resistance is never to be made but when this violent breach of the Laws becomes evident and undeniable not to the Rabble alone, but to the whole Nation, that is, all sorts and degrees or men; and as long as there is any question about it, I acknowledge it is by no means to be used: And lastly; As to declare the Regal Power forfeited, this likewise is never to be done, but when the King becomes so obstinately resolved to pursue those evil and illegal co●●es, as that he is utterly irreclaimable, and refuses all propositions and terms of amending or redressing them: And as to what you say, that the King is hereby deprived of all means of justifying himself, or vindicating his Actions; that is not so, since if a War be once begun, he may do this either by Declaration or Treaties, as King Charles the First did in his War with the Parliament, by which means he gained a great many both of the Nobility, Gentry and Commonalty to his Party, who were before absolutely set against him: But if you will needs have a Parliament to Judge and examine the reality of this forfeiture, I so far join with you, that though every private man may first judge thereof, yet is it not become absolute, and an Act of the whole People, till the Estates of the Kingdom have by some solemn Vote or Declaration made it so.  M. 
Well, I see you do all you can to make the best of a bad Cause; but though I think nothing of what you have said can give Subjects any right to resist much less to cast off all Allegiance to their Natural Prince, yet I shall not now dispute this point any longer with you, but will proceed to the merits of the Cause, and shall l●● you see, that even upon your own principles, the King has not been dealt 〈◊〉 in all this whole transaction, either like an Ally by the State's General of the United Provinces, or like a near Relation or a Son in-law by the Prince of Orange, or like a King by his own Subjects. To begin with the Estates in the first place, it is apparent that they have acted treacherously with the King, and contrary to the last Treaty of Peace and Alliance, in furnishing the Prince 〈…〉 their Captain General and 〈◊〉- holder both with Ships, Men and Money, and make this late Expedition against England, without so much as ever declaring the cause of their Quarrel, or demanding any satisfaction, if any occasion of difference had been given.  
But the Prince of Orange his dealing with the King his Father-in law, has been much less justifiable; for in the first place, he is not only guilty of the same fault with his Masters the Dutch, in beginning a War without ever declaring the causes of it, or demanding any satisfaction, or ●eparation if he had been injured, till it was too late to go back, and that his Fleet was ready, and the Army shipped for the Expedition; but which was more unkind from a Nephew, and a Son-in-law who had reason to expect all the satisfaction which a King, an Uncle and a Father-in-law could give; though indeed to speak the truth, the whole War was, in my Opinion, altogether unjust on the P●●nces side, since his chief pretences were▪ to redress Grievances, and to re-establish the Bishops and Church of England with the Colleges in their just Rights, and also restore the whole Nation to the just Execution of the Laws by a Free Parliament and Privileges: Now I desire to know what the Prince of Orange▪ had to do either as a Neighbour, or a Son-in-law▪ to concern himself with the Misgovernment of the Affairs of England, much less to countenance and take the part of those many Male contents and Traitors, who have ever since the Duke of Manmouth's Rebellion gone over into Holland▪ So that upon the whole matter I can find but one thing which he had, so much as a pretence of making War about, if it had been real, (viz.) the pretended suppo●●●tio●s Birth of the Prince of Wales; and yet even for this, he ought not to have made War till such time as all reasonable satisfaction in this matter had been demanded and denied him; and that the next Parliament, which the King had before declared should meet in November last, had been either hindered from meddling in it, or that they had fa●●'d to make a due enquiry into it. But if we look home—  F. 
Pray Sir, before you come to consider what has been done here, give me leave to justify the late proceedings of the State's General, and the Prince of Orange in this matter; First, as to the Estates; it is a very great mistake; for you affirm that they made this War upon the King in their own names, or furnished the Prince of Orange with Ships or Men as their Stadtholder or General, but, only as a free Independent Prince, whom they looked upon to have a good Cause of making War against the King, of England, as one they had great cause to believe was so far engaged in the France interes● as instead of standing 〈◊〉 in this War with the Empire, which they every day expected when he would join with France▪ and declare War against them, as they had reason to ●ear by several angry Memorials which the French King's Envoy in Holland had not long before given them; so that indeed it was but according to the Rules of Self-preservation to begin first, especially when it might be done without their appearing in it at all● but granting this War had been made in their own names, it had been but a just Return for what had been done to them before by the Late King who made actual War upon them without ever giving them the least notice, or demanding satisfaction for any wrongs or damages received; and this was the more justifiable, because his present Majesty▪ when Duke of York, was looked upon to have a very great hand in those Councils, which begun that unhappy War, in which he himself served as Admiral: But as to the Prince of Orange, there is much more to be said in his justification; for in the first place, tho' in some respects he was a Subject, by living under, and enjoying divers Lands and Territories, and Commands within the Dominions of the United Provinces; yet as he is Prince of Orange, he is a free independent Prince, and, as such, has a right of making War and Peace; and if so, all that is to be further enquired into, is, whether the Prince had any just cause of making War upon the King or ●ot; therefore to answer your first Objection against the Prince's making War upon an Uncle and a Father-in-law, without first demanding satisfaction, and then denouncing War if he could not obtain it, I confess this were a good Objection, if you could once prove to me, that the Prince could have been sure to have had granted him whatever he could in reason demand, both in respect of the Church of England, the security of the Protestant Religion, the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects of England, and his own particular concerns in respect of the Prince of Wales; but whoever will impartially consider the Terms that the Prince and King were upon just before his coming over, will find that he was not obliged to give the King notice of his intentions, by first demanding satisfaction, and then denouncing War if it had been denied, since the King might then have joined his own with the French Fleet, and sent for French Forces into England; and then all that the Prince could have done in behalf of himself and the Nation, had been altogether in vain. And then though I grant that such satisfaction ought to be demanded in most cases, yet will it not hold in this; where if the Prince had sooner discovered his designs, the King might have easily prevented them. And how near this was to have been put in Execution may appear by this, That Succours were actually offered by the French King; and if they were refused by ours, it was partly, because it was too late for the French Fleet to be then put out, and partly out of a Politic consideration, that besides the losing of the Hearts of his English Subjects, it might give the French such a footing here, that they would not be easily gotten out again. But indeed it seems as if the old formal way of making War was quite out of fashion; since Charles the Second made War against the Dutch; and the King of France so lately against Spain, the Elector Palatine and the Emperor without any Observation of those formalities.  
But if we consider the Grounds and Causes of this War as they are set forth in the Prince's late Declaration; they may be reduced to these three Heads.  
First, The Restoration of the Church of England, with the Bishops and Colleges to their just Privileges.  
Secondly, The securing of the Rights and Liberties of the Subject from the Dispensing Power, and those other Encroachments that had been made upon them by the partial Judgements of Popish, Ignorant, or Corrupt Judges.  
And Lastly, The Enquiry into the Birth of the Prince of Wales. In all which the Prince was so reasonable, as to refer the decision of these differences to the Judgement of a Free Parliament.  
Now as for the first of these. That the Prince as a Neighbour, and of the same Religion with us, might justly secure the interest of the Protestant Religion here, and also redeem the Clergy from the persecution they lay under, is very evident: Since it has always been held lawful for Princes to take the part and espouse the interest of those of the same Religion with themselves, though Subjects to another Prince: Thus Eusibius makes it a good cause of War by the Emperor Constantine against Licinius, because he persecuted the Christians living under his Dominions: So likewise of later Ages Queen Elizabeth assisted the Dutch Protestants of the united Provinces, and those of France against the Persecutions and Oppressions they suffered from their own Princes: As to the French Protestants, King Charles the I. sent a Fleet and an Army to their Assistance in 1627.  
But as to the next Head, the Oppressions we lay under in respect of our Civil Liberties, the Prince had as great, or rather greater right to vindicate these than the former. For Bodin and Barclay, though they suppose it unlawful for Subjects to take up Arms against their Prince, though never so highly Oppressed; yet they count it not only lawful, but Generous and Heroic for a Neighbouring Prince to rescue injured and oppressed Subjects from the Tyranny of their Kings. So that if the King had by his Dispensing Power, his Levying of Taxes without Law, and taking away the freedom of Elections for Parliament men, almost totally dissolved the Government, and brought it to the condition of an absolute Monarchy, it was high time for the Prince to put a stop to those Encroachments both in respect of his own particular interest, and also of the States whose General and Stad●holder he is. Of the former, since if this Kingdom should once become of the Popish Religion by the means of a standing Army, and those other methods that have been taken to make it so (granting the Prince of Wales to be truly born of the Queen) yet should he happen to die, the Popish faction here in England would in all likelihood debar the Prince and Princess of Orange from their lawful Succession to the Crown; or at least would never admit them but upon conditions of establishing of Popery and Arbitrary Government in England; the former of which is as contrary to their consciences, as the latter is to their principles and inclinations.  
So on the other side, if the Prince of Wales be not the Queen's true Son, he had certainly a much greater interest as the presumptive Heir of the Crown to demand satisfaction in that great point, which so nearly concerned their right of Succession: For then certainly they might justly demand satisfaction, especially when they desired no more but to have this business left to the inspection of the Estates of the Kingdom, as the only proper Judges of the same. For as to the Privy Council, who by the King's command (though without any precedent) had taken upon them to hear and determine this matter; their Highnesses certainly had no reason to be satisfied with it, since, besides the incompetency of the Judges, the King himself appeared too partial and interested in the affair for them, to set down by their Judgements. And as for what you say, that the Prince ought first to have tried whether the King and Parliament would give him that satisfaction he demanded: This was very dangerous for him to hazard; for supppose 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 Papists, fanatics, and Time-servers, who either would not, or else durst not have examined this matter as they ought: His Highness had been then to play an aftergame the next year▪ and what might have happened in the mean time God knows. And therefore he had all the reason in the World whilst the French Kings Arms were employed in Germany to demand satisfaction with the Sword in his hand. This is what I have to say in justification of His Highness' Arms, which if they are just on his side, I think I can as easily prove what has been done for his Assistance by the Nobility, Gentry and Commons of this Nation to have been so too.  M. 
I shall not any longer dispute, whether the Dutch and the Prince of Orange may not make some fair pretences for what they have done; since making War for security, by way of Prevention, is no new thing in the World; though I confess what you say in respect of the Prince of Wales, had been a sufficient cause of War, had there been any true grounds for that suspicion; but since there was no just cause given why his Highness should suspect his Birth not to be Genuine; and that even in the present Convention itself, there could be no proof made to the contrary: I think it is now evident, that it was a wicked and unjust Calumny upon his Majesty and the Queen, since he himself in the last Paper he left behind him at his going away, Appeals to all that know him, nay, even to the Prince of Orange himself, that in their Consciences, neither he nor they can believe him in the least capable of so unnatural a Villainy, nor of so little common Sense, to be imposed on in a thing of such a nature as that.  
But as for those noble Men and Gentlemen, who have declared for the Prince of Orange since his expedition, I think that they are no way to be justified, since granting them to have been satisfied, that the Prince's demands were lawful and reasonable, yet sure they ought not to have taken up Arms on behalf of a Foreign Prince, against their Natural Sovereign; but if in their Consciences they had believed his quarrel to have been just, the utmost they could have done, had been to have stood Neuters, without concerning themselves either with the one or the other party; and than if the Prince had gained his point either by Arms or Treaty, they might have enjoyed the good effects of it, without breaking in upon the Church of England's Principles of Passive Obedience and Nonresistance, and so many Acts of Parliament made; but as for those Officers and Soldiers, who so basely and perfidiously Deserted the King at Salisbury, and ran over to the Prince's Army with their Commissions in their pockets, they cannot possibly be justified either by the Law of the Land, or that of Nations, since certainly they acted contrary to both.  F. 
Before I speak any thing concerning the business of the Prince of Wales, give me leave to say something in Justification of those Noblemen and Gentlemen you so highly accuse; and though we Discoursed something of this matter at our last meeting, yet since you have again renewed the charge against them, I cannot but again vindicate them in what they have done; in the first place pray call to mind, that it has sufficiently appeared by the small Forces his Highness brought over with him, that he never intended to Conquer this Kingdom, or impose any thing upon it, contrary to the known Laws and Customs thereof; and therefore as appears by his Declaration, his chief hopes of Success against so Numerous an Army, made up of the flower of three Nations, depended on that assurance he had of some Considerable Assistance from the Nobility and Gentry of Eng. and perhaps from some of the Officers of the Kings own Army, and that this was lawful in both of them, I thus prove, you may remember I made out at our last meeting but one▪ that when the Nation lay under any great intolerable Oppression, by reason of the violation of their Just Rights and Liberties, the Clergy Nobility, and Gentry thereof, did always look upon it as their Right and Duty, to vindicate the same by a vigorous Resistance, when no gentler means could suffice: Secondly, I have proved that it neither was, nor could be the intent of those Oaths and Declarations made in the two first Parliaments of King Charles the Second, to deliver up their Lives, Liberties and Estates wholly to the King's Mercy, let him use them as he pleased; and if they did not, it must necessarily follow, that upon the King's Violation of their Religion, Liberties and Properties, they had still a Right left them to defend themselves from such Oppression and Tyranny: Lastly, I have also proved (as the Convention also lately declared) that the King by his exercising his Dispensing Power, by Committing and Prosecuting the Six Bishops, by setting up an Ecclesiastical Commission contrary to Law, by Levying Money by his Prerogative, without, or contrary to express Acts of Parliament, and by Raising and keeping up a standing Army in time of Peace, Commanded by Officers, who had never taken the Test appointed by the Statutes for that purpose, and consisting of so many Popish Soldiers, who having never taken the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, were altogether uncapable of serving in his Majesty's Army, and by doing divers other things contrary to the known Laws, Statutes, and Freedom of this Realm, too long now to particularise, had broken the Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom. This being the Case, I desire to know of you, how it was possible for the Nation to have a firm and settled Redress of these Grievances, without a Free Parliament? Or how it was possible to obtain this Parliament (the late taking away of Charters and Regulation of Corporations considered) unless those Obstacles had been first removed? And how could they be removed, without some force proportionable to what the King had raised to hinder it I cannot tell? And therefore it is a very vain Project of yours, to suppose that those Noblemen and Gentlemen, should have stood Neuters, and not have declared themselves some way or other in this quarrel, which is all one, as to say, they ought to sit still, and see a Generous Prince ruined, who had come in for their Redemption, and to have then expected a remedy for all these illegal Violations and Oppressions, when the King had killed or destroyed the Prince of Orange, and his Army, or that the King would then have yielded to all the same Conditions that the Prince, had demanded. This would have been not to have been parralel'd any where but in a Romance.  
But as for those Officers and Soldiers who you say Deserted the King, and went over to the Prince from Salisbury; though I grant they make a great noise, yet were they not a Thousand Men, Soldiers, Officers, and all, (as I am Credibly informed) which was but a small number, in comparison with the King's whole Army; and yet these may very well be defended upon the same principles with the former; for if the Violations of our Liberties were so great and dangerous, as I have now set forth, those Gentlemen were certainly obliged to prefer the common Good, and Preservation of their Religion and Liberties, before any private interests or Obligations, whatsoever, though it were to the King himself; therefore it was more his than their fault, if they Diserted him; and as for their going away whilst they were his Soldiers, and with their Commissions in their pockets; I suppose you cannot expect that the King should have ever given them leave to have quitted his Service, or have accepted of their Commissions, if they would have surrendered them, unless at the same time he had clapped them up in prison for offering of it, and if then they were persuaded that it was thei● Duty so to do, it is but a Punctilio of Honour, whether they went away with their Commissions in their pockets, or had left them behind them, since their going off, was a Surrender of their Commissions, and a sufficient Declaration, ●●at they could not with a safe Conscience, serve the King any longer in this quarrel; and you see that the going off of these few, had such a fatal effect, that it cast such a panic Terror upon the King, and the whole Popish Faction about him, as to make him run away to London, without striking a stroke: But that the Prince of D. with the Dukes of Grafton and Ormond, Lord Churchill were convinced of the danger this Kingdom was in, both in respect of their Religion and Liberties, appears by their leaving the King, and going over to the Prince, where they could never expect to be put into higher places of Honour or Trust, than what they enjoyed already under the King; and therefore that expression of the Lord Churchill's, in his Letter to the King is very remarkable: That he could no longer join with self-interested men, who had framed designs against His Majesty's true Interest and the Protestant Religion, to give a pretence to Conquest to bring them to Effect. And one would be very much inclined to believe so, considering the great number of Irish, Papists which have been brought over and listed here; though with the turning out and disbanding of a great many English Officers and Soldiers out of several Companies,  
But to come to the business of the Prince of Wales, which you say was a mere calumny, and an unjust suspicion on the Princess side; though I will not affirm any thing positively in so nice a matter, since the Convention has not thought fit to meddle with it. I shall only say this much, that if there have been any jealousies and suspicions raised about it, the King may thank those of his own Religion, who were entrusted with the management of the Queen's Lying-Inn: For in the first place it looked very suspicious to us Protestants, who do not put much faith in the Miracles of the Romish Church; that immediately after the presenting of the Golden Angel to the Lady of Loretto, and the King's Pilgrimage to St. Winifred's Well, the Queen after several years' intermission, should again be with Child; and when she was so, should have two different Reckonings; Which though it may be forgiven Young Women of their first Children, yet those who have born so many Children as Her Majesty, are commonly more experienced in these matters.  M. 
What is all this to the purpose? Was it not proved by many credible Witnesses, and those of the Protestant Religion before the Privy-Council, that they were not only present in the Room when the Queen was Delivered; but that they had seen Milk upon Her Linen before Her Delivery; and that they had also felt Her Belly immediately before it, and found that Her Majesty was Big with Child, and ready to be Delivered: And the Midwife Swears that she actually Delivered Her. So that since every person is to be presumed to be the true Son of those Parents that own him for theirs; So nothing but a direct proof to the contrary, and that by undeniable Evividence ought to make any Man believe otherwise; much more in the concern of the Heir apparent to the Crown, and therefore I know not what you would have to been done, which has not been observed, in this nice matter.  F. 
And Sir, let me tell you, because it was so nice a matter, and concerned no less than the Succession of Three Kingdoms: therefore the whole Nation as well as the Prince and Princess of Orange were to be fully satisfied of the reality of the Prince's Birth; since they were all sufficiently sensible that there wanted nothing but a Male Heir to entail Popery on us and our Posterity: And therefore there ought to have been present such Persons as had no dependence upon the Court, and who ought to have been deligated by the Prince and Princess of Orange, since the Princess of Denmark could not be there in Person, but instead of this, the only two Ladies (who as I am informed) were trusted by the Princess to be present at the Queen's Labour, were never sent for till she was brought to Bed and the Child Dressed: And as for the rest of the Witnesses they were either Lords, or other Persons who only Swear they stood in the Room at a distance, and heard the Queen cry out; and immediately after the Child cry, sometime before they saw it. And as for the Ladies, the greatest part of them Swore no further than the Lords: So that notwithstanding all that they have Sworn in this matter, there might have been a trick put upon them and they never the wiser: 
Siderfin's Reports. Temp. Car. 2. Fol. 377, 378. The King against Buckworth, Tuckee, Gill, etc.  Since you may Read in Siderfin's Reports, of a Woman who pretended to have been delivered of a Child by a Midwife within the Bed; and yet many years after, this was proved to be a suposititious Birth by the Deposition of the Midwife and the poor Woman who was the real Mother of the Child, and others that had been of the Conspiracy. And what has been done once, may be done again. 'Tis true, the King himself with one or two Ladies Deposed something further as to Milk, and the feeling of the Child immediately before the Birth; but his Majesty, if it be an Imposture, is too deeply concerned in it, to be admitted as a competent Witness: And as for the rest of the Ladies, they are likewise, being as the Queen's Servants, and having an immediate dependence upon her to be excepted against, and under too much awe, to speak the whole Truth: But it is very strange to me, that none of them deposed any thing concerning their seeing any Milk come from Her Majesty's Breasts after she was Delivered. And perhaps there was good reason for it, for I have had it from good hands, that she had none afterwards whatever she had before; the reason of which deserves to be enquired into, since it is very rare. But as for the Midwife, her deposition is equivocal; That she took a Child from the Body of the Queen; She is also a Papist, and consequently a suspected witness in this cause: Whereas all this might have been prevented, had the Queen (were she really with Child) been persuaded to be Delivered not within the Bed, but upon a palate; where all the persons whose business and concern it was to be present, might have seen the Child actually born; nor needed there to have any men been by, though I have heard that the late Queen of France was Delivered of the present King, the Dake of Orleans not being only present in the Room, but an Eye-witness of the Birth: And so, sure if somewhat of this nature had been done, it might have saved a great deal of dispute and bloodshed which has already, or may hereafter happen about it. And therefore I do not at all wonder that the Prince of Orange should not take this partial Evidence that has been given for sufficient satisfaction; so that whether this Birth of the Queens was real or not, I shall not now farther dispute. It is sufficient that if His Highness and His Princess had just and reasonable suspicions of an Imposture, whilst they remain under them; they had also a just cause of procuring a Free Parliament to examine this great affair, and also to obtain it by force, since it was to be got no other way.  M. 
I need not further dispute this business of the Prince of Wales with you, since I durst appeal to your own Conscience, whether you are not satisfied, notwithstanding these supposed indiscretions in the management of the Queen's Delivery; that he is really Son to the Queen: and I think it would puzzle you or I to prove the Legitimacy of our own Children by better evidence than this has been; and I think all those of your party may very well despair of producing any thing against it; since the Prince of Orange himself has thought it best to let it alone, as knowing very well there was nothing material could be brought in evidence against him. But I shall defer speaking further to this Head, till I come to consider of the Conventions settling the Crown upon the Prince and Princess of Orange. But before I come to this, I have many things further to observe upon the Prince's harsh and unjust proceedings with his Majesty, and refusing all terms of Accommodation with him, upon his last return to London.  
In the first place therefore, I must appeal to yourself, whether It were done like a Nephew and a Son-in-Law, after the King was voluntarily returned to White Hall, at the persuasion of those Lords who went down to attend him at Feversham, when he had had scarce time to rest him after his journey, and the many hardships he had endured since his being seized in that Port; and when he had but newly sent my Lord Feversham with a kind Message and Compliment to the Prince; inviting him to St. James', together with some overtures of Reconciliation, as I am informed, the Prince should make no better a return to all this kindness, than to clap up the Messenger contrary to the Law of Nations; as his Majesty observes in his Late Paper I now mentioned. And should without any notice given to the King of it, order his men to march, and displacing his Majesty's Guards to seize upon all the Posts about White-Hall; whereby his Majesty's Person became wholly in his Power: And not content with this, he likewise dispatched three Lords (whose names I need not mention) to carry the King a very Rude and Undutiful Message, desiring him no less than to depart the next Morning from his Palace to a private House in the Country, altogether unfit for the reception of his Majesty, and those Guards and attendance that were necessary for his security: Nor would these Lords stay till the Morning, but disturbing his rest delivered their Message at Twelve a Clock at Night; nor did they give him any longer time than till the next Morning to prepare himself to be gone; and then the King was carried away to Rochester under the conduct, not of his own, but of the Princes Dutch Guards; in whose custody his Majesty continued for those few days he thought fit to stay there, till his departure from thence in order to his passage into France, by which means the Prince hath rendered the breach irreconcilable between his Majesty and himself; for whereas if he had come to St. James' in pursuance of the King's Invitation, and had renewed the Treaty, which was unhappily broke off by the King's first going away, there might have been in great probability, a happy and lasting reconciliation made between them, upon such terms as might have been a sufficient security for the Church of England, as also for the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, which you so earnestly contend for; whereas by the Conventions declaring the Throne vacant, and placing the Prince and Princess of Orange therein, they have entailed a lasting War, not only upon us, but our Posterity, as long as his Majesty lives, and the Prince of Wales and his Issue (if he live to have any) are in Being.  F. 
I confess you have made a very Tragical relation of this affair, and any one that did not understand the grounds of it, would believe that King james being quietly settled in his Throne, and the Prince of Orange refusing all terms of reconciliation, had seized upon his Palace, and carried him away Captive into a Prison; whereas indeed there was nothing transacted in all this affair, which may not be justified by the strictest Rules of Honour, and the Law of Nations: for the doing of which, it is necessary to look back, and consider the state of affairs immediately after the Kings leaving Salisbury and coming to Whitehall, where one of the first things he did after he was arrived, was to issue out a Proclamation for the calling a new Parliament, which was so received with great satisfaction by the whole Nation; and immediately upon this, the King sent the Lords Hallifax, Nottingham, and Godolphin, to treat with his Highness upon those Proposals of Peace which he then sent by them, and to which the Prince returned his answer, the heads of which are very reasonable without demanding any other security for himself, and his Army, than the putting of the Tower and Forts about London into the Custody of that City: now pray observe the issue of all those fair hopes, before ever the terms proposed by the Prince could be brought to Town, the King following the ill advice of the Popish Faction, instead of suffering the Elections for Parliament-Men to proceed, as he had promised, and as was hoped for by us, all on a sudden he ordered the rest of the Writs for Elections that were not sent down, to be burnt, and a Caveat to be entered against the making use of those that were sent already into the Country; and at the same time he sent Order to the Earl of Feversham, to disband the Army, and dismiss all the Soldiers with their Arms. But I had forgot to put you in mind, that just before this, the King had sent away the Queen with the Prince into France, and that she carried the Great Seal of England along with her; whereby it was plain the King intended to put it wholly out of his power, to Issue out any Writs, or Pass any public Act wherein the Great Seal should be used; and that this Seal was carried away appears by its being not long since drawn up out of the Thames by a Fisherman's Net near Lambeth Bridge, where it's supposed to have been thrown in by the Queen, or some of Her Attendance, in Her passage over the Water; and farther, that the King was resolved wholly to quit the Government of this Kingdom, (at least for the present) appears by his so speedy following of the Queen, within three days after, stealing from his Palace by Night in a Boat to Gravesend, and from thence in a small Vessel to Feversham, where how he was seized by the Mob of that Town, and afterwards returned to London, as you have set forth, I need take no further notice.  
Now this being a true and fair Narrative of the whole Matter, I shall only offer two or three questions to your consideration, and desire you would give me a fair and satisfactory answer to them. First, pray tell me whether it was not the King's fault that it was rendered impossible for Parliament-Men to be elected, by burning of the Writs, and sending away the Great Seal? Secondly, whether the King by first stealing away, did not plainly confess himself conquered by the Prince, and did thereby Abdicate the Government? also by his obstinate refusal to redress the Grievances of the Nation, hath forfeited his Crown and all Allegiance from his Subjects, and was not after this to be owned as King of England, either by the Prince of Orange, or any body else; 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 Highness might not only justly refuse to treat with him any more as a Crowned Head, but might also have justified not only the taking him Prisoner, but sending him into Holland, if he had pleased; but instead of this, the Prince only desired his removal out of Town from that conflux of Papists that flocked to him, and by securing his Person to put it out of their power to play an aftergame, and rally the late disbanded Army, of whom there was at least twenty thousand of the Scotch, Irish, and English, who would have stood by the King till the last; and therefore the English as well as the Dutch Counsel about the Prince, did not think it safe for him to come to Town as long as the King had his Guards about him at Whitehall, since they might have been increased to an Army whenever he pleased.  
And though I grant good breeding and manners, especially to Kings, as also respect from a Son-in-law to a Father, are duties incumbent upon Princes, as well as private Men, yet when these lesser things stand in competition with their own welfare and safety, as also of the whole Nation, for which the Prince was now engaged; if he might for these ends justly require the removing and securing the King's Person, it was no great matter what time of night he had notice to remove, though this was not done neither with any design to affront or surprise him, but happened indeed through pure accident; for when it was resolved that the Prince's Guards should March to London and secure Whitehall, it was also resolved that the King should have notice to remove▪ and since it was not thought fit to let him know it till the Posts were all secured; the ways being very deep and dirty between Windsor and London, the Dutch Guards commanded by Count Solms could not reach the Town till past ten at night, and after that it was near twelve before the English Guards about Whitehall could be drawn off without fight, and till that was done it was not thought at all proper, or safe to deliver to the King the Prince's message for his departure: so that indeed it was not of any design that either the Prince and his Counsel who ordered it, or of these Lords (who very well understand good breeding) thus to deliver their message to him at that time of Night.  
But though he was in Bed, yet that he was not a sleep is very probable, since he had not been above half an hour in Bed, and it is not very likely he should be a sleep, when he very well knew before of the arrival of the Prince's Troops about Whitehall, and therefore could not be without too much concern about it, presently to compose himself to sleep.  
But as for his removal from London, it is plain that his Highness was so far from owning, or receiving the King in the same capacity he was in before his departure, that as soon as ever he heard he was at the Earl of Winchelsea's, and about to return to London, he sent away Monsieur Zulestein with a Letter to let him know, that he desired him not as yet to come to London, but to stay at Rochester till he himself should come to Town; but Monsieur Zulestein missing of the King by the way, he came to Whitehall: yet could not but know that his being there was not with the Prince's consent, since the same Gentleman followed him thither, and there delivered him the Prince's Letters; so that this second Message by these Lords could be no new thing, or surprise to him; yet that his Highness never intended, or acted the least violence towards the King's Person, may appear by this, that he left it to the King's choice what place he would go to, as also what Guards or other Attendance he would take with him, and the King refused to take his English Guards with him, though they were offered him: and indeed these Dutch Guards that attended him, might in his Majesty's judgement be very well trusted, they being (as well as their Officers) for the most part Papists; but that the Prince did not intend either to detain his Majesty's Person as a Prisoner, may appear in this, that whilst he remained at Rochester, none that would were debarred from access to him, and that the Officers and Soldiers of the Guards were ordered to be under his command, and every Night to take the Word from him; and had it not been for the Kings commanding a Sentry to be drawn off from his usual Post, he could never have gone away without being discovered; and if he would have gone away at Noon Day, I know not who unless the Rabble would have hindered him; so that I think it is evident that this was the civilest, and mildest usage that a vanquished Prince could expect from him that had so much the better of him, and in whose 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 so far from being confined, that it is plain he had the liberty given him to go whither he pleased; nor were these Guards placed so much about him for his confinement as to secure him from the insults of the Rabble, who otherwise there, as well as they did at Feversham, might have expressed too violent a resentment against his Person.  M. 
I cannot deny but you have given a very-fair, and as far as I know, a true account of this transaction, and have told me some things which I never heard before; but however, I cannot depart from my first opinion, that it was neither, honestly nor wisely done of those who took upon them to advise the Prince to push things to extremities in this conjuncture, and therefore I impute it chiefly to those English, who supposing they had by taking Arms and joining themselves to the Prince's party, provoked the King beyond all possibility of Pardon, were resolved to do their utmost to put it out of the King's Power ever to call him to an account for it: and tho' perhaps his first sending away the Queen and Prince, and then going away himself, in the middle of a Treaty with the Prince, and thereby leaving his Affairs in such confusion, may seem to deserve blame, yet certainly his Majesty is to be excused in a great measure for what he then did; for as he tells the Earl of Feversham in his Letter to him to Disband the Army; 
H.D. p. 92.  That things being come to that extremity, that he was forced to send away the Queen, and the Prince his Son, that they might not fall into the Enemy's hands, and was also constrained to do the same thing himself, and follow them, since the Troops of his Army were not to be relied on, that it was not adviseable for him to Fight the Prince of Orange in the Head of them; for it was but reasonable that Princes as well as other men, should provide for their own security, as well as they can.  
But yet I can never believe that his Majesty's first going away was any Abdication of the Government, much less a forfeiture of his Crown or Royal Dignity any more than the second; for in the first place it could be no forfeiture according to your own Principles, because he had already Dissolved the Ecclesiastical Court, and restored the Cities and Corporations to their former Charters and Freedom in Elections of Parliament-Men, and putting again in Commission, all Lords, Lieutenants, and Justices of the Peace, who had been before turned out; and if he could not give an entire redress to all our grievances by a free Parliament, it was only because he durst not stay to hold it, since he thought he could have no security for his Person, the whole Nation being in a manner poisoned and prepossessed against him by those malicious Artifices of a French League, 
I. D. D.  and a suppositious Prince, and that his Majesty had so many unfortunate disappointments, and so surprising and unparallelled accidents; part of his Army deserting him, and the rest too apparently unserviceable, when there were such terrible disorders in the Kingdom, and all places were either flaming, or about to take fire.  
So likewise could it not be properly any wilful desertion or Abdication of the Government, since he was forced to quit it, like the master of a Ship, who when the Vessel is like to sink is forced to leave her, and escape in a Cockboat; and that his Majesty did not act thus without an intention to return, and again to vindicate his right, when opportunity served, appears likewise in that passage in the above mentioned Letter, wherein he desires both the Officers and Soldiers of his Army then to be disbanded, To continue their Fidelity to him, and to keep themselves from Associations, and such pernicious things; from whence it plainly appears, he went not away without a prospect of returning to his Throne when Time should serve: and if he left no orders at all for the Government of the Kingdom in his absence, nor named any Commissioners or Lieutenants to represent him, it was because he thought it to no purpose; since besides that, he could find no body, who durst undertake so difficult an employment; so they that had taken it would have found no body who would obey them, the generality of the People, and also of the King's Army, being more inclinable to the Prince of Orange, than to himself.  
Yet however you see upon his return to Town, the King was so well persuaded of the Prince of Orange's kind intentions towards himself and the Nation, that I verily believe that his Majesty would have yielded to any thing that could in reason have been desired of him; and upon this ground I suppose he writ so kindly to the Prince, and invited him to come to St. James' with what Troops he should think fit for his security; therefore I must needs tell you again, I think it was a great oversight of the Prince of Orange, thus to let slip this opportunity, by refusing all terms of accommodation with the King his Father, and by clapping up my Lord Feversham, then seizing the King's Person, and sending him out of Town, to let all the World see he was resolved to treat no more with him: and this being the true state of the case, it is not your saying that he had forfeited his Crown by going away, and consulting his own safety, that will convince any unprejudiced man: for as to your notion of a forfeiture, that they were not then entered into the Thoughts of the Peers, and others of the Privy Council, appears by the Order they made for sending the Lords Feversham, Alesbury, ●armouth, and Middleton, most humbly to entreat the King to return to Whitehall, so that he was received very joyfully and with great Acclamations of the Common People as he passed through the City; and when he came to Whitehall he called a Council, where he made an Order to stop the demolishing and plundering of Houses by the Rabble: so that he was not only received, but also acted as a King after his return to Town. This being the true state of the case, I shall not dispute the point whether his Majesty and the Prince were in a state of War or Peace, after his return to Town, or what the Prince might have done as an Enemy and a stranger to the King's Person, but what might be expected from him as a generous Prince, a Nephew, and a Son-in-law, and one who was bound in Conscience and Honour, to consult the lasting Peace and Happiness of the Nation, more than his own private interest, or the ambition of wearing a Crown.  F. 
You have made the utmost defence that I suppose can be brought for the King's first going away; yet if it be better considered, I doubt it will not serve the turn: I see you are forced to lay the whole fault of the King's departure in the midst of the Treaty with the Prince, and his refusing to call a Parliament according to his own Promise and Proclamation, upon his want of security for himself, the Queen, and Prince, if he had stayed, by reason of the want of fidelity in his Army, the general prejudice of the Nation against him, and the great firmness and resolution there was in the Prince's Army to adhere to him. Now I shall show you that every one of these were but pretences, and that the real cause of his departure was, because he feared to leave the inquiry into the Birth of the Prince of Wales, and the free examination and redress of our grievances, and those violations he had committed upon the fundamental constitution of the Government, to the impartial judgement of a free Parliament. For in the first place, as to want of fidelity in his Army, that can be no just excuse for his deserting, and disbanding them as he did, without any pay; since he himself in his said Letter to the Earl of Feversham, expressly owns, that there were a great many brave men, both Officers and Soldiers among them; and therefore if he was satisfied of this, he ought to have first sent for all his Officers, both Colonels and Captains, and have examined them how far they would stand by him, in the Defence of his Person and Cause, against the Prince of Orange; and he might have also ordered those Officers 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 thus at Salisbury, before he fled away in that confusion to London, I have been credibly informed by divers Officers of that Army, that the King might have found above▪ Twenty Thousand men, that would have stood by him to the last man, in his Quarrel against the Prince, and therefore I impute his going away as he did from Salisbury, to some strange panic fear that God had cast upon him, and all the Popish Faction about him, since he has been known not to want sufficient courage upon other occasions; but though he had omitted it there, yet he certainly aught to have tried this last experiment after he came to London, rather than have quitted the Kingdom so dishonourably as he then did, and thereby giving the P. of Orange's Friends an opportunity of seizing or getting delivered into their power, all the Garrisons and strong places in England, besides Portsmouth, in those three or four days time, that he was not heard of, besides great part of the Army that was not disbanded, had in that time gone in to the Prince, in hopes of their pay, and future preferment: now that the King might with safety have resided with his Army somewhere about London, he himself grants, 
H. D. p. 90.  in his Proposals to the Prince, to this effect, That in the mean time, till all matters were adjusted concerning the freedom of Elections, and a security of their sitting; the respective Armies may be retained within such Limits, and at such distance from London, as may prevent all apprehensions that the Parliament may be in any kind disturbed; which Proposals being made not long after the King's arrival at London, we may reasonably suppose that he was then well enough satisfied with the fidelity of the greatest part, at least of his own Army, to him; and if he were not, he might have been better satisfied if he pleased: but as for the next difficulty, the Nations being poisoned and prepossessed against him; admit it were so, as long as he had a sufficient Army about him (as I suppose he might have had) he need not have feared any thing the People could do; but indeed this was a needless fear; for before the Parliament could sit, it was not the People's Interest to hinder it, or to fall upon the King or his Army when matters were in a fair way of accommodation; so after the Parliament sat, there would have been less cause of fear, since the reverence of that Court would have kept them in awe; but as to the firmness and resolution of the Prince's Army, the fear of that was also as needless, as long as the King's Army continued as firm to him, and if the Prince's Army had been the first Aggressors, I doubt not but the People would have taken part with the King against them: but after all it was certainly (and you must grant it so) much more safe 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 same things (as you suppose him willing to have done) after his return to Town, when his Army was disbanded, and London had received the Prince, and had joined with him and when almost all the strong places of England were in the Prince's power; so that upon the whole matter it evidently appears that the King chose to trust his own Person together with that of the Queen and Prince, to a Foreign Monarch rather than he would rely upon the justice or fidelity of his own Nation.  
You say in the next place, that nothing the King has done in all these exorbitances he committed that can in any wise amount to a Forfeiture, or Abdication of the Government; not to the former because the King redressed all our Grievances before he went away; 'tis true, I grant he redressed some of them, by putting divers things in the same State they were before; yet for all this, the greatest still remained unredressed, (viz.) the Raising of Money contrary to Law, and the Dispensing Power, both which (as I have already showed you) at our last meeting he never Disclaimed, neither took any sufficient course, by Calling a Parliament to prevent its being exercised for the future; besides his going away, without giving the Prince and Nation any further Satisfaction about the Birth of the Prince of Wales, all which not being done, I must still affirm, that this wrought a forfeiture of the Crown, or an Abdication of it, at least by his refusal to Hold and Govern it according to the Fundamental Laws thereof; for he that destroys the Law or Conditions by which he holds an Estate, does Tacitly Renounce his Title to it: As I showed you in the Case of Tenant for Life, altering in Fee: So that this being considered, as also that the City of London and the whole Nation, had Surrendered themselves to the Prince of Orange; 
H. D. p. 92.94.  and that even the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York, together with the Bishops of Winchester and Ely, with divers other Earls, Bishops and Lords then in Town, had sent an Address to the Prince, immediately upon the King's departure, and sent three Lords and one Bishop with it, desiring his Highness to come speedily to London, and to take the Government upon him; and having before declared, that they would with their utmost endeavours, Assist his Highness for the obtaining of a Free Parliament; so that the Prince had no reason upon the King's return, to Surrender 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 reason to believe, would use it any better than he had done before.  
But I see you wilfully decline entering into the Merits of the Cause, and arguing the main point in the Controversy, (viz.) whether the King was in a State of War or Peace with the Prince upon his return; for if he were still in a State of War, the Prince might certainly very well justify his clapping up the Earl of Feversham (his Late Majesty's General) for offering to come within the Limits of the Prince's Quarters, without his leave; especially, since he was still answerable for doing his endeavour to Disband an Army (a great part of which, consisted of Papists and Foreigners, with their Arms in their hands) whereby they might have robbed and spoiled the Countries, or at least have kept those Arms, to renew the War again with the first Opportunity; so that certainly it could not be so slight a thing, as a bare Invitation to St. James', whither the Prince could have gone without his leave, (being now Master of the City) which could so far efface all the Princes just Resentments, and make him so far confide in the King's Word, as to come to London, whilst he remained there with his Guards, and all those Papists and Tories in and about London, ready to take his part, and Rally again into a new Army, upon the first Signal.  
But as for any Proposals of Peace or Accommodation, which you say the Lord Feversham brought with him, I neither know, nor have heard of any such thing: 'tis true, the King says in the said Paper he left behind him, that he had writ to the Prince of Orange by the Lord Feversham, and also mentions some Instructions he had given him; but what they were, he does not tell us; but sure they were not Propositions of Peace, since it is to be supposed, that the King would not have sent any thing of that Consequence, without first acquainting the Privy Council with it, before it was sent: But since we hear of nothing concerning them, we may very well suppose there was no such thing, or if there were, his Highness was the fittest judge, whether they were reasonable or not; and if the King had any desire to propose any Just or Reasonable Terms, whereupon he might have hoped to have been restored again to his Royal Dignity, he had a very ●air Opportunity for it, when a great Council of the Nobility were met at St. James', in Order to Sign an Association to stand by the Prince in the Calling of a Free Parliament, for the King might then▪ if he had pleased, have made his Proposals by such of the Lords and Bishops, as he could most confide in, and have Conjured all the Peers there Assembled, to have interceded with the Prince of Orange, to renew their Treaty with the King, which had been before unhappily broken off; and than if either the Peers had refused to do this, or the Prince had refused to hear them, the King might then (I grant) have had sufficient reason to declare to all the World, that he was not fairly dealt with; but for him again to go away only upon pretence, that his Person was under restraint, when really it was not, plainly showed, that he had no real design, of making an amicable end of those differences, or really desired to be restored to his Throne, by the general consent of the Nation; but either hoped for it from those Civil Dissensions he expected we should fall into upon his departure, or else to the Arms of France; and this being the Case, I think nothing is plainer, than that the King both by his first and second departure, hath obstinately refused all those means, whereby the Nation might have been settled with a due consideration of his Person, and Authority whilst he lived, and of the Prince, when his Legitimacy shall be sufficiently proved, and made out before a Free Parliament. So that since I have already proved that the King had before the Prince's Arrival, committed so many Violations upon the whole Constitution of the Government, and that these Violations, if wilfully and obstinately persisted in, do at last produce an absolute loss and forfeiture of the Crown itself; I think the late King has done all that could be required to make it so.  
But I have forgot to answer one Objection you made, (viz.) that the Peers and Bishops, when they invited the King to return to White-Hall, had no Notion of this forfeiture, nor the people of London, who you say, received him with great Joy and Acclamations, and that therefore it is wholly a new invention. To this I Answer; that if the Lords you mention, did send this message to the King, it might be, because they were surprised with his unexpected return, and had not well considered all the Circumstances of the Case, and thereby did more than they could well justify, having before declaed, they would stand by his Highness, in procuring a Free Parliament, which must certainly be without the King, since he was then gone away; and they had also invited him to come to London, as well as the City; and how that could consist with their inviting the King thither, without the Prince's consent, I do not well understand; but it seems they quickly, altered their Sentiments as appears by their presently after Subscribing a paper in the nature of an Association, to stand by the Prince, without taking any notice at all of the King, and the very day of the King's departure, they met to consider upon the Prince's Speech, he had a day or two before made to them, desiring them to advise on the best means, how to pursue the ends of his Declaration, in Calling a Free Parliament; and within two days after, they presented the Prince with their Advice, to call a Convention on the 22th. of january, which was also the next day agreed to, by one hundred and sixty Persons, who had served as Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, in any of the last Parliaments, in the time of King Charles the Second, without taking any notice at all of the King; for though it is true, he was then gone away, when the Commons and City, two or three days after, made their Addresses to the Prince: Yet, when the Peers met both the first and second time, on the 21st. and 22d. of December, he was still here; for the King did not leave Rochester, until the 23d. in the morning; so it is plain, it was not their design to own, or take notice of him any more as King, and that which makes it more remarkable, is, that several of the Bishops (viz.) the Archbishop of York, together with the Bishop of St. Asaph, and others joined with the rest of the Peers in these Addresses, which was a plain sign, they all looked upon the King's Power to be now at an end: But as for the Acclamations of the people, or any great joy the City expressed upon the King's return to Town, I doubt you have had a false account of that matter, for I cannot hear that any of the Citizens went out to meet him, or set any Lights in their Windows, though he came into London after it was dark, or that any of the better sort, bid him God Speed: I grant indeed, there was a great many of what you call the Mob; but more Boys than Men, who followed his Coach, making Huzza's, whilst the rest of the people silently looked on.  M. 
I cannot deny, but you may have given a true account of these matters, since you may have observed them better than I; yet as you yourself have Related them, sure the King had sufficient cause to Consult his own Safety, and make his escape as soon as he could; for what could he expect, when once the Prince had secured his Person under a Guard, and had refused to Treat with him as King; and that also the Peers, and divers of the Bishops had made an Association to stand by the Prince of Orange, and had made a fresh Address to him, without taking the least notice of him, as if there had been no such thing as a King in being? I say, what could his Majesty now expect, but either a more close Confinement, or else, being taken off privately by poison, or some other ways, since he could not be forgetful of the King his Father's saying, that there is no great distance between the Prisons and the Graves of Princes; or admit he had lived till this Convention Sa●e, what could he have expected more, than the retaining the bare Title of King, whilst the Prince of Orange, or some others appointed by Him, had wholly managed the Government at their pleasure? or else they might according to your Doctrine, have either declared the Crown forfeited, or else, that he had Abdicated it by his going away; or who can tell, but they might have again renewed the Villainy of 48. and have made him undergone the same Fate with his Father?  F. 
I grant you have urged the utmost that can be, to justify the King's second Departure; and as I would not deny, but that he was the best Judge of his own Danger, so were the Prince, Peers and Common, together with the City, the best and only Judges, we could then have of the true means of our settlement and safety, since after so many breaches that the King had made upon his first Declaration, and Coronation Oath, as also his going from his late Promise of calling a Free Parliament; I cannot see what farther security he could have given us, that he would not repeat the same things over again; 
H.D. p. 110.  or admit the Prince had suffered him to continue at Whitehall, and to call a third Parliament, what assurance could he have given, that in the end of another forty days, we should not have the same trick played us? and then in March or April, have been left in the same state of Confusion we were in, in December, to the certain ruin of these three Kingdoms, and Holland into the bargain? And then by that time, the French King might have got ready an Army and a Fleet, and under a pretence of redeeming his Majesty from the constraint he lay under, and of restoring him to the free exercise of his Regal Power, have Invaded this Kingdom; and I suppose you cannot deny but the King would then have sound Papists and High Tories enough, to have joined with him in this pious design; for certainly the scruples of the high Churchmen would have been the same they are now, the obligations of the Oath of Allegiance the same, and the supposed Sin of deposing a Lawful K. the same, though he had utterly refused to give the Prince and Nation any satisfaction: so that then if we had been forced to take Arms, and to declare he had forfeited his Right to the Crown, all these things would have given as great, 
Ibid. p. 111.  or rather greater scandal, than for the Nation to take him at his first offer; and since he had thus rashly deserted the Throne by a needless departure, to resolve he should Ascend it no more.  
But suppose (what might also as well have happened) that the Prince and his Party had been killed, or expelled the Kingdom 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 Protestant Army, and have kept only Irish, Scotch, and French Forces in pay, and have every day increased them? What respect can we hope he would ever after this have shown to our Laws, Religion, or Liberties, when he had now no longer any thing to fear? The memory of what happened after the Duke of Monmouth's defeat, (though effected only by those of the Church of England) will certainly never be forgotten by others, whatever you Bigots of Loyalty may pretend, or say.  
So that for my part I stand amazed to see you, and so many others scruple the submitting to the present King; for if ever man had a just cause of War, he had, and that creates a right to the thing gained by it, the King by withdrawing and disbanding his Army, yielded him the Throne; and is he had without any more Ceremony ascended it, he had done no more than several Princes formerly have done on the like occasions; for the Prince was no longer then bound to consider him as one that was, but as one that had been King of England, yet in that capacity he treated him with great respect and civility, how much soever the King complained of it, who did not enough consider what he had done to draw upon himself that usage: but as for your insinuation, that if he had stayed he might have run the same fate with his Father; I think it is fuller of Passion than Truth; for besides that, the Lords and Commons would never had the Impudence to have committed such a Villainy; and the Prince himself as a Nephew, and a Son-in-Law would never have suffered it.  M. 
Well, God only knows the event of things, and we ought to judge charitably, and still to hope, that if the King might have been restored upon terms, that he would have been the better for his Affliction, and have amended all those errors he committed, since he had seen that neither the Nation, nor yet his Neighbours the Dutch would permit him to make himself an Absolute Monarch; I believe he would have been too much afraid of the King of France, ever to have made use of his Forces, to have settled Popery and Arbitrary Government; and without his assistance, I suppose you will grant it never could have been done, since he plainly found that a Protestant Army would never have joined with him to act in such pernicious designs; but however, let the worst have happened that could be, I think it had been much better for the Nation to have endured it with Patience, than to have done that which was Evil, though for the procuring of the greatest seeming Good, tho' for the advantage of our Religion, and civil Liberties: and therefore it had been better for us in this extremity, to have trusted God than Men, since he always promises to protect those that rely upon him, and strictly perform his Will; and admit the worst that could have happened, God would either have removed those afflictions from us in due time, or have given us Patience to have born them; since I suppose you will not deny, that God oftentimes brings Persecutions and Afflictions upon a Sinful Church and Nation, either for a punishment for their Sins, or else to give an occasion for those that are truly Pious and Sincere, to show their Courage and Constancy in Suffering for the Truth, and by withstanding, not by force, but Passive Obedience, all the Kings Illegal and Arbitrary Commands, if he should after his re-establishment in the Throne, have again renewed his former courses; these are the only remedies which we of the Church of England, as obedient Subjects to the King and his Laws, must think could have been Lawfully taken in this case.  F. 
I do not deny, but what you say is in the main very pious and honest, were the case as you have put it; but the greatest part of your discourse depends wholly upon those old principles and prejudices, of the unlawfulness of all resistance of the Supreme Powers, and that the King is the only Supreme Power in this Kingdom; both which propositions I have sufficiently confuted at our third, fourth, and fifth meetings, and also at our last save one, in which I gave you a true account of the Legal sense of those Oaths and Statutes of King Charles II. concerning Resistance; as was also given by the best Lawyers, and most considering Men of the then House of Lords and Commons; so that if the means we have used are lawful, both by the Laws of God and Man, I think we are not bound to bring Afflictions upon ourselves, but to avoid them all we can, especially when they come evidently attended with the utter loss and ruin of what ought to be most dear to us, our Religion, Civil Liberties, and Properties, and that not only for ourselves, but our Posterity; who perhaps would never have regained them when they were once lost; of which the French Nation is an evident example before our Eyes, who by not opposing the Arbitrary Power of their Kings in due time, have fallen into a Government almost as Despotic as that of Turkey; for when once the common good of the Subjects ceases to be the main end of the Governors, the Government then ceasing to be God's Ordinance, degenerates into Tyranny: which I think may be always Lawfully opposed by a freeborn People, who at first agreed to be Governed, not as Slaves but Subjects.  
But as for the first part of your Speech, it needs not any long answer; it first supposes the King might have been again restored upon terms; now since it is plain, these Terms must have been imposed upon him against his Will, and as necessary Conditions of his Restoration, I would be glad to know who it was should undertake to impose them upon him, and to see them kept, when they had been made, whether the Prince of Orange or the Parliament? if the former, I grant indeed he might have made such Conditions with the King, that the Church of England, as well as the whole Nation, should for the future enjoy their Just Rights and Liberties; but then the Prince must either have trusted wholly to the King's Honour, or else he must have had some strong places put into his Hands for a Security, that the King would not again make the same Violations upon our Laws, Religion and Liberties, as he had done before; if the former, I suppose you will not deny, but that the King might, if he had pleased, have broken them all again, as soon as ever the Princes back had been turned, and that he had been once engaged in a War with France, which could not have been long avoided, considering the necessity there is at this juncture of time for the States of Holland (and Consequently the Prince as their General) to engage with the Emperor and King of Spain, to drive the French out of the Empire, and to hinder him from making himself Universal Monarch of Europe; which it is plain, is the thing he now drives at.  
But if the Prince should have kept any strong places here as cautionary Towns, for the King's performance of the Terms agreed upon, this must have been done either by English or Foreign Forces; if by the former, this would have been looked upon as inconsistent with their Duty, and Allegiance to the King, if he should have commanded them to be delivered up into his Hands; since you tell us, the King has the sole Command of the Militia, and consequently of all Garrisons man'd by his Subjects, within his Dominions: But if the Forces that should have held these places, had been Dutchmen, or other Foreigners, it would never have been endured, either by the King or the Nation, that Foreigners should possess the strong Holds and Keys of the Kingdom, and the King might soon have wrought (by some jealousies and suspicions, which he would not have failed to have raised) that the Nation itself, should have joined with him to drive them out; and then the King might have done what he pleased without Control; but if you will place this power into the whole People or Nation, or else their Representatives the Parliament, of holding the King to these Terms agreed upon, this could not have been done without their constant Sitting, and a power of Resisting him, in case he infringed them; and then either they must have given up all their Liberties to the Kings Will, or else farewell to the Darling Doctrines of Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance; so that take it which way you will, all imposing of Terms upon the King, either by the Prince of Orange, or the Nation, would in a short time have become either Unpracticable or Insignificant. Nor is your other Supposition any whit truer, that the King would never have made use of the Forces of France, to subdue and keep under the people of England, for fear he should not be able to get the French out again. ti's true, this would be a very good Argument to a Prince, who were no Bigot, and was not resolved to introduce his Religion, by all the ways and means he could; but how near the French Forces were to be brought over into this Kingdom the last Summer, is very well known to those who were then in France, and saw them upon the Sea Coast, ready to Embark; nor was their coming over put off by any other motives, than that two of the Cabinet-Council represented to the King, that it would be the only means to make the whole Nation rise up against him, and join with the Prince of Orange, as soon as he Landed; which I suppose was the only reason that hindered it; for that the French King offered to send them, is very certain. Yet it does not follow for all that, but the King might take an opportunity of doing it another time, and bringing them over in their own Ships, if ours would not do the business.  
And though I will not affirm, that there is any private League with France, for the Extirpation of the Protestant Religion; yet this much I think may be sufficiently made out, that long ago, the King was wholly in the power and interest of France, as appears by Coleman's Letters (whilst he was his Secretary) when Duke of York. The first passage, is to Sir William Throgmorton Feb. 1. 1673/ 4. You well know, that when the Duke comes to be Master of our Affairs, the King of France will have reason to promise himself all things that he can desire. The next is to Father La Chaise, the French Kings Confessor, in these words; That his Royal Highness was Convinced, that his interest and the King of France's, were the same; and whether the Duke by his Accession to the Crown, has showed any alteration in his Inclinations to France, either in respect of Religion or Interest, I appeal to the World.  
Nor is your next Supposition less out of the way, that the King could have made use of no Forces but French, to settle Popery and Arbitrary Government here, as if He had not Scotch and Irish Papists enough in his Dominions for this occasion; and as for Arbitrary Government, we have found to our grief, that there are too many Mercenary Soldiers in the King's Army, who fought only for pay, and would have Assisted the King to have Raised Money without the Parliament, nay, to pull the very Parliament out of Doors, if he had bid them; and if some of them were Discontented, when the Prince came over, I do not so much impute it to their Honest Principles, as fear, lest they themselves should be Cashiered, and Scotch and Irish, to be listed in their rooms; so that upon the whole matter, considering the temper the King was in ever since his last coming to Town, and that as soon as he Arrived, the Priests and Jesuits flocked about him as thick as ever, that they and the French Envoy were his chief (if not his only Cabinet Councillors) I cannot see (unless he had taken new measures) how we could have been secure, or could have relied on any thing he could have farther promised; nay, swore to perform; since no Oath could be more Sacred than that at his Coronation, when he Swore to maintain the Church (that is, the Doctrine of the Church) of England, and the Laws of the Kingdom, if that be a true account of the form of it, which we have in print.  M. 
At this rate of Arguing, I know not what to say to you, since this Argument amounts to no more than this; that the King could upon no account be trusted, and therefore was not any more to be Treated with; if this were so, to what purpose did the Prince of Orange declare, that he came not to Conquer the Kingdom; but only to procure a Free and Legal Parliament, which could not be called, without the King's Consent, and owning his Authority? neither could they have done the least Act for the Amendment of our Grievances, without his Majesty's Consent; or to what purpose did the Prince enter into a Treaty with the King's Commissioners at Hungerford, if his Royal Word and Promises, were not to be believed? But if his Majesty could ever be trusted, I see no reason why he could not have been so, as well since his last coming to Town, as before, since he came voluntarily? and as I have great reason to believe with Real Intentions, to grant and perform what ever the Nation could reasonably expect for the Redress of their Grievances, and would have given any reasonable Security of his performance for the future, without Divesting himself of his Royal Power of making Laws, and Protecting his Subjects?  
But as for the former part of your Speech, whereby you would prove it lawful to Resist the King, because you say it conduced to the Common good and Interest of the Nation, both as to the Protestant Religion, and Civil Liberties, this is no more than the Old Commonwealth's Maxim in other words, which I grant is so far true, as when the safety and preservation of the King or other Supreme Powers of a Commonwealth (who according to your own principles, are the Representatives of the people, and consequently part of it) are likewise comprehended and maintained (as they ought to be) in their due power and authority: for Bishop Sanderson in his Learned Lectures, hath very well proved, that those cannot be separated from each other, without destroying the Civil Government, which is all the Security we have for our Civil Properties and Liberties; and we see in those few days in which his Majesty's Person was withdrawn, when that there was no Civil Government exercised, that there was greater infringement of them, both by plundering and destroying of Houses, and spoiling of Parks and Forests in three or four days time, by the violence and fury of the Mob, than have been committed by the most Arbitrary Kings, from the Conquest to this day.  F. 
You very much mistake me, if you think I maintain, that there was never any time after the Princes Landing, that the King might not have been Treated withal; and likewise trusted with the Administration of the Government; but than it must have been upon such Terms, as should have secured us for the future, from his Acting the like, or worse things over again; as in the first place, he should have renounced his Dispensing Power, and that of Levying Chimney money upon small Cottages and Ovens, directly contrary to Law. Next he should have Disbanded his standing Army, and kept up no Forces in time of Peace, besides the necessary Guard● of his Person, the Number of which, should have been agreed upon by Parliament; which should also have S●te once every year, or two years at least; and lastly, that in respect of the Church, as long as he or his Successors continued of the Roman Catholic Religion, the Nomination of all Bishops, Arch-Bishops, Deans, with other Ecclesiastical preferments, which are not in the immediate Disposal of the Lord Chancellor, should have been in the Arch-Bishops, and Bishops of each Province, they choosing two, out of which his Majesty should have chosen one, for to supply each Bishopric, etc. as they became vacant.  
And therefore for my own part, I was so far from believing all agreements with the King to be unpracticable, that there was no body rejoiced more than I, when upon his Majesty's first return to London, he so far Complied with the Desires of the whole Nation, as to issue out his Proclamation for a Free Parliament, and that he sent down his Commissioners to Treat with the Prince, and I had then great hopes of an Accommodation; but when instead of this, the King had burnt the Writs for the Election of Parliament Men, and had sent away the Queen and Prince, together with the Great Seal, that no more Writs might be issued, and that before ever the Commissioners could return to London, or before any Answer to the Prince's Proposals was given by the King, he had withdrawn himself, and done all he could to get away into a Foreign Kingdom; it was then, and not till then, that I saw all hopes of Agreement absolutely desperate: and though you put a great stress upon the King's last return to Town, which you suppose, was with a Design to agree with the Prince in every thing, that could be in Reason demanded: I can see no cause for your drawing such a Consequence from it; for if he did not look upon himself as safe here before his Army was Disbanded, he could not think himself more so, when it was either wholly Dissolved, or else was gone over to the Prince; and therefore I have much greater reason to believe, that his return again to Town, was only to comply with the present necessity, and to wait for a fitter opportunity to get away, there being never a Vessel then ready to Transport him; especially if that be true which I have heard, that the King declared to a Person of Credit: That the Queen had obtained from him a Solemn Oath on the Sacrament, on the Sunday, that if she went for France on Monday, he would not fail to follow her on Tuesday; and if this were so, though he was disappointed in his intended passage; yet still was he under the same obligation to the Queen; nor do I see any Transaction of his with the Prince of Orange, or with these of the Church of England, that can persuade me to believe otherwise; sin●e his long Consultation with the French Envoy, and the Priests and Jesuits could only tend to the taking new measures for his Departure, or else how he might Imbroil us further while he stayed, by some faint hopes of new Treaties and Agreements.  
But as for the other part of your Answer, whereby you would confute my Notion, of the lawfulness of Resistance for the defence and preservation of our Religion Established by Law, as also of our Liberties and Properties; I hope I shall let you see, that it is not I, but yourself, who are mistaken in this matter: 
Vi. Sand. de oblige. conscien. pralect. V. v. 11. pralect. VII. §. 4.  For 1st. All Writers on this Subject, and even Dr. Sanderson himself, in his Lectures of the Obligation of Conscience, do acknowledge that all Civil Government is principally ordained for the good and preservation of the People; and that the good of the Governors, is only to be considered, secondarily; and in order to that; which if so; I pray tell me whether the good and preservation of the people, ought not to be considered in the first place; since the end for which a thing is ordained, is always more worthy than the means, by which it is procured; and therefore I shall freely grant, that as long as the safety, and interest of the Supreme Power, and that of the People are all one, and can any ways consist together; and that they make the happiness and preservation of the People to be the main end of their Government; I so far agree with you, that the good, or preservation of the Prince or Supreme Powers, cannot, (nay ought not) to be separated from that of the People; but when they once set up a separate interest quite different from that of the People; (as all Princes do, who turning Tyrants go about to enslave them) they then cease to be the true heads of that Political Body the Common Wealth, and thereupon the Community or People become free, and at liberty, either to oppose or remove these Artificial heads, and to set up new ones in their rooms; so that since similes are not Arguments, your comparison between a Natural and Political Body, hath only served to impose upon your Judgement in this matter; and therefore I affirm that a Natural and Political Body do wholly differ in this matter; for in a Natural Body, the real good of the head cannot be separated from that of the Body, nor the good of the Body from that of the Head, nor yet can the Body alone Judge of the proper means of its own preservation, nor when it is hurt or assaulted, but by the head, which is the principle of sense and motion; but in a Political Body it is quite otherwise; for first, the Supreme Powers of a Commonwealth, which you suppose to be Head of this Political Body, do often pursue and set up an interest quite different from, (nay contrary to) that of the Body or People, and that not only to their prejudice, but also sometimes to their destruction; and that when they do this, the Politcal Body, or the People will in evident and apparent cases Judge for themselves, let this Political Head say or declare what it will against it, and will when they are thus destroyed, oppressed, and enslaved, by those that they have submitted to as their Political Heads, and in such cases of extremity, endeavour to free themselves from the severity of their Yoke.  M. 
Notwithstanding what you have now said, I am not yet convinced, that the King had no real design to redress our grievances, and to make a final agreement with the Prince; for though I do not deny but his Majesty did converse with some Priests, and others of his own persuasion, as also with the French Envoy after his coming to Town, yet might this be for no ill intent, and he did also converse with divers reverend Bishops and Lords of our own Religion, to whom he still expressed a great desire of making an end of all differences between himself, the Prince, and the whole Nation; and this I suppose is the true reason why the Archbishop of Canterbury, though it is true he signed the first and second Addresses to the Prince, upon his Majesty's first wth-drawing himself, yet has been ever since so sensible of that mistake he then committed, that he has never appeared or acted in any meeting of the Peers, nor yet in the Convention; and that his Majesty, even at Rochester, did not lay aside all thoughts of Agreement, and making up all breaches between himself and his People; I could give you another demonstration, which is not commonly known, and which I had from a particular Friend, (viz.) that the King during his confinement there, sent a Lady I could name, on a message to two reverend Prelates of our Church, (together with an Emerald Ring from his Finger, as a Testimony of the Truth of her Commission) to this effect, That his Majesty being sensible of the sad condition the Church of England as well as he himself was in, and that there was no way so likely for him to get out of it, as by granting his Subjects, and particularly the Church of England, such securities for the enjoyment of their just Rights and Liberties, as they could in reason demand; therefore he wholly left it to the discretion of those Bishops, to make to the Peers and Bishops that were then to meet suddenly, whatever proposals they should think reasonable 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 whensoever he should be required.  F. 
This is indeed more than ever I heard before, and can scarce believe; but did the Lady go and deliver her message? And pray what answer did those Bishop give to this fair proposal?  M. 
Yes, the Lady did deliver her message, and these Bishops answered both to the same effect, that they had a real duty and affection for his Majesty, and a great desire to serve him; but that considering the great Power of the Prince of Orange, and his present aversion to any agreement with his Majesty, they very much feared that the Peers would not venture to give the Prince any such advice, or to interpose with him on his Majesty's behalf, which in my opinion was very meanly, and cowardly done of them; who considering their duty to him as King, and also those particular obligations they owed him as their Benefactor, and who had been the greatest means of their being raised to those dignities in his Brother's Reign; now I desire to know if this message had received its intended effect, what greater demonstration his Majesty could have given to satisfy the World that he really intended to set all things right again, had he been permitted to do it.  F. 
I will not farther question the Truth of this Relation, though perhaps I might have sufficient reason for it, since you say you had it from a person of good credit, and who was privy to this transaction; nor yet will I be so inquisitive as to know the names either of the Bishops, or of the Lady, since you make it a secret; but yet notwithstanding, I do still very much question, whether the King did ever really design to do what he then offered, and did not intend to put a shame upon their Lordships, to serve his present occasion, and to see if he could divide the Bishops and Peers of the Church of England, from the Prince of Orange's Interest: and so by making them offer such Proposals as the Prince should not think fit to agree to, might make them declare against his proceedings, which would have created great divisions, and heart-burnings between those of the high Church of England party, and the Prince: and thereby have involved us again in fresh disturbances, of which no doubt the King and the Popish Faction were like to receive the greatest advantage; for you know the old saying, divide, & impera.  
But to let you see that I do not speak without just grounds for my opinion, let us examine every circumstance of this matter; first, if the King had meant really, is it likely that he would have trusted a business of that high moment to a Woman? When he had then the Lords of Alesbury and Arron, besides other Protestant Gentlemen then waiting on him, and they were much fitter to be trusted than this Lady, let her be whom she will? Or can any one believe if the King had meant really, that he would not have sent his Proposals in Writing, since he very well knew from the Prince's Declaration, as well as the Bishop's Petition and Addresses to him, what the whole Nation, and the Church of England in particular required, at his hands: But that he must send a loose and uncertain Message, which it was in his power to disown whenever he pleased, by saying, the foolish Woman mistook his meaning; and she also might be so much his Creature, as to take the fault wholly upon herself, whenever it should serve the Kings turn so to do; and therefore I think it was very wisely and honestly done of those reverend Prelets to refuse meddling in such a ticklish affair, since it is plain by his not making any such proposals to the Prince of Orange himself, or the Lords about him, that he was not to be made privy to it, but rather it should be carried on, whether he would or no, and without giving him any satisfaction in his particular concern as to the Prince of Wales: and lastly, I desire you farther to consider, whether the King might not hereafter, when ever he had power, have made void whatever agreements or concessions he should have then granted either to the Church of England, or to the Nation, by pleading afterwards, that they were obtained by decrees whilst he was not sui juris, but under the Power of the Prince of Orange?  
I have but one thing more to add, which I before omitted, which is to make some reply to what you said concerning the mischief that the Mob has done upon Houses, Forests, and Praks, since his Majesty's first departure; and therefore granting the matter of Fact, that much mischief and spoil has been committed; yet I deny that it is more than has been done by the most Arbitrary Kings, since the Conquest to this day, as you are pleased to affirm; for I believe you forget the Thirty Parish Churches, and Towns, which our Historian tell us, your William the Conqueror, and his Son Ru●us destroyed, when they enlarged new Forests, and therein acted contrary to their Oaths, like true despotic Tyrants; you likewise forget the miserable spoil and waste which King john and Henry the III. made upon the Houses, Castles and Estates of the Barons, and Gentry of England, who opposed them in their unjust and illegal violations of Magna Charta, besides other Tyrannical actions of the same kind committed by King Edward and Richard the II. too long here to relate; but if these mischiefs were done you speak of, who have we to thank for it, but the King, who stealing away on the sudden, without leaving any orders for the Government of the Kingdom; all persons in Commission either Civil or Military, doubted whether their Commissions were no● at an end by the Kings deserting the Government as he did? besides, you very well know that the Common People were so enraged against the Popish Faction, for so many insolent actions they had committed in King James' Reign, and so many apparent breaches, and contempts of all the Laws made against them, that you cannot wonder if when they were rid of the fear of the Irish, and of King James' Army, they kept their Arms in their hands, and took that opportunity of revenging themselves upon those, that they looked upon as the Authors of all this confusion; so that except the rifling of the House and Chapel of the Spanish Ambassador, which I grant was contrary to the Law of Nations, there were very few Popish Houses plundered or spoiled; but such as had before rendered themselves some ways or other obnoxious to the Laws, by their Apostasy and accepting of Commissions, which they were utterly disabled by Law, to take; and though to my knowledge the Deputy Lieutenants, and Justices of the Peace, did their utmost in most Counties of England, to quell those Riots and Disorders, yet the Mobbile were too much enraged, and too numerous to be commanded, when like a vicious Horse, whose Rider is cast off, they run away with the Bridle in their Teeth.  M. 
I confess you have made the best Apology for the Mob that the matter will bear; and I cannot deny in comparison of what has been done in other Nations on the like occasions; it was a very civil Mob, but yet this may serve to let us see the danger of your doctrine of Resistance, since by the same Law by, which they then pulled down, and plundered the Popish Chapels, and Roman Catholic Houses, by the like right they might have done the same violences upon any other Noblemen or Gentleman's House in England, whether a Papist or Protestant, that they had a spleen to, since it was but their crying out, that he was a Papist, or at least a favourer of them, and then it had been enough to make them suffer, as if they really had been so; as I could tell you of my own knowledge, of a very honest Gentleman of my acquaintance, who because he was a true Son of the Church, and had been always a Loyal Subject to his Majesty, and a great Enemy to the Whig Faction in the Country, and had also put the Laws severely in execution against the Dissenters, was like to have had his House plundered by the Fanatic Mob of a certain Town, from which this Gentleman's House was not far distant.  F. 
If you please to consider it, this is a very unjust inference from our Doctrine; for these actions were not any resistance of the Supreme Powers of the Nation, but certain violent actions or revenges, which the Rabble thought they might take upon those whom they looked upon as public Enemies, when there was no civil or military Power in being, that was of sufficient strength to keep them in order; but if you please to call to mind my positions; I do by no means allow the Rabble or Mob of any Nation to take Arms against a Civil Government, but only the whole Community of the People of all Degrees and Orders, commanded by the Nobility and Gentry thereof: and though I grant the People may be sometimes mistaken in the exercise of this Right (as what is there, though never so lawful, that may not be abused,) yet I think you will grant that the bare abuse of a lawful thing, is no sufficient ground for the taking away the liberty of exercising it; and I think I have sufficiently proved, that the total denial of this Liberty, would be of far worse consequence to whole Nations and Kingdoms, nay to all mankind, than the allowing of it, (as those of my opinion do) only in cases of Extreme necessity, and when no other remedy will serve.  M. 
I will not renew this old dispute again, about Resistance, we sufficiently know one another's minds about it, and are not, as I can see, like to bring over either of us to the others opinion; but since I know you have studied the Common Laws, and Histories of this Kingdom better than I, I cannot forbear making divers just reflections upon the late proceedings of the Convention; for tho' indeed they had no Legal Authority to assemble upon the circular Letters of a Foreign Prince, yet since this was the greatest (if not the only liberty we had left us) I will not quarrel or dispute the legality of their meeting, but then they must use it only for lawful ends, and such as in their private capacities they were obliged to pursue if they were able; therefore when they assembled, if they would have maintained the due Rights of Monarchy and Succession in this Kingdom, sure they ought in the first place, to have inquired what was become of the King, where he was, and who forced him to go away? and when they had known that, they ought then to have joined in Addressing to the Prince, that since he had declared that he came not to Conquer this Nation, but only to free it from Arbitrary Government, and restore it to its just Laws, that there could be no sure enjoyment of these without the King, therefore he would join with them in sending to him, to desire him to return to the Government of these Kingdoms, and to Govern them according to Law; but instead of this they not only neglected taking any notice of the King, as if he were not at all in Being, but have also refused to receive those gracious Letters he sent them, in which he promised To amend all former Errors, and to Govern according to Law; which certainly deserved to be taken notice of, since coming from their Lawful Prince, they ought at least to have proposed some terms to him, before they had proceeded to that rash and unparallelled Vote, which I desire I may read to you, word for word, because I intent to examine every clause of it. Resolved,  
That King James the II. having endeavoured to Subvere the Constitution of this Kingdom, by breaking the Original Contract, between King and People; and by the Advice of jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the Fundamental Laws, and having withdrawn himself out of this Kingdom, hath Abdicated the Government, and that the Throne is thereby vacant. I shall make bold to consider each of these Clauses, one alter another; and therefore first pray take notice, that this Vote of the two Houses, cost above a weeks Debate in the House of Lords, which passed in the House of Commons in two or three days; because divers of the Lords, as well Temporal, as Spiritual, did with great Honour, Reason and Resolution, oppose and protested against it to the last; and it was carried at last by a very small Majority: but that we may examine each Clause in this Vote; first, it is here only said, That King James II. endeavoured to Subvert the Constitution of this Kingdom, not that he really did it, which is as much lower, than you are pleased to put it as endeavouring, a thing falls short of actually doing it; and therefore it is very hard to Declare a Prince to have forfeited, or Abdicated his Kingdom, for bare Designing and Endeavouring, since those things that you bring to prove it, may bear a much more favourable Interpretation, especially with Subjects, who are no fit Judges of the private Designs of Princes, which may oftentimes tend to quite other purposes, than what we suppose.  
As for the next Clause, by breaking the Original Contract; I have heard that divers of the Lords and Bishops, who were for the King against this new Invention of an Abdication, put the other side very hard to it, to make out this Original Contract, and desired them to show in what part, either of our Common or Statute Law it was to be found; for they knew no such Maxim in the Common Law, nor no such Clause in any Statute, Aucient or Modern.  
And though I confess, you have undertaken to prove to me, that there is such a thing; yet it has been only by Farfetched Consequences, and from the Old Form of Government among the Saxons, of above 600 years standing; which i● there were any such thing, it is now become so Antiquated, and out of Date, that neither the King himself, nor yet our Lords, Bishops or Judges, except some few Lawyers of your Kidney, ever before now, thought of any such thing. I pass by the next Clause, by the Advice of Jesuits, &c because I cannot say, by whose Advice those things which you call Breaches of the Fundamental Laws were acted; but as for the next, wherein the Violation of these Fundamental Laws is laid to his Charge, I confess you have given me a pretty large Catalogue of these Fundamentals, at our 9th meeting, which yet you cannot say, 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 since the King and Parliament have declared in the first year of King james I▪ that there are such things as Fundamental Laws and Privileges; I will not deny there are none; yet certainly any Breach of them by the King, was never intended to Create a Forfeiture of the Crown; for if it had, I think there would have been but few Kings or Queens of England, which would not have forfeited, who for some one or more of these Breaches committed in their Reigns, by the Advice of their Judges and Councillors, as these were lately by the King; For I suppose, you cannot expect that Princes should see any otherwise in matters of Government, than by other men's Eyes, nor hear, but by other People's Ears: And therefore if the wilful Breach of these Fundamentals, must cause a Forfeiture or Abdication of Government (call it which you please) methinks it had been reasonable for the Parliament to have given a list of these Fundamentals in some one Law, that the King might have been sure to have avoided the Transgressing of them; and fear of losing both his Royal Dignity, and his penalty ought also to have been declared.  
But the next Clause deserves more particular consideration, (viz.) and having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom, hath Abdicated the Government; now I must confess, it is the first time that ever the Kings going away, for fear of losing both his Royal Dignity, and his Life, and that with a declared design and intention, to return again to the exercise of the Government, when ever he might do it with safety, 
D.D. p. 147.  should be judged a wilful Dessertion or Abdication. I am sure, there is nothing in our Common or Statute Laws, that can at all warrant this Notion; for Common Law, is nothing but Ancient usage, and immemorial Custom. Now Custom supposes precedents, and parallel Cases: But it's granted of all Hands, that the Crown of England was never judged to be Abdicated, by the withdrawing of the Prince, before now: And therefore it follows, by undeniable consequence, that this Opinion can have no Foundation in the Common Law; because there is not so much as one ruled Case to prove it by.  
But if we come to those precedents we have in our English History, I shall give you such of them as I can remember: we read in the Reign of Edward the 2d. that when he fled from the Forces of his Wife and Son, who had seized the Kingdom by Force, the King being deserted by his Soldiers and Followers, endeavoured to get into the Isle of Lundy for safety; but not being able to make it, was driven back, and taken in Disguise at the Abbey of Neath in Wales; (as the King was lately at Feversham) now it is certain, that King Edward went away, without appointing any Governor of the Realm in his absence, and if this Notion of an Abdication, had been then taken for Law, the Parliament needed not to have been put their to Shifts, to find out so many other matters for which to depose him. The next is the like case, of King Edward the 4th. who when the Earl of Warwick had Raised a great Army against him on a sudden, and forced him to fly, with a few followers to the Duke of Burgundy his Brother in Law, though Henry the 6th. was again put into the Throne; yet was it not objected against King Edward, that he had lost his Title to it, or that it was become vacant, by his Deserting it; and if these two are not parallel Cases, and do not reach the matter in hand, I desire you to show me, wherein they differ from the present Case of the King.  
But I am come now to the last clause of all, that the Throne is thereby become vacant, which seeming only to refer to the clause of Abdication: I think I have said enough already against that Notion: Therefore we will admit at present, for Discourse sake, that the King had really Abdicated the Government, by Deserting the Kingdom, and thereby wholly lost his Regal Power. Now according to the Fundamental Laws and Customs of this Realm, which is (you know) an Hereditary Monarchy, the eldest Son, or other next Heir, either Male or Female, immediately Succeeds the King his Father, or other Predecessor, and that without any inter-regnum at all, so that the Reign of the Successor, immediately begins from the very moment the Last King or Queen Deceases; this being the settled Law, I cannot see any one step the Convention has made in their whole proceeding that can be justified by the Fundamental Laws of the Land, 
D. D. 149.  or the Laws of Equity and Justice; for Equity has no quirks in it, nor ever lies at a catch. Reason is always just and generous, it never makes men's misfortunes an accusation, nor judges in favour of violence; for indeed what can be more unrighteous (though in the Case of a private person) than that any one should suffer, yet worse for being injured, and be barred his rights for the injuries of others? If a man should forfeit his House to those who set it on Fire, only because he quitted it without giving some formal directions to the Servants; or be obliged to lose his Estate for endeavouring to preserve his life; I believe it would be thought a strange piece of Justice in any Law whatever; and if this be proved illegal, the Title of your Present King and Queen being wholly founded upon the validity of this Vote, will prove so likewise.  F. 
Well, you have made a pretty long discourse in Defence of King James' Actions, as well as his late Desertion, and I have heard you patiently, because I grant you have collected together a great deal of matter in few words; and I think all that can be justly urged in your King's defence; I shall therefore begin with the first false step that you say the Convention made, in not enquiring after the Causes of the King's departure, whither he was gone, and their not voting of an Address to the Prince, to desire his return; as for the first of these, they were not at all obliged to do it, since a great many of the Peers and Bishops, who were then in Town, very well knew the Causes of the King's Departure, and that he either went a way voluntarily, or at least without any other necessity than what he had brought upon himself, by his own evil Government, or the ill Council of others, which may be easily proved by several Circumstances; for it is very well known, that above a formight before the King went away, the Lord D— and Mr. Brent did not stick to declare that it was necessary that the King should withdraw himself; so that it is plain the Popish Faction knew of it long before it was done, and that it proceeded wholly from their advice appears further, by a Letter to the King, when he was at Salisbury, which can be yet produced; he was there told that it was the unanimous advice of all the Catholics at London, that he should come back from thence, and withdraw himself out of the Kingdom, and leave us in confusion, assuring him, that within two years or less, we should be in such confusions, that he might return and have his ends of us. Now if the King was pleased to take such a desperate Counsellors Advice, and thereupon to do all he could to quit the Kingdom, the cause of his going is too evident, as well as his design of returning, to have his ends of us (as they phrase it) that is in plain English, to have both our Religion, Liberties, and Properties wholly at his disposal; nor in the next place needed they inquire where he was, for every one knew he was gone into France, to the greatest Enemy of our Religion and Nation, as well as the Princes; and therefore it had been altogether unsafe and indiscreet for them to have joined in any Address to the Prince for his return; for whilst he was in such hands, what hopes could we have of his returning to us with better (but rather worse) affections towards the Church of England and this Nation, than what he carried with him?  
But you say they refused to receive his Letters▪ for my part I do not know that he ever sent any, at least to the House of Commons. I heard indeed, that one of the King's Ordinary Servants, was at the Door of the House with such a Letter, but that he was so inconsiderable, that no body would receive the Letter, or make any mention of it in the House: and it was very strange, that the King should have never a Friend there, who had so much courage and kindness for him, as would take the Letter and move for the reading of it, though he had run the risk of being committed for his pains; so that the House of Commons is not to be blamed for not receiving a Letter which was never offered them; but as for the House of Lord●, I have been told it was moved to be read there, but it was carried in the Negative, because it was not brought by a person of sufficient quality and credit; and therefore it was the King's fault if he would employ such mean persons in a matter of that great moment, and indeed if we may give credit to those Copies of these Letters which I have seen, they retained rather a Justification of his past actions, than an acknowledgement of those violations he had committed upon our Laws, for as to his promising to Govern by Law, there is nothing in that, for he never yet owned that he Governed otherwise; 'tis true, there is in one of those Letters, an expression of his amending past Errors; but those are general words, and may mean such Errors, as he had committed in the ill management of his Designs, which he would have mended, when ever he was to do the like things again; this may very well be the true Sense of a Letter, it i● very likely written, with the Equivocation of the Jesuits and French advice of a Cabal.  
But you would have him sent for to return upon certain Terms; I wonder you should be so undutiful, as to urge it, since if he is an absolute King, without any Conditions what ever, he ought certainly to be restored, as King Charles, the Second was, without any Terms or Conditions at all; and rather so, than with them, since he cannot give us greater assurances for his keeping them, than he has already broke, unless you can suppose, he would give us the Guarranty of the Pope and the King of France for their performance; the former of whom believes, that there is no Faith to be kept with Heretics; and for the latter, supposing the King and him to pass his word, for the performance of these Conditions, pray consider whether the bond of two Bankrupts, can ever pass for a good Security; and so much for the Letters and Address.  
I come now in the next place, to consider your exceptions against that Fundamental Vote of the House of Commons, concerning King James' Abdication of the Government, and thereupon declaring the Throne Vacant: To begin with your first exception, I think it is a very small one, that because this Vote declares the King to have endeavoured to Subvert the Constitution of this Kingdom; that it was very unjust, to declare him to have Abdicated the Government for a bare endeavour, because we are ignorant of the true ends of the Actions of Princes; to which I answer, that in this Case, a bare endeavour ought to be sufficient; if it be so evident, that there can be no dispute about it; for if he had once actually subverted it, the two Houses could never have met to have made this Vote; and if in the case of Kings, the very bar● design or endeavour to destroy them be sufficient, though it be never reduced into act; I cannot see why by the same rule the endeavours of Kings to destroy the fundamental constitution of a mixed or limited Kingdom should not have the like construction in respect of them; since according to the maxim you but now cited, (and which I have sufficiently justified) that in all such Governments, the safety and preservation of the People (that is, of the Government they have established) is to be preferred before that of the King alone, when acting in a direct opposition thereunto, or otherwise, it would be in the King's Power to destroy the constitution whenever he pleased, since according to your doctrine, the bare endeavouring it would be nothing; and after he had once brought it to pass, it would be then too late to retrieve it.  
But that the King did really endeavour thus to subvert the fundamental constitution, appears not only by his closeting and threatening Members to turn them out of their places, if they would not submit 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 saw this would not do, he then fell a new modelling of Corporations, and by bringing Quo Warrantoes against their Charters, to get it into his own power to nominate, or approve of all Mayors, Aldermen, and Common Council men, who in those Corporations having the sole Elections of Parliament men, he would thereby have had the naming of them also in his power: your next exception is against their declaring him to have broke the Original Contract between the King and the People, for that you are not yet persuaded there was any such thing, because we cannot show it you in any Common Law or Statute Book, written in express words, as for the Statute Law, I grant that there is no such express Contract to be found in any Statute; yet doth it not therefore follow, that there is no such Contract by the Ancient Common Law of the Kingdom. Now that our Fundamental Laws are not all to be found in writing is no wonder; since it is a maxim of our Common Law, that it was not a Law, because it was Written, but it was Written because it was a Law, for it was a Law when it was only in the Breast and Heads of the King and People of this Nation, without any writing at all; and you yourself must grant, that if the Hereditary Succession to the Crown, be a Fundamental Constitution, it is notwithstanding no where to be found in Writings as I know of, but the contrary asserted by divers Acts of Parliament; but that there is such a thing as an Original Contract, I shall prove from such a necessary consequence as I think cannot be denied; for as that Statute of King james. I. sets forth (which I have now cited) and yourself have already acknowledged, there are such things as Fundamental Laws, (that is, Laws that are as ancient as the constitution of the Government) there must have been also an implicit Fundamental Covenant or Contract on the King's part, that he would maintain them, without any violation, and this is that we mean by an Original Contract; and if it were not so, it had been the most foolish and unreasonable thing in the World to require every King to swear before he was Crowned, that he would maintain the Rights of the Church, and the Ancient Laws and Customs of the Kingdom; and that this was Anciently looked upon as a renewal of this Original Contract appears by all our ancient Historians, who till the Reign of King Ed. I. never give the next Heir the Title of King, but of Duke of Normandy, till he was actually Crowned, and had taken his Coronation Oath: and for this I desire you would consult all our ancient Histo●ians since your Conquest, beginning with Ingu●● and Eadmerus, ending with Thom. Walsingham.  
But as for your exception against his violating of the Fundamental Laws is yet more trivial, for you cannot deny that there are such things, and if so, surely a King may violate them, if he pleases; and therefore your excuse for the King's breach of them, because they are not to be found together in any one place, but are to be picked up here and there from Magna Charta, and other Statutes, makes nothing against the validity or the possibility of his knowing them; for as before they were reduced to Writing by those Statutes (which only declare and confirm the Ancient Common Laws, and Liberties of England) they existed (as I said but now) in the Heads and Hearts of the King and People: so when divers Kings of England by their Tyrannical and Illegal practices had made divers violations of these Fundamental Rights and Privileges there then grew a necessity of new granting and confirming those Liberties, and consequently of reducing them into Writing, which there was not before, and that is the true reason why Magna Charta, and other Statutes, made in the time of Henry the III. Ed. the I. and divers others of their Successors were made, either for their explanation, or ratification, according as occasion required; and as several Princes, had more or less violated these fundamental Laws of the Government, for before they had so done, there was no need of the Parliaments making, or declaring any law about it. But if the King would have but read and considered the Articles exhibited in Parliament against Edward and Richard the II. he might easily have seen the Laws altogether, that will make a Prince to be declared by his Subjects to have forfeited his Crown.  
But that King james had before his desertion endeavoured to extirpate the Protestant Religion, the Laws, and Liberties of the Nation, appears by those several Articles, the Convention has given us in their late Declaration, which they presented to King William upon their declaring him and his Princess, K. and Queen of England, to which I shall refer you, since it is commonly to be had; you know it consists in the recital of divers things, the violation of which has been always counted in all Kings Reigns a breach of the Original Contract.  
I come now to the last Clause save one you except against, viz. That having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom, hath Abdicated the Government. Now your main argument against it is, that the King's desertion of the Government being only for fear of his life, or of being deposed from his Royal Dignity, could not by his going away be said to Abdicate, or renounce the Crown, since he went away with an intention to return, and repossess it as soon as with safety he might; to which before I make any answer, I must freely own, that were this the case as you have put it, I think there would be no great dispute in it; since I grant that a King who is thus forced to fly for fear of his life ought not to have any such injustice put upon him; but if you please better to consider it, the case was quite otherwise; for I have already proved that when King james I. went away, he had then an Army about him, was free, and in his own Palace, and was at that time in actual Treaty with the Prince; nor had London, nor any considerable strong place in England then surrendered itself to the Prince; so that if there was any necessity for his departure, but what he had brought upon himself by his refusing to call a Parliament, burning the Writs, and sending away the Queen and Child, together with the main instrument of Government, the Great Seal of England; this must certainly be looked upon as a wilful Forfeiture or Abdication of the Government; and it is from this first going away, that I suppose that the Convention dates his Abdication, since though it is true, after his return to London he took upon him to make an Order in Council to stop the further pulling down and plundering Popish Chapels, and Papists Houses; yet was it signed by very few of the Council, and almost only by those who had been in some Office or Place of Trust; so that though he was then owned by them; yet since that Order did only serve to show his Zeal for the Popish Party, and was never obeyed or taken notice of by those to whom it was directed; and that neither the Prince nor the City of London owned him afterwards; since it had already delivered itself up to the Prince, and had as well as the Peers invited him to repair to that City; I cannot see that so slight an act as this Order of Council, should be counted a return to, or a re-establishment in the Throne; since the King had not only lost the Crown by his wilful departure, without calling a Parliament, or giving the P. any satisfaction in the great business of the pretended Prince of Wales, or the Nation by repairing up those desperate breaches he had made upon our Fundamental Laws, but had also lost his Title to the Crown, by being Conquered by the Prince in open War, as I shall prove more at large another time; so that if you please better to consider this Vote of the Convention, you will find, that these words had Abdicated the Government, do not only refer to the last clause of his having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom, but to everyone of the foregoing Clauses, (viz.) His having endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of this Kingdom; his breaking the Original Contract, and his having violated the Fundamental Laws; so that it is plain their notion of Abdication was not fixed only in the King's Desertion, or bare withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom, but from his renouncing the Legal Title, by which he held the Crown; and setting himself up as a Despotic Sovereign, and ruling by a mercenary Army; and therefore all that you have said about the Kings quitting the Government with a design to return to it again, as soon as with safety he might, is altogether vain; for as he went away, because he would not Govern any longer as a King by Law; so hath he yet given us no satisfaction that he would not return again to Govern otherwise, or rather worse than he did before, had he an opportunity so to do, that is (as the Letter I cited but now, phrases i●) to return, and have his ends of us; so that this being indeed the case, I think I can very well justify the last clause in this Vote, that the Throne was thereby vacant.  M. 
Sir, you have spoke a considerable time, and I doubt more than I can distinctly remember to answer as I should; therefore before you proceed to this last Clause of the Vacancy of the Throne, the dispute about which I foresee may hold longer than upon any of the former; pray give me leave to reply to what you have already said in Justification of all the other parts of this Vote; in the first place I will not deny, but that if the King had once got the power of making what Mayors, Aldermen, and other Officers in Corporations at his pleasure, it would have gone a great way towards the making the Majority of the Parliament-men; nay, I likewise grant that by his dispensing Power, he might have made what Papists or other person he pleased Sheriffs in any County, who would have made such return of Knights of Shires as he should have thought fit: yet I suppose this would not have been to the subversion of the Constitution of the Kingdom, which I think I have proved to consist originally in the K. alone, before any great Councils or Parliaments were instituted.  
And as for those violations of the Fundamental Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom, the Declaration instances in; I think several of them may very well be justified by ancient Precedents, and add judged cases in Law; and therefore were so far from being violations, that they are no more than the Kings exercising of his due Prerogative; and though at our ninth meeting, I had not time so well to consider these matters, as also because I was not then prepared to defend the King's Proceedings; I shall therefore make bold to examine the most considerable of those Articles, which the Late Declaration supposes did so highly tend to subvert the Protestant Religion, and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom. I shall begin with the first, (viz.) His assuming and exercising a power of Dispensing with, and Suspending of Laws, and the Execution of Laws, without consent of Parliament; which Power, let me tell you by the way, was not asserted to Dispense with all Laws or Statutes whatsoever, but only such as the Subject has no particular cause of action in; and where the damage that may arise by it doth not concerns, the public safety of which the K. is sole Judge, and not any particular man's interest. I suppose you cannot but have read, that learned and short account of the Authorities in Law, upon which Judgement was given in Sir Edw. Hales his Case written by Sir Edward Herbert, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, in vindication of himself, wherein I think he proves beyond any possibility of a just answer, that the dispensation granted to Sir Edward Hales to receive a commission, 
P. 6, 7.  and act as a Colonel of Foot was good, notwithstanding his not having received the Sacrament, and taken the Oaths and Test, 
Chap. 2.  appointed by the Act of the Statute of the 25 of Charles II. where he first proves from my L. Cock's Authority, that it belongs to the King's Prerogative to Dispense with all Positive, or Penal Laws; the penalty thereof is only popular and given to the King; and to show you that my Lord Cook (who was never counted any great friend to the King's Prerogative) was not single in this opinion; 
Fol. 11, 12.  he gives you also the authority of the year Book of Henry the VII. where it was owned by all the Judges, That the King can Dispense with all things which are only Mala Prohibita, and not Mala ●n see, though expressly forbid by Act of Parliament, for though (says the Year Book) before the Statute, Coining of Money was Lawful, but now it is not so, yet the King can Dispense with it; so that, say I, if he can dispense with that which is now made Treason by Eà. the III. he may certainly dispense with all other Penal Statutes of a less nature.  
But because I grant there is some difference between Common Penal Laws, which barely prohibit the doing of some things, under a penalty; and this Act, in which there is also an express Clause of Nonobstante, that all Licences or Dispensations contrary to this Act, are declared absolutely void, yet the said Lord Chief Justice likewise proves, that this Clause of Nonobstante is void, and he makes this out not only from constant practice in other Statutes of like nature, but also from the opinions of Plowden, and the said Lord Cook; 
Chap. 8.  first as to the Statutes, there is a Statute of the 23. of Henry the VI that no man shall be Sheriff for above a year. 2. That all Letters Patents, made for Years or Lives shall be void, 3. That no Nonobstante shall make them good, (which shows that the Parliament thought the King could otherwise have dispensed with this act by a Non obstante) there is likewise in this Act a Penalty of 200 l. and the party is also disabled from bearing the Office of Sheriff in any County of England; and also every Pardon for such Offence shall be void; so that in all respects this Statute answers that of King Charles the II. now in dispute, only in this the Penalty to the Prosecutor is higher, viz. 500 l. and the disability is not only from holding that Office, but any other whatsoever for the future.  
And yet it was resolved by all the Judges of England in the second of Henry the VII. in the Exchequer Chamber, 
VI The Year Book. 2. H. 7. T. M.  upon the King's Power of Dispensing with this Statute of the 23. of Henry the VI that the King's Dispensation with that Statute was good: and so it hath been held ever since, for it is very well known that the King hath not only exercised this Prerogative of Dispensing with this Statute, for divers Sheriffs holding more than a year, but hath also granted this Office for Life, a● appears by the same case cited by Plowden (in his Commentaries) between Grendon, 
P. 502.  and the Bishop of Lincoln, where he expressly says, That notwithstanding this Statute of Henry the VI the Kings Grant to the Earl of Northumberland, to be Sheriff during Life, aught to have a Clause of Nonobstante, because of the precise words of the Statute before mentioned: and with such a Clause of Nonobstante the Patent to the Earl was good.  
But yet my Lord Cook is more express in his opinion concerning these Dispensations, 
Pag. 18.  for in his twelfth Report he has these words; No act can bind the King from any Prerogative, which is sole and inseparable to his Person, but that he may Dispense with it by a Nonobstante, as a Sovereign Power to command any of his Subjects to serve him for the public Weal; and this solely and inseparably is annexed to his person; and this Royal Power cannot be restrained by any Act of Parliament, neither in These, nor in Hypothesi, but that the King by his Royal Prerogative may Dispense with it; for upon the commandment of the King, and obedience of the Subject does his Government consist; and therefore for this reason he allows this Judgement of all the Justices in England, in the second of Henry the VII. to have been according to Law, that Judged the King's Dispensation with this Statute of Henry the VI to be good; and he also instances in another Statute, 
Chap. 31.  in the fourth of Henry IV. in which it is ordained, That no Welshman should be Justice, Chamberlain, etc. nor any other Officer whatsoever, in any part of Walts, notwithstanding any Patent made to the contrary, with Clause of Nonobstante licet sit Wallicus natus, and yet without question the King may grant those now Offices to Welshmen with a Non obstante, and the said Lord Cook in Calvin's case tells us, 
Rep. 7. P. 14.  That the same was resolved by all the Judges of England, (viz. in 2. of Hen. VII.) that every Subject is by his natural Allegiance bound to serve and obey his sovereign, etc. and he then proceeds to recite the Statute of the 23. of Henry the VI and the opinion of the Judges above mentioned, and gives us this reason for it, for that the act could not bar the King of the service of his Subject which the Law of Nature did give unto him; This is there reported as the sense of all the Judges of England in King james his time; and therefore since this has been ever the opinion of the Judges, and a constant Prerogative exercised by the King ever since; I desire you would show me any difference why the King's Dispensation to a Sheriff should be good for the holding of his Office for above a year, norwithstanding the Statute of Henry the VI and yet a Dispensation for the taking or holding any Office or Command Civil or Military, without taking the Oaths and Tests, appointed by the 25. of Charles the II. should be declared a breach of our Fundamental Laws; for I can see no manner of difference between them; since their preambles set forth the designs of the Law, much to the same purpose, (viz.) That of making the Statute of Henry the VI is the insupportable damage of the King and his People, Perjury, Manslaughter, and great Oppression; and in the Statute of King Charles the II. the mischiefs recited are of a much less nature, (viz.) for preventing dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants, and quieting the minds of his Majesty's good Subjects. So that the Subject of neither of these Acts being Mala in se, but only Mala prohibita, if the King might Dispense with the one, he may certainly do as much with the other for the same reasons.  
Therefore if this be so, I need not say much against the second Article in the Declaration of the Convention against the King's proceedings, (viz.) His committing and prosecuting divers worthy Prelates, for humbly Petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed Power; for if by the opinion of all or most part of the then Judges, the King's Power of Dispensing with this Statute of King Charles the II. was good, it was certainly much more lawful in Dispensing with all other Statutes against Papists and Non-conformists, since they are no more than bire Penal Statutes, without any Clauses of Nonobstante; and though I grant that King Charles' Declaration giving a Toleration to Papists and Dissenters, by Dispensing with all the Acts against Masses and Conventicles were declared Illegal by the House of Commons, in the year 1672. and that the King, to get a good lump of Money, did recall that Declaration, yet was it never declared by him to be Illegal; only that it should not be drawn into consequence for the future; and you know an Address or Declaration of the House of Commons alone, was never looked upon as a Declaration of Parliament; and the opinion of the Judges hath ever been, that no Statute or Judgement of Parliament can bar the King of his Lawful Prerogatives, (of which this of Dispensing with such Penal Laws is one) so that it was certainly very undutifully done of the Bishops not only to deny distributing his Majesty's Late Declaration for Liberty of Conscience in their several Dioceses, but also to have the confidence to give him a Petition, wherein they desired him not to insist upon the distribution and reading of it, because it was against Law; though admit it were, being no way contrary to the Law of God, they ought to have obeyed it, since their bare distributing of it had not rendered it the more Lawful; so that it being a great misdemeanour in these Bishops to deliver this Petition; their Commitment and Prosecution at Law for the same was also Legal, and what the Privy Council told his Majesty he might well justify; so that if the King was too severe in this matter, they were to bear the blame, and not he.  F. 
I cannot deny but you have given a just account of the main Arguments made use of by the late Lord Chief Justice Merbert in defence of the King's dispensing Power, and of giving his own opinion for it; but I think notwithstanding all that Gentleman has Written in defence of it, that the King's Declaration of Indulgence, and his Dispensation grounded thereupon, to be both of them void and contrary to Law; and for proof of this I shall first give you the opinion both of those Divines and Civilians, 
I.E.C. p. 33. L. 6. C. 14.  concerning this matter, as first Sware● in his learned Book de Legibus, saith, That he hath the Power of Dispensing, qui legem tulit, 
Disp. 1, 2. c. 2.  quia ab ijus volontate & potentia pendat; but Vasques another Learned Spanish Casuist holds, that no Prince whatever hath a Power to Dispense with his Laws according to his pleasure, or because that they are his Laws; nay, he also denies such an unlawful Dispensation to be valid; 
De aequit. Ind. c. 2. De jure Nat. & Gentium. l. 1. c. 6.  but to come to those of your own faculty, H. Grotiu● saith expressly, Dispensare, hoc est, lege solvere, le solus potest qui serendae abrogand●●que legis potestatem habet. Pusendors affirms, That none can Dispense with a Law, but such as have the Power of making it; and the very reason of the thing sufficiently shows it, for to dispense is to take away the Obligation of the Law in respect of them to whom it is granted, and whoever takes it away, must have the power of laying it on; and there is no difference between the dispensation of a Law, and the Abrogation of it; but that a dispensation is an abrogation of it to particular persons, while others are under the force of it; and an abrogation is a general dispensation, that being no more than a relaxation of the whole Law to those persons who were bound by it before; therefore if the King have not the whole legislative power of this Kingdom (as I think I have already proved he has not) he neither can have the sole power of dispensing with Laws.  
But to answer your main argument, that the constant practice hath been otherwise for the space of above 200 years, and that confirmed by the Judgement and Opinions of all the Judges and most considerable Lawyers in England ever since that time; to answer this I say, it is necessary, that I give you a short History of this Dispensing Power, and the Original of Dispensations, with Non obstantes, which are so far from being as old as your Conquest, that the first news we hear of them, is from Mat. Paris, who expressly tells us, 
O. E. I. p. 66. & dein. Vi. Mat. Par. P. 810, 811. Ibid. P. 817, 818. P. 854. P. 875.  they were first introduced by the Pope, and were afterwards inserted into the King's Patents and Protections, in imitation of them by King Henry III. so they were never made use of by any of our Kings to ellude Acts of Parliament, till after the Statute of Mortmain, which was made in the seventh of Edward I. which first attempt, must needs be Illegal, because contrary to Magna Charta, ch. 36. which is the first Law which prohibits Alienations in Mortmain, and was not only sworn to when enacted, but is also confirmed by many after Acts of Parliament, and ordered to be observed in all points, insomuch that when the Clergy petitioned King Edward I. for a relaxation of this Statute of Mortmain, his answer was, that he could not do it, because it was Enacted, Communi Consilio Magnatum suorum, 
Hen. Knighton, p. 2502. In Dec. Scrip.  & sine eorum consilio non erat revocandum; and I grant that such was the misguided devotion of those times, that such Non-obstantes were often obtained, as appears by the Patent and Charter Rolls in the Tower, from the eighth of Edward the I. downwards, abounding with special Licenses to purchase and hold Lands, etc. Statuto de terris & tenementis in manum mortuum non ponendis non Obstante. And yet were not these Licenses accounted Legal, or the Clergy safe in purchasing such Lands, Rents, Advowsons', &c. by virtue of them, till it was enacted and Ordained in Parliament, 
Chap. 3.  in the eighth of Ed. III. to this effect, That if Prelates or other Religious People have purchased Lands, and the same have put to Mortmain, and be Impeached upon the same before our Justices, and they show our Charter of Licence, and Process thereupon, by an Inquest of ad quod damnum, or of our Grace, or by Fine, they shall be freely lest in peace, without being further Impeached for the same purchase, etc. But Non-obstantes with the Statute of Mortmain having been introduced, as aforesaid, tho' undeniably Illegal at first, and gaining afterwards a countenance from this Act of Parliament, have I suppose given occasion to the dispensing with other Acts of Parliament also, tho' at first they were very rare, and seldom occur in the old Books, but are more frequent in the new; and that our Judges and Courts of Justice have invented little distinctions betwixt malum in se, and malum prohibitum, betwixt Laws made pro bono publico, and Laws of more private regard; betwixt Laws in which the King's Profit and Interest is concerned only, and Laws in which the Subjects have an interest, and are entitled to an action, as the party grieved; yet the cases that have hitherto come before them judicially, have been questions upon Dispensations granted to particular persons, to exempt them pro hic & nunc, from incurring the penalty of such and such a Law; but a Dispensation and Suspension of so many Laws at a lump (as the late Declaration of Indulgence did take upon it to do) has been so far from receiving any countenance from Courts of Justice hitherto, that it has always been a fatal Objection against any particular Dispensation of it; it was such as consequently eluded and frustrated the whole Law, for that such a Dispensation is in effect a repeal of the Law itself. And therefore in that great Case of Thomas and Sorrel, in the Lord Vaughan's Reports, where Dispensations with Penal Statutes are in some Cases allowed: yet it was then agreed by all the Judges, that the King had no power to Suspend a Law.  
But to let you see how jealous the Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons have ever been of trusting the King with an unlimited power of Dispensing with Penal Statutes, with Non-obstantes appears also by several other Laws of great moment, and in particular from the Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire; and I could show you from divers Records of Parliament, in the Reign of Richard II. Henry IV. and Henry V. that they never intruded the Crown with an absolute power of Dispensing with those Statutes but only for a time, as till the next Parliament or longer, as they thought fit. But since I have not now so much time to give you so many Precedents at length, I shall only tell you, that as to the main instance you rely upon, (viz.) the Kings Dispensing with the Statute of Sheriffs, that at first it was not taken for Law appears by several Acts of Parliament, as in 28. of Henry the VI whereby those Sheriffs that had held their Offices for more than a year are pardoned; likewise in the Act of Edw. IU. there is a like Statute pardoning those Sheriffs, Who by reason of the late troubles in the Realm, had held for above a year, yet nevertheless confirms all former acts concerning Sheriffs for the time to come; and this held as far as the sixth of Henry VIII. which is long after the Judgement you mention in the Exchequer. Chamber, of all the Justices in England to the contrary; for there was then an Act made, which reciting all the former Statutes about Sheriffs as then in full force; it Enacts that the Sheriffs, and under Sheriffs of the City of Bristol may continue to occupy their Offices; in like manner as the under Sheriffs and other Sheriff's Officers in London do, without any Penalty or Forfeiture for the same, the said Acts or any other Acts to the contrary notwithstanding. From all which Statutes I think it sufficiently appears, that neither the Sheriffs of those times, nor the City of Bristol, nor the whole Parliament when that Act was made, did believe the King had Power to Dispense with the Act of the 25▪ of Henry the VI concerning Sheriffs, for if they had, certainly it had been much easier and cheaper for them to have obtained the King's Dispensation, than to have got an Act of Parliament for it.  M. 
I believe you may have cited these Statutes right enough, but yet I think they are not sufficient proof against so solemn an Opinion, as that of all the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber 2 d of Henry the 7 th'. and whatever the Parliament might have declared in the Case of this, or that Particular Statute, I confess carries some Authority with it, yet ought it not to be countervaled by so solemn a Judgement as that of all the Judges and Lawyers of England, together with the King's constant Exercise of this Prerogative, not only since, but before that time, and that without any question or dispute with the Parliament about it, as in the Case I have already put of the Statute that forbids any Welshman, being an Officer in Wales; to which I may add divers other Cases of like nature; such as the Statute against a Judges going the Circuit in his own Country; as also those Statutes that prohibit the King from granting Pardons to Persons convict, nay, condemned for Murder, with several other Penal Statutes I could name, were, though the King's hands are tied up by particular Clauses of Nonobstante, yet has His Majesty, and his Predecessors at all times exercised their Prerogative of dispensing in all those Cases, notwithstanding those Acts of Parliament, with Non-obstantes to the contrary: And though I grant you have given me several Precedents of the Parliaments sometimes restraining the King in this Exercise of the Dispensing Power, yet they are all, or the greatest part of them, before the beginning of Henry the VIIth's Reign, when I grant the Law first began to be settled in this matter; and since the Judgement of all the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber, is the only Rule of Law we can have in the Intervals of Parliament; and that this case of Dispensations being by them adjudged, and ever since settled and owned for Law, without the least dispute, I can see no reason we have to question it now.  
But as for the Statute of the 6 th' of Henry the VIII., which you urge as a Precedent to the contrary, since the Reign of Henry the VII. I think it will not reach the Point in question; for the Act you now cited, seems to me no more than a private Act for the Sheriffs of Brestol alone, who being it seems afraid to rely upon the King's Dispensations, because they thought them too chargeable to be taken out as often as they should have need of them, did think it a great deal less charge and trouble to pass an Act of Parliament to indemnify themselves; which I grant, put that matter beyond all dispute: But since this Act of Henry the VIII. I find no contest between the Parliament and the King about his Power of dispensing with Penal Laws, till the Reign of King Charles the II. when I grant the House of Commons did address to His Majesty, That Penal Statutes in matters Ecclesiastical, cannot be suspended but by Act of Parliament; as also the last Address of the House of Commons in 1685. against the King's dispensing with the Officers of the Army, their holding Employments without taking the Oaths and Test according to the Act, whereby they were appointed: But these being only against the King's Power of dispensing with Laws Ecclesiastical, as concerning Liberty of Conscience, can no ways be extended to their excepting against the King's Power of dispensing with divers other Penal Laws (I will not say all) which have Non obstantes in them.  F. 
Since I see not only your Opinion, but also that of most of the Judges and Lawyers of England, concerning this matter of the King's Dispensations with Penal Laws has been chiefly (if not only) founded upon that Opinion of all the Judges in King Henry VII. i'm, give me leave to examine the validity of that Judgement; for if that can be proved not to have been according to Law, or el●e never given at all, I suppose you must grant that my Lord Coke, and all others who have founded their Opinions upon this adjudged Cause of Hen. the VII. were mistaken.  
Now pray give me leave to argue a little with you in point of Reason; 
I. E. C. p. 43.  If a Non obstante from the King, be good, when by Act of Parliament, a Nonobstante is declared void, what doth an Act of Parliament signify in such a case? must we say it is a void Clause? But then to what purpose was it put in? Did the Lords and Commons, who drew this Act of the 23 d of Henry the VI as also those Acts concerning Sheriffs understand this Clause of Nonobstante to be void when they put it in? If it were so, and contrary to the King's Prerogative, why did the King pass this Act without any refusal or protestation against it? certainly it was then thought otherwise; and if so, we have the Authority of the two Houses of Parliament against the Opinion of the Judges. But if it were not a void Clause then, how came it to be so afterwards? pray say what alteration has been made in the Laws of England by Act of Parliament, as to this point, since the time that these Acts have been made; for if not, how comes a clause that had force in 23 Henry VI to have none in a Henry VII. could the Twelve Judges in the Exchequer Chamber, by giving their Opinions, destroy the force of an Act of Parliament?  M. 
I do not say they can, only I affirm with my Lord Coke, and all the Judges, That no Act can bind the King from any Prerogative which is inseparable from his Royal Person; but he may dispense with it by a new Obstante, as a Sovereign power to command any of his Subjects to serve him for the publick-weal. Nor can this Royal Power be restrained by any Act of Parliament: And upon this ground it is, that my Lord Coke in the 12th Report (from whence I have taken this Conclusion) maintains that such Dispensations made by Sheriffs, are good; and upon the same ground, the Dispensation lately granted by the King to Sir Edward Hales, and all other Popish Officers and Ministers, as well Civil as Military must be also good.  F. 
But admit I show you that there was never any such Judgement in the Exchequer Chamber, in the 2 of Henry the VII. as my Lord Coke, and late Lord Chief-Justice Herbert supposes, will it not then follow, that all their Arguments that are wholly founded upon this Statute will fall to the ground?  M. 
Yes, indeed that will be something; but how will you prove that? can you believe so many learned Judges should be mistaken in this matter, and those of your opinion only should make this discovery?  F. 
I do not desire you should believe me, but your own eyes; and therefore look upon the Year Book itself; here you see that it is indeed so far true, 
Vi. 2 H. VII. Ter. M. Case 20. fol. 66.  that all the Justices were of opinion, that the Grant of the Sheriffdom of the County of Northumberland to the E. of that County for Life was good, but do not tell us all the reasons whereon their judgement was grounded, though it seems to have been because the Sheriffdom of that County had been commonly granted for life, before this Statute of Henry the VI was made; as appears by these Words in the Year Book judgement; for it is such a thing as may be well granted for Term of Life, or Inheritance, as divers Counties have Sheriffs by Inheritance, which began by the King's Grant; then was shown a Resumption, (I suppose it meant an Act of Resumption of the Sheriffalty,) as appears by the following Words; and then was shown a Proviso for it: Count. de N. and if so, the King had a right to grant it only for Life again: but none save Radcliff (one of the Barons of the Exchequer) citys the Statutes of the 28 th'. and 42 d. of Edw. the III. against Sheriffs holding for above a year, but doth not cite this Statute of the 23 d of Hen. the VI at all; nor doth he, or any other of the Judges, nor the Court ground their Opinion upon any Non-obstantes expressed in the said Acts; for if you please to consult them, you will find there is no Clause of Non obstante in any of them, before the 23 d of Henry the VI which is not at all mentioned here; therefore I wonder how Fitz Herbert in his Abridgement comes to vary so far from the Year Book, from whence he must have took it, as to make the Judgement to have been grounded upon the Non obstante in that Statute of Henry VI for none but Radcliff speaks any thing of the Patents being good with a Nonobstante to those Statutes; and the Court in all the rest of the Case, agree the Patent to be good, by reason of the said Proviso in an Act of Resumption, and then fall into debates concerning the other point, how this Patent was to be understood.  M. 
I must confess if this be so as it seems to be, prima fancy, I wonder my Lord Coke, and other Learned Lawyers have laid so great a stress upon, and drawn so many Arguments from this Judgement of the Judges; though I must needs also tell you, that though only Radcliff insists upon the Nonobstante; yet since the rest of the Judges did not contradict him, it seems to me that they all concurred with him; since according to the Proverb; Silence often gives consent.  
But this much I suppose you cannot deny, but that ever since Henry VIII. time at least, Sheriffs have been frequently continued for above a year, and the Judges have been also dispensed with to go the Circuit in their own County; and Welshmen have been commonly made Judges and other Officers in Wales, by virtue of the King's Dispensations, notwithstanding the particular Clauses of Nonobstante, in the Statutes of Richard the II. Henry the IV. and Hen. the VI by which they are expressly prohibited.  F. 
I do not deny what you have now said, as to matter of Fact; only let me tell you I conceive, that the Reason why the King has taken upon him to dispense with those Statutes you mention; was because that the Causes for which they were first made, have long since ceased: For when those Statutes against 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 going their Circuits in their own Counties, where they had great Interest and Acquaintance) to have too much awed the Common-juries; and the other, (by their great Estates and Commands in the Country) to have made partial returns of Jurys, and also by their long continuance in their Office, to have learned a trade of oppressing the people; so when by the stop that was put to those Abuses, by these Statutes (you have mentioned) there was no need of a strict observation of these Laws; and also when after the Civil Wars between York and Lancaster, and all things became settled under King Henry the VII. (who was of a Welc●● Family, there was then no more need of observing the Statute of Henry the IV. against welshmen's beating Offices, especially after the Stat. of the 27th of Henry the VIII. when Wal●s became incorporated with England, and had by that Statute a right conferred upon it, of sending Members to Parliament, though the Parliament might not think fit, or at least forgot to repeal them; and yet finding that the Kingdom received no prejudice, but rather benefit by such Dispensations; and not caring to quarrel with their Kings, for sometimes using a Prerogative by which they were rather benefited, than grieved; those Dispensations have ever since passed, without any complaint in Parliament, which would certainly have been before this time, had they sound the same Grievances and Reasons to have still continued for the strict observance of those Laws, as there were at first for the making of them; though if they will have my private Opinion, I think it had been much better for avoiding all Disputes between the King and Parliament; as also for preventing the evil use that has been made of those Precedents, to advance the King's Prerogative to what height he pleased, rather to have repealed all those obsolete Statutes, than to have suffered them still to continue.  
But to let you see that the distinction of mala in se, and mala prohibita often fails, I think I can prove it to you by divers undeniable Instances; for there are divers things which are neither mala in se; that is, neither Natural, nor Moral Evils, either by Common or Statute Law, and yet being declared Common Nuisances, are only mala Politica & introducta, and are no ways mala in se, which the King cannot dispense with at all, only because they are prohibited: Thus the King cannot dispense with the least Nuisance to the Highways, as by laying Dung in them, or the like; though men may very well pass through them: So likewise by the Statute of the 18 th' of King Charles the II. the bringing over of Irish cattle, is declared a public Nuisance, and therefore the King cannot dispense with it; yet no man will say it was so before that Statute was made; and therefore it is very well observed by the late Chief-Justice Vaughan, 
Vaughan's Rep. f. 358.  in that Case of Thomas and Surrel I now mentioned, that public Nuisances, are not mala in se, but mala Politica & introducta; and when a thing is said to be prohibited by the Common Law, the meaning is no more, but that the Ancient Record of such a Prohibition is not to be found.  M. 
I grant indeed the Author you have now cited in that Case, very well restrains 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 particular persons, 
F. 333. F. 334.  where the Suit is only the King's; but for the benefit and safety of a third person, the King cannot dispense with the Suit, but by consent and agreement of the party concerned. And again, Penal Laws, the breach whereof are to any man's particular damage, cannot be dispensed with; and the Chief-Justice Herbert himself owns, 
F. 29.  that the King cannot dispense with Laws which vest the least right of property in any of his Subjects.  F. 
Very well then, we see the Prerogative is bounded where the interest of particular persons is concerned; But doth the Law take more care of them, than of the public Interest, and the concernment of the whole Nation? and this Act against Papists holding of Employments was certainly made pro bono publico, to prevent the danger that may happen from Popish Recusants, 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 see how such a Dispensation can be good, the breach whereof must tend so much to the danger of the Commonwealth; and if according to the Rule you have laid down but now, That no Law can be dispensed withal, that is for the benefit and safety of a third person, or where the breach thereof are to other men's particular damage. Now whatsoever is prejudicial to the public safety of the Common wealth. must be also prejudicial to the safety of every private person, and the breach thereof does tend to each man's particular damage in the Nation, if they are once generally dispensed with.  M. 
I grant this is the most natural Objection you have made, against the King's power of dispensing in this Case; but my Lord Chief-Justice Vaughan in the Case already cited, 
P. 341, 342.  answers this Objection very well; No offence, says he, against a Penal Law could be dispensed with, if the reason of not dispensing were because the Offence is contra bonum publicum; for all Offences against Penal Laws, are such; and though such Laws are pro bono publico, they are not Laws pro bono Singulorum populi (which are the Laws which the King cannot dispense with) but pro bono populi complicati, as the King in his discretion shall think fit to order them for the good of the whole. In this Nation the Estate of every Pater-●amilius may be said to be pro bono Communi of his Family, which yet is but at his discretion and management of it, and they have no interest in it, though they have benefit by it. And therefore it is but reasonable, that as to the bonum publicum singulorum the King should not dispense, because every man hath a particular interest in, and they are Judges of it themselves: whereas in those Acts that are pro bono populi complicati, as these Acts of Sheriffs, and for taking the Oaths and Tell are, the King is the sole Judge in what cases they concern the public good of the Commonwealth, and where they do not.  F. 
I confess this is a subtle piece of learning; but pray let us take it a little out of these Latin terms, 
I.E.C. p. 41.  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 public. I thought indeed a Prince had been, in the first place bound to regard the good of the public, and to take care of the sa●us populi complicati, (as you call it) that is, (as they are embodied together) above the private good or interest of particular men, which you call bonum singulorum populi, which can never be preserved but where the Laws and Statutes ordained for the public benefit and security of the Common Wealth, have been generally broken and violated by common and easy Dispensations, and have been abused to that degree, that we lately saw every Popish Lawyer that was thought any thing fit to be a Judge, might sit upon the Bench, upon the Lives and Estates of Protestants; every Deputy Lieutenant, Justice of Peace, or other Officers, either Civil or Military, might be sure of being preferred, if he either was a Papist or Fanatic; every Minister or Parson of a Parish, who would renounce the Orders of the Church of England, might hold his Living without doing any of the Spiritual Functions, and all this by virtue of these dispensations, grounded upon the distinction of the public good of the whole People taken together, as different from that of the public good of each particular person.  
But it seems strange to me that our Ancestors should take such care of the Laws concerning the measures of Bread, 
I.E.C. p. 42.  Drink, and Flesh, as that the King cannot dispense with them, because they respect the common good of the whole People, and of every particular person; but yet as to the Laws which concern the public good of the whole Nation in general, they were content to leave them to the sole will and pleasure of their Prince. No one that reads the History of our Ancestors, and the contest they had with their Kings to obtain these public liberties, could ever entertain such a thought concerning them; but to let you see, that the Law concerning the Oaths and Tests, are not only for the public good of the Common Wealth; and that the King is not the sole Judge when they may be dispensed with, appears plainly by this, that the Law for taking of the Oaths and Test, has given every particular person a right to prosecute any one that hath acted contrary to it, and the penalty of 500 l. is given wholly to the Prosecutor, which shows plainly, that the intent of the Law, was to make it every man's particular care as well as benefit to see it observed.  M. 
Since it grows late, I shall not further dispute this point with you, of the King's dispensing power, though I had a great deal more to urge in defence of it; for notwithstanding all you have said against it, it is now counted so inherent a Prerogative, and in many cases so necessary for the benefit of the Subject, that the Convention itself, after a great deal of dispute about it, though they had condemned the King for assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with, and suspending of Laws without consent of Parliament: yet in this very Declaration, when they assert their Ancient Rights and Liberties, they only declare, That the pretended power of dispensing with Laws, or the execution of Laws, by Regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late is Illegal; which shows that they do not go so high as you, who seem to be absolutely against any such thing.  F. 
You very much mistake me if you say so; for though I maintain that anciently, till about the middle of the Reign of King Henry the III. there were no dispensations at all, either because they were not thought necessary, or else that Penal Laws were not then multiplied to that degree they have been since; yet since they have been now so long in use, and do (I grant) often tend not only for the benefit of the King, but also of the Subject, I do no way's condemn them, provided they are restrained within those due limits prescribed by the light Chief Justice Vaughan in the case above mentioned; and when they do not tend to the common mischief and ruin of the Protestant Religion establish● by Law, and the Rights and Liberties of the Subject; nay, I grant in times of necessity, as in the coming over of the Duke of Monmouth, (for example) the King might Justify the granting Commissions to Popish Officers, and therefore the Parliament did very well to offer the King to prepare an Act to indemnify them from the penalties they had incurred by acting without taking the Test; so that when the King utterly refused this reasonable proposition, and chose to dissolve the Parliament rather than he would permit them in the least to question on this usurped power, what could be farther expected, than that He was resolved to execute it whether the Parliament would or not, as we afterwards sound he did.  
But admitting he really had been endued with this Prerogative, yet was it still under a trust, not to abuse it, so notoriously as he did, by granting it to every Apostate Person, Officer, or Judge that required it; and I doubt not but if he had governed a little longer, but we might have found it granted to Bishops, likewise, as soon as he had thought fit to make them of his own Religion; for tho' the King (for example) has an undoubted prerogative of pardoning Robbers, and Highwaymen, yet if he should so far abuse his Prerogative as to pardon every Robber that was taken, I leave it to you to consider, whether such a Government could long subsist; I shall not apply this case to these dispensations, because they say comparisons are odious.  
These things being apparent, I think it would be very easy to vindicate that clause in the Declaration concerning the Bishops; for if the King's Declaration was unlawful (as certainly it was) not only by reason of the Dispensing Power, (we have been now disputing about) but also for one main clause in it, which I have yet but lightly touched, which is this; We do likewise declare, it is our Royal Will and Pleasure, that from henceforth the execution of all and all manner of Penal Laws in matters Ecclesiastical, for not coming to Church, or not Receiving the Sacrament, or for any other Nonconformity to the Religion established, or for, or by reason of the Exercise of Religion, in any manner whatsoever, be immediately suspended, and the farther execution of the said Penal Laws, and every of them is hereby suspended. So that by this Clause in the Declaration, not only the Laws of our Reformation, but all the Laws for the preservation of the Christian Religion in general were suspended, and become of no force, since every man might not only choose whether he would come to Church or not, but also all Priests and Ministers were hereby indemnified from either Praying or Preaching in the Churches, as well as their Parishioners freed from Hearing them; so that not only all the Laws of our Reformation were at once suspended, but those of Christianity itself by these words (or for, or by reason of the exercise of Religion in any manner whatsoever) nor is it confined to the Christian Religion, but all other Religions (even Mahometanism itself) were thereby permitted.  
But perhaps it may be urged, that the execution of the Law is only hereby suspended, and not the Law itself, which is a mere evasion; 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 conscientiae, and with how sew this is of any weight you understand so well, I need not tell you.  
So that by this Declaration ●he King took upon him to suspend above forty Statutes at once concerning our Religion; and if he could do so, I desire to know whether he might not the next week have suspended forty more, even concerning our Civil Properties likewise; and so might have proceeded till he had suspended all the Laws in the Statute Book; nor are those Laws suspended for any limited time, but during the Kihgs' Pleasure; and this not only a bare suspension for a time, but in effect a down right abrogation of them; for what is an abrogation of a Law, but the taking away the force of these Statutes, without any time limited? And if this be not to usurp the Sole Legislative Power, I know not what is; and if this were once commonly put in practice, Parliaments would signify nothing, and the Legislature would be wholly in the King; 
Mr. Justice Powil.  this was so evident, that it was granted by one of the Judges at the trial of these Bishops.  
If therefore this were the truth of the case, I cannot see wherein the Bishops that presented this Petition to His Majesty acted at all undutifully towards him, as you suppose: For being by the King's Order in Council, commanded to distribute this Declaration to their inferior Clergy, which they knew in itself to be unlawful, their distribution of it would not only have been looked upon as the owning of an unlawful thing, but would also have drawn the Inferior Clergy into the same Snare; who if it were unlawful, ought not to have published to their Parishioners a Licence to act directly contrary to Law; and therefore the Bishops were not only under an Obligation of that dreadful Charge and Imprecation expressed in the Statute of Uniformity, in the first of Q. Elizabeth, 
Chap. 2.  if they did not endeavour the utmost execution thereof, through all their Dioceses and Charges; but being also pressed upon to distribute it contrary to their Consciences, what could they do less in order to excuse themselves from this unlawful Command, than privately to tell the K. the reason of their disobedience? and also humbly to petition him not farther to insist upon it, either in respect of themselves, or their Inferior Clergy? and you know that it was allowed by your Civil-Law, for any Judge, or Prator, rescribere Principi, if he were by him commanded to act contrary to any former Law or Edict of the Emperor.  M. 
I will not deny that, but yet methinks the Bishops in this case would have acted more respectively and discreetly, if they had forbore petitioning; and though they had refused to obey the King's Declaration, yet needed they not to have declared against it till the Parliament met; when I grant they might have freely and safely done it: or else if they would have petitioned at all, it should have been in more dutiful and respectful terms, than by telling the King, that his Declaration was Illegal, and that they could not in Prudence, Honour or Conscience, so far make themselves parties to it, as to distribute it; and it was this alone which was looked upon as seditious, and for which his Majesty thought fit to have them Indicted in the King's Bench, as a matter of high Misdemeanour.  F. 
I confess you have said in short the sum of what was urged against them by the King's Council at their trial, but all this was very well answered by one of the Judges themselves; first, That it would have been too late to have stayed for a Parliament, because the Declaration was to have been distributed by such a time, neither could they have acquies●d under it and submitted, for that would have been to run into contempt of the King's Command, unless they had also shown the reasons why they could not obey him; and since this could be done no other way than by Address or Petition, what other reasons could they give, but that they thought it had been more than once declared Illegal in Parliament; and therefore that they could not in Prudence, Honour, and Conscience obey it; not in prudence, because they were liable to answer it in Parliament, if they did; not in Honour, because it is unworthy the Character of Bishops and Peers to act any thing that may make them look like flatterers, or time servers; not in conscience, because of the Imprecation they lay under by the Act of Queen Elizabeth; as also because no man can with a safe conscience give his approbation to that which is contrary to Law.  
And therefore I must needs tell you, that it was very severely and unjustly done in the King to give up this Petition (which was delivered him with all the privacy imaginable) to the Privy Council, in order to have the Bishops prosecuted for it; but which made a great deal more noise and heartburning against his Government, to commit them Prisoners to the Tower, and then to bring them to their Trial, and prosecute them with the utmost rigour; where though they escaped punishment, yet was it no thanks to the Prosecutors, but to the Directions of the Judges, two of whom (for their Honour) differed from the late Lord Chief-Justice, and his Popish Companion, as also to the honesty of the Jury, who found them not guilty.  M. 
I cannot deny but you have given a pretty fair Account of this matter, and I cannot but own, that it was one of the worst advised things that happened under the King's Government; but I cannot impute this to His Majesty's innate disposition, which was wont to act with greater temper and moderation towards those who differed from him in Judgement, and therefore must impute it wholly to the wicked Instigations of Father Peter, and the other Popish Ministers.  
But as for divers other Articles mentioned in the Conventions Declaration; Such as the issuing out, and causing to be executed a Commission under the Great Seal, for erecting a Court called, The Court of Commission for Ecclesiastical Affairs, and levying Money for, and to the use of the Crown by pretence of Prerogative, for other time; and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament, with all the rest of the Articles in that Declaration, relating to civil Affairs; Since they are to be looked upon as the sole Acts of the Judges, and not of the King, they, and not he ought to suffer for th● illegality of them; since as you yourself have owned, 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 unjustly done, to lay this to his charge, which he is not to answer for; so that if any thing have been done amiss in this kind, they and not he are to answer for it, and not to run such things up to a Forfeiture or an Abdication, as you and your Covention have done.  F. 
I need not say much more to this Objection, because I have in great part answered it already, and proved that most of the things found fault withal, were the King's own Acts, as well as those of his Ministers and Judges; for as to the Commission for Ecclesiastical Affairs, which is directly contrary to the Statute of King Charles the I. 
Chap. 11.  which took away the Court of High Commission, as also to a clause inserted in the Act of the 13 th' of Charles the II. 
Chap. 12.  Wherein the Act for taking away that Court, is not only confirmed, but also the erecting any other like Court by commission, is expressly forbid; This being the case, the fault of the issuing out of this Commission cannot be laid upon the Judges; who though some of them acted in it, yet was it never formally brought before them to determine whether it was illegal, or not; and no man can imagine, that unless the King had a passionate desire for this power, that he might thereby be able to suspend, deprive, and turn out whom he pleased of the Bishops, and inferior Clergy, with the Heads and Fellows of Colleges, whom he should find irreconciliable Enemies to his Religion, or obstinate in refusing to obey his illegal commands, as too plainly appeared by the suspension of the Bishop of London, the turning out of the Precedent and Fellows of Magdalen College, and that Prosecution that was lately ordered against all those Bishops, and inferior Clergy, who had refused to distribute, or read the King's Declaration; though I confess there was a stop put to this, upon recalling this Commission: Immediately before the Prince's Arrival.  
So likewise for the other Article of levying Money contrary to Law, that was also without any opinion of the Judges at all demanded about it, for the illegal collection of Chimney Money, by making Cottages and Ovens pay, that were exempted by the Acts concerning it; and also the illegal levying of Excise, by making Small-Beer pay the Duties of Strong, were all of them acted and done by particular directions from the Treasury, or by the private abuse of the Farmers of the Excise, without any opinion of the Judges; and of these Orders his Majesty could not choose but be the Author, or approver at least; since 'tis very well known he constantly sat● there when any great Business was to b● transacted, and the Lord Treasurer, or Commissioners of the Treasury, would certainly never have presumed to have issued out their Orders in a Case of so great moment, if they had not been very well satisfied that it was his Majesty's express Will and Pleasure to have i● so.  
And I myself have now by me a Copy of the then Lord Treasurer's Directions to the Officers appointed for the levying of Chimney-money; commanding them to levy it upon all Cottages and Ovens whatsoever, which was done accordingly with the utmost rigour; which though it was a very great oppression, yet since it chiefly concerned the poor and ordinary sort of people, who had not purses to go to law with the King; or else such Gentlemen and others, who though they were forced to pay for their poor Tenants, yet did they not think it worth their while to bring i● before the Barons of the Exchequer, where, as things than went, they could not expect to find much Justice.  
I shall not insist upon the King's taking the additional Customs contrary to the Act of Parliament, by which they were granted to the late King Charles only for life; and though in his last Sickness there was a Contract for the new farming of them, by virtue of which, I grant the King might have justified the taking of them till the end of the Farm; yet since that Contract never passed the Seals during the King's life-time, it was certainly against Law for the King to take them before they were regranted by Act of Parliament; I say, I shall not insist upon this; since the Parliament were so easy as to pass it by without declaring it to have been illegal; only it sufficiently shows, that from the very beginning of the King's Reign, he was resolved to govern arbitrarily, and to levy Money upon the Subject, whether the Law gave him any Authority to do it or not.  
But as to what you say concerning the Judges being wholly in fault, for all the unjust and illegal Proceedings exercised in their Courts, and that the King was wholly faultless, I should be of your mind, had I not seen, that all those Judges who would not agree to the dispensing power (, and other illegal Judgements I could name,) were turned out, and others, either Papists, or of less consciences than Papists, were put in their places, which were not conferred for any longer time, than durante bene placito, and therefore no wonder if such men were absolute slaves to the King's will and pleasure.  M. 
I had much more to say in defence of the King's raising and keeping up a standing Army, and his disarming Protestants, in, and after the Duke of Monmouth's Rebellion, which are laid to his charge as endeavours to destroy the Rights and Liberties of this Kingdom.  
But since it grows late, I shall only now take notice of something which I forgot to insist upon, concerning your Notion, of the King's obdicating the Crown by a wilful breach of the Laws, which is quite different from the sense in which this Word is taken in Roman Authors; as also in our Civil-Laws; For when Cicero uses the Expression, Itaque tutela me abdicare togito. Brison tells us his meaning was se nolle esse tutorem: But Pompenius in his Book De orig. juris, 
L. §. 13.  gives us the true sense of this Phrase; Abdicare se Magistratu, est ante tempu● Magistratum deponere: which plainly shows the Romans had no notion of a Tacit, or employed abdication of a charge or Majestracy, without a man's express consent; and therefore if the King's bare desertion of the Kingdom was not an Abdication of the Throne (as you yourself are forced to grant) I cannot imagine how the King's violation of the Laws, or endeavouring to subvert the Government (both which you lay to his charge) can properly be called an Abdication of it; so that indeed the King hath not abdicated the Government, but your Convention hath abdicated him; And though we often read in our Civil-law, That a Father might abdicare filium; yet I never read, or can you show me any Example, that a Son might abdicate a Father, or Subjects their Prince.  F. 
You discourse upon a wrong ground; for I never affirmed, That Subjects had any authority to abdicate or depose their Prince; nor hath the Convention assumed any such power to themselves; what they have done in this affair, hath not been authoritative, or as taking ●pon them to call the King to an account for his actions, or to depose him for his misgovernment, but only declarative, to pronounce and declare as the Representatives of the whole Nation, that by endeavouring to extirpate the Protestant, Religion, and to subvert the Fundamental Laws, and Liberties of the Kingdom, he had wilfully (I do not say willingly) Abdicated the Government, that is, renounced to Govern this Kingdom any longer as a lawful King, which I take to be a tacit, or employed Abdication of it, as I have already proved; and to show you farther that even Tully himself allows in our sense of an employed Abdication, in his third Philippics, when he says thus concerning Mark Anthony, that for his offering a Crown to Caesar, Eo●die-non modo▪ Consulatu, sed etiam libertate se ab●itavit, etc. where you see Mark Anthony is said to have Abdioned the Consulship without any express Renunciation of it; for Caesar might have continued him in it after he had been declared Emperor.  M. 
I grant your Authority to be good, yet even in this sense this Abdication of the Consulship could only take its effect from Anthony's ow● Will, for offering a Crown to Caesar, if he did not expressly, yet he effectually renounced his Consulship; for had Caesar accepted in he could no longer have been the Consul of a Popular State, but must thenceforth have acted by authority from Caesar, or not at all: but then this would not have agreed with your No●on of a Forfeiture, which always supposes a crime, and a depriving the party offending from his Office, or Dignity, whether he will or not; so that if the Convention have adjudged the King to have Abdicated, they must suppose it to have been by his own consent, or not at all; but if they supposed him to have forfeited, why did they not down right declare so, as well as the Scotch Convention had done, and then I could have ●old better what to have said to them, and have proved that only Subjects 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 I think I have sufficiently proved, that there is no great difference between a man's Abdicating an Estate by a wilful disposing of it otherwise than the Law requires, and ● forfeiture of it, as I showed you, that Tenant for life aliening in Fee, doth not only forfeit his Estate to him in reversion, but is also an Abdication of it, though perhaps he had reserved to himself a lease of the Estate for years, and this is called a Forfeiture of the Estate, though he committed no other crime, than the wrong done to him in reversion, and therefore (as I said before) this Forfeiture doth not always suppose any crime for which the party may be punished, otherwise than by the loss of the Estate; nor yet doth it suppose any Superior Power in the party that takes it.  
But your exception against my authority from Tully or Mark Anthony's employed Abdication of the Consulship without any express renunciation of it, is very frivolous; for you yourself own, that Anthony did not expressly, but only effectually renounce the Consulship, when he offered Caesar the Crown; and if he did not do it expressly, than it seems Anthony could renounce the Consulship without ever intending it, by doing an act that in effect abrogated his own power; and why King james might not do so too with his Crown, I desire you would show me any sufficient 〈◊〉: But that the Convention did also look upon this Abdicati●● of King james as a Forfeiture, appears plainly by their declaring the Throne Vacant● without troubling themselves to find out who was the next Heir to be placed therein.  
But to conclude, there might be a very good reason why the Convention did not think fit to make use of the word Forfeiture, as the Parliament of Scotland have done in the like case; for some of the most wary and prudent Members of the House of Common●, considering that this word Forfeiture might prove of very hard digestion to a great part of the House, and also might give great offence to divers of the Bishops and Lords in the House of Peers, they found out this word, Abdicated is an expedi●●● to solve that difficulty, a●d which might not only express the King's wilful desertion of the Government by his first departure, but also his renunciaton of it, upon those legal conditions he was to hold it; 〈…〉 I have already observed the word Abdicated in their Vote refer, not only to his having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom, but to all the rest of the clauses foregoing, or else they would signify nothing in that place, both the Abdication, and the Vacancy of the Throne being grounded upon all of them alike, I should now proceed to your last exception against this Vote of the Conventions, (viz) That the Throne is thereby Vacant. But I see it is now very late, and therefore it is best to defer the farther discussing of that matter till ●●other opportunity, which I desire I may have as soon as you please.  M. 
Yea, and then we will also confides▪ that part of the Conventions Declaration, whereby they resolve that the Prince and Princess of Orange be declared K. and Queen of England, etc. which if you can prove to me to be according to the Laws of England, I will then acknowledge them to be lawful King and Queen of England; but till I am convinced of it, I must beg their pardons.  F. 
Well, I could wait on you again two or three days hence, and then I hope I shall make out those points as well or better than any I have done hitherto; and in the mean time I am your humble Servant.  M. 
I pray do it better if you can, or else you will not very much edify me; but however I wish you good night.  
FINIS.   

Bibliotheca Politica: OR A DISCOURSE By WAY of DIALOGUE, On these following Questions; 

I. Whether the Vote of the late Convention, wherein they declared the Throne to be vacant, can be justified from the Ancient Constitution, and Customs of this Kingdom.  
II. Whether the said Convention declaring King William and Queen Mary to be Lawful and Rightful King and Queen of England, may be justified by the said Constitution.  
III. Whether the Act passed in the said Convention after it became a Parliament, whereby Roman Catholic Princes are debarred from succeeding to the Crown, was according to Law.    
Collected out of the Best Authors, as well Ancient as Modern.  
Dialogue the Twelfth.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, near the Oxford-Arms; where also may be had the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, six, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Dialogues. 1694.   

Author's most commonly used in this Discourse, and how denoted in the Margin.  

The Succession of the Crown discussed. S. D.  
Dr. Brady's Exact History of the Succession to the Crown, B. H. S.  
An Enquiry into the Nature and Obligation of Legal Rights, E.L.R.    

The PREFACE to the READER.  
THE ensuing Discourse being upon so Weighty a Subject as their present Majesty's Title to the Crown, it is requisite that I give you some Account of the Method I have pursued, and what Authors I have made use of for the proving of it. As to the former, since the Main Questions in this great Affair are, Whether the Convention can be justified in declaring the Throne Vacant, and then placing their present Majesties thereon as the next Heirs, it was necessary to show from an exact History of the Succession of the Crown of England, that the late Parliament whilst it was a Convention, have done no more in this great Affair, than what former Parliaments or Great Councils have done ever since the time of King William I. on the like Occasions; when they have not only declared the Throne Vacant, but have also judged which of the Royal Family were fittest to fill it, and the Persons so placed therein have been still taken for Lawful Kings, and as such have had true Allegiance paid them by all the Subjects during the time they continued possessed of the Royal Power and Dignity.  
As for the Authors cited in this Disquisition, I have made use of the Ancientest, and those who lived nearest the times in which the Matters we treat of were transacted; and therefore I have studiously forborn quoting any Authors in Latin or English who lived in more Modern Times, unless when there are no other to be had that treat of those Affairs.  
But not to be partial to one Opinion, I have faithfully recited all those Authorities and Arguments made use of by the Author of the Treatise, Entitled, The Hereditary Succession discussed; as also by the Learned Dr. Brady, in his exact History of the Succession of the Crown; wherein those Author's endeavour to prove, that the Crown of England is, and hath always been Hereditary from the very beginning of our Monarchy, notwithstanding the many and various Breaches that have been made upon it: which Authorities and Arguments, whether they prove the Matter in debate, I shall leave to your better judgement; but hope those Gentlemen will not take it ill, if I cannot let all they write pass for clear Demonstration; and therefore have taken upon me to cite all those Arguments and Authorities that either have been, or (as far as I know of) may be made use of by those of the contrary Opinion; in the performance of which, if I have not dealt candidly with both Parties in fairly representing the utmost that they had to say; I shall be obliged, if any Friend to Truth will show me my failings. But though it is true, I have not gone higher in this History than the coming in of K. William I. yet I hope I may be excused looking farther back, for these Reasons: First, because an Examination of the Succession before that time, would not only be tedious, (by swelling this Discourse to an unreasonable Bulk) but would also be superfluous; since the Gentleman whom I suppose Freeman here Argues against, makes K. William I. to have been an absolute Conqueror, and to have altered all the former Laws in the Saxon Times; and if so, sure than those concerning the Succession of the Crown. And I desire them to show me any Reason, if he and his Descendants held the Kingdom as Absolute Monarches by Conquest, why they might not bequeath or make it over (as is justifiable in Patrimonial Kingdoms) to which of their Sons, Kindred, or Relations they should think fit? and if so, what will then become of this Fundamental Right of a Lineal Hereditary Succession? And besides all this, it is needless upon another Account, since I have already proved in the Tenth Dialogue, from no less Authority than K. Alfred's Will, that before the Conquest, the Crown was partly Testamentary, and partly Elective, sometimes wholly Elective, as in K. Edward the Confessor; and whoever doubts of this, I shall only desire them to read impartially Dr. Brady's abovementioned History of the Succession, and then I shall leave it to them to consider, whether he does not grant in effect what he takes upon him to Confute; viz. That there was no Lineal Descent of the Crown known or settled in those Times, but what was Alterable by the Testament of those Kings.  
But since the rest of this Discourse (besides the enquiry into bare Matter of Fact) is chiefly the applying those Precedents I have here made use of to the Case of their present Majesties, I hope neither they nor any that wish well to their Government, will resent it, if I have not gone in the common Road of former Writers, in supposing the Titular Prince of Wales to be an Impostor, without any other proof than those bare Suspicions that have been published in the Printed Pamphlets; yet since however they may incline a Man to doubt, they cannot make a Child Illegitimate whom his Father and Mother have hitherto bred up, and owned for theirs: and therefore I have rather chosen to suppose him at present to be the Lawful Son of King James and Queen Mary; and yet that what the late Convention have done in passing him by without taking any notice of his Title, was all that they could or were obliged to do, his present Circumstances considered.  
But, if it be here made out that King William and Queen Mary are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen of this Realm, no Man can doubt whether Allegiance may be sworn too them or not; and perhaps there was no need of writing any thing farther; yet since I find a great many of the Clergy as well as Laity of this Nation, could not go higher than their swearing Allegiance to them as King and Queen de facto, and that even this has been violently opposed by the s●iff Asserters of K. James' Right, I have thought fit to add in the next Discourse (which I promise shall be the last on this Subject) all that hath been said Pro and 〈◊〉 upon that Question, and to make it of the same Bulk with the rest, I have, for the satisfaction of those of the Church of England, as well as Royal Interest, endeavoured to show the great difference between this late Revolution, and that fatal Civil War, that ended with the Deposition and Murder of King Charles the First. These two Questions, together with an Index to all the Dialogues, being dispatched, (as I hope they will be shortly) shall be the last I shall trouble the World with upon these Subjects; since I know nothing more that can be well added to what I shall there set down.   

THE Twelfth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian, AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman.  M. 
I Am glad, Sir, you are come, for I was wishing for you; pray sit down, and let us begin where we left off; you may remember you promised me when we last parted, that the next time I saw you, you would make out to me from undeniable proofs and precedents from our Ancient Histories and Laws, that the present Convention had done nothing in Voting the Throne vacant, and then placing the Prince and Princess of Orange therein, but what may be justified by the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom; for I must still believe (till I am better instructed) that there can be no Inter Regnum in England, but that it hath been from the first Institution of the Government an Hereditary Monarchy, where the next Heir by Right of Blood (unless in some manifest Usurpations) has always succeeded to the last Predecessor; as also our best Lawyers with one consent maintain in their Books of Reports, and the Learned Finch in his description of the Common Law lays it down as an undoubted Maxim, That the King never dies, and therefore it seems altogether new and unheard of before; for the Convention thus to declare the Throne vacant; for admitting that King james had (never so) justly Forfeited or Abdicated the Kingdom (term it which you please) yet certainly there could be no Vacancy of the Throne, since the next Heir by Blood ought immediately to have been declared King, or Queen, and so placed therein; whereas we heard in the Country, that there was almost ten days time before the Lords and Commons could agree whether the Crown should be declared vacant, or not; and when it was so declared, it took up almost a weeks time more, before they could agree who should be placed therein; whereas it was a difficulty only of their own making; for sure the Prince of Wales (though it is true he is carried out of England) ought to have been immediately declared King, as was done in the Case of Edward the 3 d. who was so declared upon the Deposition or Resignation of King Edward the 2 d.  F. 
Though I grant ever since the Crown has been claimed by Descent, the Law has gone as you have cited it; and that Finches Law lays it down for a Maxim, I shall not deny; but that from the beginning or original of Kingly Government, whether (we look before or after you Conquest) it will appear, that the Throne was often vacant, till such time as the Common Council of the Kingdom had agreed who should fill it; and to show you I do not speak without good Authority, pray tell me (if this Maxim had then obtained,) why after the Death of William the First, his Eldest Son Robert Duke of Normandy, did not immediately take upon him the Title of King of England, or at least had done it after the Death of William Rufus? who, you know, was placed on the Throne, ●not by Right of Inheritance, but by his Father's Testament confirmed, and approved of (according to the Ancient English-Saxon Custom of Succession) by the common Consent of the great Council of the whole Kingdom; and yet notwithstanding after the Death of this William, Henry his younger Brother succeeded him by the free Election and Consent of the same Common Council, and yet that Duke Robert should never in all his Life-time take upon him the Title of King? Pray tell me likewise (if this Maxim had been then known) why Maud the Empress, immediately upon the Death of her Father King Henry the First, did not take, (nor yet her Husband the Duke of Anjou in her Right) the Title of King and Queen of England, though she had had Homage paid her, and Fealty sworn to her in the Life-time of her Father, as the immediate Successor to the Crown, and yet notwithstanding the utmost Title she could assume was that of Domina Anglorum, Lady or Mistress (not Queen) of the English; whilst Stephen, who had no other Title, but the Election of the great Council of the Nation held both the Crown and Title of King as long as he lived? As also why Arthur Duke of Britain, who according to the now received Rules of Succession, was the next Heir to the Crown upon the Death of King Richard the First, never took upon him the Title of King, unless it were, that he very well knew that his Uncle King john had been placed in the Throne by the Common Consent and Election of the great Council of the Kingdom? So likewise after the Death of King john, why Henry his Son was not immediately proclaimed King, till such time as the great Council of the Clergy, Nobility and People had met and agreed to send back Prince Lewis, whom they had chosen for their King, (though not being Crowned, he never took upon himself that Title) and so chose Henry the Third (than an Infant) for their King? Lastly, Why all these Princes, viz. Henry the Second, Richard the First, and Henry the Third; who according to your notions were undoubted Heirs of the Crown, never took upon them the Title of Kings of England, nor are so styled by any of our Historians, till after their Elections and Coronations, if it had not been then received for Law, that it was the Election of the People and Coronation subsequent thereunto, that made them Kings, and till this was performed (though they might look upon themselves as never so lawful Successors) the Throne was notwithstanding esteemed in Law vacant?  
Therefore as for your Instance of King Edward the three's immediately succeeding upon the Resignation of his Father (if you please better to consider of it) that makes against you; for it is plain from Th. Walsingham, and H. de Knyghton, that Prince Edward succeeded not to the Crown by Succession, but the Election of the great▪ Council, or Parliament; the words are express, Huic Electioni universus Populus consensit; and this was also owned by Edward the Second himself, who when the Commissioners of all the Estates of Parliament came in all their Names to renounce their Homage to him; yet in the midst of all his sorrow he gave them thanks, quod Filium suum Edwardum post se Regnaturum eligissent; which plainly shows, that the Parliament had then such a Notion of a Forfeiture proceeding from his Deposition, for violating the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, that the Eldest Son and Successor could pretend no other Right to it (even in the Judgement of the late King himself) but what proceeded from their Election.  M. 
I cannot deny but what you have now urged from matter of fact, may appear very plausible to yourself, and those of your Notions, yet if it be looked closer into, I doubt not but the known Laws then received, and the Notions the people had then of a Lineal Succession by Right Inheritance, will prove directly contrary to the matter of fact: For you know very well à facto ad Ius non valte consequentia; but that all the Princes you mentioned, except the three last, were really Usurpers, and not Lawful Kings; I shall let you see by evident Authorities from the Historians of those Times: For in the first place, though I grant William Rufus succeeded to the Crown by his Father's last Will, which was certainly unlawful (as being contrary to the received Laws of Succession in Normandy as well as England) yet was it not by Election of the people as you suppose, but by the kindness of Archbishop 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 Duke Robert his Elder Brother, that he was thus made King; so that William Rufus claimed as a Testamentary Heir, 
B.H.S. p. 368.  and by reason of that Claim was advanced to the Throne by the Assistance of Lanfranc's and the Bishop's Faction, who then swayed the people, but yet never owned any Election from them; so that if you rightly consider this Story, you cannot call it an Election, but a Designation or Nomination by his Father William the Conqueror, and consented to by the major part of the Bishops and Lords of the Kingdom, but not by their Election or Decree as a Common Council, as you suppose.  
But that for all this, Duke Robert his Brother being assisted by Odo Bishop of Bayenx, and Earl of Kent his Uncle, as also divers other Norman Lords, who being satisfied of his Right, raised a War in England against William, and great mischief was done on both sides, till at last a Peace was made between them upon these conditions (among others) (as Matthew Westminster relates it) that because of the manifest Right Duke Robert had to the Crown, 
S. D. p. 7. F. 236.  he should have a Yearly Pension of three thousand Marks out of the Revenue of England; and he, of the two Brothers that survived the other, if he died without Children, should be Heir to the Deceased: And so far were they from thinking this Agreement stood in need of Ratification of a great Council, that there was but twelve of the Principal Men on each side sworn to see it duly observed.  
But if we come to consider the next putting by of Duke Robert from his Right to the Crown, you will find it to have been done with a far less colour of Right than the former; for he being then absent in the Holy Land at the time of Rufus' death, Henry his Younger Brother laid hold of the opportunity, and assembling divers of the great Men of the Kingdom, he promised them to make a full Restitution of all their Ancient Laws and Liberties, 
S. D. p. 7.  and confirm them by his Charter, and abrogate such severe ones as his Father had made; thereupon they did unanimously consent to Crown him King: Now I cannot see how this, (managed with so much Artifice) corruption can properly be called an Election, since that aught to be a deliberate sedate Action, and at which all the persons concerned aught to be present; but this could not possibly be, for King William was killed on the second of August, and buried the next day, and the day after that, being Sunday, this pretended Election was made, and the Saxon Chronicle tells us, That those great Men who were near at hand chose his Brother Henry King. 
Anno 1100.  So that this looks more like the Combination of a Faction of Bishops, Lords, and great Men than the free Election of a King, since it was impossible for all that were, or aught, to be present from all parts of the Kingdom to have notice to assemble and dispatch that great Business in two days time.  
But to let you see that Duke Robert did not fit down contented with this Usurpation upon his Right; for as soon as ever he came from the Holy Land, he strait made War upon his Brother, and many great Men of the Normans took his part; and this War was eagerly carried on for some time, and Duke Robert Landing in England with an Army, K. Henry marched against him with all his Forces, (but as the Saxon Chronicle also tells us) some principal Men going between them, 
Ibid.  brought them to an Agreement upon conditions that K. Henry should pay Duke Robert 3000 Marks Pension yearly, and that he of the Brothers who survived the other, should be Heir of all England and Normandy, unless the party deceased should have Children of his own; so that though I grant King Henry recites in his Charter in Matthew Paris, 
B. ●. S. p. 369.  that he was Crowned King by the Common Council of the Barons of England, yet his saying so could not give him a Right; and he must say this, or nothing, for no other, pretence or Title he could have; and there never was any other Usurper in his circumstances, but must say that, or some such thing, to make out a Title, and therefore to answer your Question, why Duke Robert took not upon himself the Title of King, neither upon the death of his Father, nor after that of his Elder Brother, I think this may serve for an Answer, that he parting with his Right to both his Brothers successively, he then looked upon it as needless to take the Title of King upon him, as not looking upon himself then to be so.  F. 
I confess you have from your Dr. together with some assistance of your own, made a very cunning gloss upon these two great Instances of Vacancy and Election, to evade, if it were possible, that Right which the Common Council of the Kingdom then challenged to themselves; and therefore I shall make bold strictly to examine what you have now said. In the first place as to the Title of King William Rufus, though I grant it was founded upon his Father's Testament, yet you see that this was not good alone without the consent and approbation of the Common Council of the Kingdom; I think I have sufficiently proved at our last Meeting, but one, when we discoursed of the Force of the like Testament made by King Edward the Confessor to King William the First, which according to the English Saxon Law (that ●as still observed) was never valid until confirmed by the consent of the Wittena Gemot, or Great Council; and he that had both these, whether next Heir by Blood or not, was always esteemed as lawful King, as I have also proved from the Testament of King Alfred; and though you will take no notice of it, yet was this Testament of King William I. then produced and read in the Common-Council of the Bishops, Earls and Barons of the Kingdom, as appears by all the Ancient Historians who treat of this matter. I shall only give you a taste of them, 
P. 231.  Matthew Paris expressly relates the circumstances of it, in these words, Optimates frequente●, ●d Westmonasterium in concilium convenere, ubi loci post long am consultationem Gulielmum Rusum Regem fecere, and Abbot Brompton tells us, that it was done in a full Council, 
Col. 983.  Convocatis Terrae magnatibus, so that here was nothing wanting to a full Election or Confirmation at least of King William's Title, and till this was done it is plain the Throne was Vacant.  
But as for the claim that Duke Robert made to the Crown, though I do not deny but he might think himself to have a just Title to it, by a received custom among divers Nations, by which the eldest Son is looked upon to have a right before the younger; yet that this is no Law of Nature, or Reason, and consequently not Divine, I think I have sufficiently proved at our second meeting: But that this right of Succession of the eldest Son (to be no fundamental Law of this Kingdom) I think I can sufficiently prove from our English Saxon Histories, as well as Laws; and as for what you say concerning those Norman Lords and Bishops who joined with Duke Robert after his Brother was Crowned King, it is called no better than Treason by all the Writers of those times, for Florence of Worcester, and Sim: of Durham, both tell us, that the King thereupon called together the English, 
An. D. 1087.  and opened unto them the Treason of the Normans, and the Saxon Chronicle●, who seemed to have lived about that time, compares the Treason of Bishop Odo to that of judas Iscariot against our Lord; and though I grant King William might make such an agreement with his Brother Duke Robert, as you mention, yet as for the 3000 Marks Pension, which you say he was to pay him, I very much doubt it, since no Historian but Matthew of Westminster, who lived between two and three hundred years after, makes mention of it, and therefore I think it is to be referred to the following agreement betwixt this Duke and his Brother King Henry, which the Saxon Chronicle expressly mentions.  
Having now examined and cleared the Title of King William Rufus, I come next to justify that of King Henry I. to the Crown, notwithstanding all you have alleged against it, which yet is no more than what you said before, that Duke Robert had an Hereditary Right, and therefore he could not be put by, which is to beg the Question, for you cannot prove to me that he had this Right either by the Law of Nature, the Law of England, or the Law of Normandy, not by the two former, as I have already proved, for your Conqueror himself being a Bastard, had no better Title to the Duchy of Normandy than his Father's last Will, before he went to the Holy Land; which was not good without the consents of the Nobility of that Duchy, as appears by the Historians of that time; so that the greatest Objection you have to make against King Henry's being elected in a true Common-Council of all England is this, that the time was so short between the Death of William Rufus and his Election, that it was impossible for all the Parties that had Votes to be there present, which is a very bold assertion; for how can you or your Doctor tell that at the time when King William was killed, he might not then have held a great Council at Winchester (where he then Lay) who might immediately upon his Death choose his Brother Henry for their King; for it is certain the Election was there the Day before his Coronation at London, and therefore it is very rashly done to affirm that this Election was not in a Common-Council of the Kingdom, when all the Historians, 
L.U. p. 156.  and particularly W. Malmesbury tells us the manner of it, and the Disputes there were about it, viz. that Henry was elected King as soon as King William's Funerals were over, Aliquantis tamen ante controversiis inter proceres agitatis, etc. and H. de Knyghton reciting the cause, why Duke Robert was set aside, viz. because he had been always contrary and unnatural to the Barons of England; 
Col. 2374.  therefore quoth plenario consensu & consilio totius Communitatis Regni, ipsum refutaverunt, & pro Rege omnino recusav●●●nt, & Henricum fratrem in Regem erexerunt; which plainly shows that it was the opinion of all the Ancient Writers out of whom Knyghton took this passage, that this election was made by the free consent, 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 case, for the reasons already given, as also because the agreement that was made between them, that he that survived should succeed the other, was never confirmed or agreed to by the great Council of the Kingdom; and therefore those Norman Lords that joined with Duke Robert here in England are justly taxed by William of Malmesbury, and the Saxon Chronicle, 
Anno 1104.  with Infidelity and Rebellion: and though I grant that Mat. Paris (or rather Roger of Wendover whom he transcribes,) seems to condemn King Henry's taking the Crown as unjust, and contrary to Right, and that he therefore feared the Justice of God; eò quod fratri suo primogenito, cui jus Regni manifestè competebat temere usurpando injustè nimis abstulcrat; yet this author writing about the middle of the Reign of King Henry III. who had succeeded his Father by a pretended right of Inheritance as well as Election, it is no wonder if He who writ near a hundred years after this transaction, should give his judgement in this matter according to the common opinion and prejudice of that age, and must certainly speak by guess; for how could he otherwise affirm (unless he had been acquainted with that King's thoughts) as he doth in the same place, that he felt conscientiam suam in obtentu Regni cauteriatam; since no other Writer either of 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, because of the agreement which he made with his Brothers, by which he parted with his Right for a Pension, during his Life, is not at all satisfactory; for in the first place neither of these agreements were made till above a year after his pretended Title did accrue to him by the Death of his Father, and Brother; and therefore he ought, if he had looked upon himself as true King, to have immediately taken the Title upon him, which he never did; so likewise the agreement itself makes wholly against your notion of any hereditary succession to the Crown, to be then settled, since the main clause in both these agreements is, that the survivor should be heir to him that died first, unless he left Children of his own to succeed him; which plainly shows that in the opinion of both those Princes, and of the great men that swore on either side to see it observed, they knew of no such settled Right of Succession in their Heirs, which they themselves could not part with, or else this Clause had been wholly in vain; since both King William and King Henry's Children were to have succeeded to the Crown of England, by virtue of both these agreements, before the Sons of Duke Robert, had his Son William (who was only Earl of Flanders) survived him.  
But now if you please you may proceed with your other exceptions against the rest of the Instances I have here given you of the Vacancy of the Throne, till such time as the Common Council of the Kingdom had agreed whom to place therein.  M. 
As to what you have said in defence of the Vacancy of the Throne after the death of King Henry I. carries less show of Reason than what you urged in the former Cases; since all Writers agree that this was a manifest Usurpation in Stephen, who could pretend no sort of Title to the Crown himself, as well as Perjury in the Bishops, Lords, and great Men of England, who having sworn Fealty to King Henry's Daughter Maud in his life-time, made Stephen Earl of Blois their King; therefore William of Malmsbury, and all the Writers of those Times do accuse Stephen of downright Perjury and Usurpation, and likewise relate that he was advanced to the Crown through the power of the Londoners and Citizens of Winchester; but yet all these Endeavours had been in vain, unless he had been assisted by his Brother Henry Bishop of that City, and then the Pope's Legate in England, and favoured by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who Crowned him; and yet for all this there was but a very small Faction of the Bishops and Lords who were for his Croonation; for W. Malmsbury tells us, Coronatus est ergo in Regem Angliae Stephanus, 
L. 1. p. 178.  tribus Episcopis praesentibus, nullis Abbatibus, paucissimis Optimatibus.  
And many of the Nobility and great Men of England were so sensible of this, that being headed by Robert Earl of Gloucester (the Empresses base Brother) they raised a War against Stephen, which after her coming over hither was carried on with great vigour; and though I grant that after divers changes of fortune the Empress was at last forced to quit the Kingdom, yet her Son Duke Henry did not fail to continue his claim to the Crown in right of his Mother, and coming over into England renewed the War against King Stephen, which was at last composed by an agreement between them, which as Matthew Paris and Mat. Westminster relate it, 
M. Par. f. 86. M. West. 246.  was thus; That King Stephen acknowledged in an Assembly of Bishops 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 should peaceably possess it during his Life; so that it is certain, till this agreement (even by his own acknowledgement) he had no right to it; and though I grant that the Empress Maud for some reasons we are not able to give a true account of, never took upon her the Title of Queen, yet it is very certain that she acted as such during all the time she was in England, receiving Homage and Fealty from those Lords and others who came over to her side, and also granting Charters and conferring Honours by the Title of Anglorum Domina▪ which shows she looked upon herself to be the Supreme Governess of the Kingdom, though not under the Title of Queen: so that I think you can find nothing in this transaction that can support your Notion of Vacancy.  F. 
Pray give me leave to answer what you have now said, before you proceed farther; first I cannot excuse neither King Stephen for taking the Crown, nor the Bishops and Great men that set it on his Head, from perjury and injustice; since the Empress Maud had been before in a Common-Council of the whole Kingdom, declared the Lawful Successor, and that Fealty had been sworn to her as such: All that I insist upon in this affair is this; that Quod furi non deb●t, factum valet. And though this ought not to have been done, yet when once done did stand good; and therefore if whilst the Throne was vacant, King Stephen by the Election and Consent of the Bishops and Great Men of England was placed therein; he was there looked upon as true, and legal King as long as he lived: And this was the reason why the Empress never took upon her the Title of Queen of England, no not when she had taken King Stephen prisoner; and one would have thought might have justly done it as a Conqueress: But yet she forbore it, because that Title was not then to be taken without the consent of the Great Council of the Kingdom; which I cannot find she ever held, her party being not great enough to make one: And though I cannot deny, but that she might in some particulars exercise some prerogatives of Royal Power; yet this was only upon a pretence of her being Elected and Styled by this Title of Lady of the English, in a Synod of the Clergy at Winchester, by the procurement of Henry the then Bishop of that See, and the Pope's Legate, who was now turned against his brother King Stephen. For she was never generally received nor owned as Queen, nor did she ever exercise those great prerogatives of Sovereign Power, viz. Calling of Great Councils, making of Laws, raising of Taxes, or Coining Mony.  
But whereas you represent King Stephen to have been Elected but by a very small party of the Bishops and Noblemen of England; yet it is very much to be doubted, whether William of Malmesbury (who Dedicated his History to Robert Earl of Gloucester King Stephen's greatest Enemy) being no friend to his Title, is to be altogether credited in this matter. For Henry of Huntingdon, (who lived not long after) tells us expressly; 
P. 386.  that, Omnes qui Sacramentum juraverant tam Praesules quam consuls & Principes assensum Stephano praebutrunt & hominium fecerunt: And it is also as certain that the Earls of Gloucester and Chester (the two greatest men of England) did then likewise swear Allegiance to him, and own his Title, though they afterwards revolted from him again; Yet could they do nothing considerable against him, till his own Brother the Bishop of Winchester revolted also from him; upon pretence that the King had violated the Rights of the Church. And though it is true that after the Empresses departure out of England, Duke Henry her Son came over and prosecuted the War against King Stephen; yet could it not be in his own, but his Mothers Right, who was then alive; Nor could the agreement you mention, be made between the King and the Duke as having then a right to the Crown in his own Person, since we read of no concession the Empress his Mother had made to him of it: And therefore whatever Title Henry could claim thereunto. Upon the death of King Stephen it was wholly due to this Kings adopting him for his Son, 
Vid. Hen. Hunt. p. 395. Richard de Hagulstad. Col. 314. joh. de Hag. p. 282.  and declaring him his Successor upon condition, that he himself should enjoy the Crown during his life, which agreement was solemnly confirmed and ratified, and that by Oath. in a full Assembly of all the Bishops, Lords and great men of the Kingdom: For Ordericus Vitalis in his Annals, (p. 989.) Is very express in the manner of this great Transaction; in these words: Sic tamen in praesentiarum ipse Rex & Caeteri Potentes Sacramento ●irmarent quod Dux post mortem Regis, si tempore eum superviveret, pacifice, & araque cont●ad●ctione Regnum haberet; therefore as long as the Empress Maud lived (who died after her Son King Henry's coming to the Crown,) '●is plain he could have no Hereditary Right to it, notwithstanding what Matthew Paris, and Matthew Westminster (who lived long after these Transactions, have said to the contrary) and therein are to be looked upon as Authors that speak their own sense, rather than that of the Writers of those times.  M. 
I confess what you have urged in this matter concerning Duke Henry's being admitted as Heir of the Kingdom during the Life of his Mother the Empress Maud seems to the purpose, and there could be nothing said against it, but that this was done by the Concession of the Empress herself, who surrendered all her pretensions to her Son, tho' we have no particular account of it, or else (which is more likely in my opinion) that the Government of Women being then unknown in England and Normandy, and consequently odious to the English and Norman Nobility, and for which reason chiefly they had before set this Empress aside, they thought they did in effect perform their Oath to her, when they acknowledged her Title in her Son Duke Henry, who is said by the Historians of those times to have succeeded Stephen jure Haereditario, which could not at all agree with your notion of his receiving his Title from the Consent or Election of the great Council.  
But I shall pass over this, and come to your next instance of the Vacancy of the Throne, which you pretend to have been upon the Death of King Henry the II. Now your only argument to prove this is, that King Richard, tho' his Eldest Son alive, was only called Duke of Normandy, and never King of England till after his Coronation; but whoever will but consider the circumstances of this matter, will find that he was indeed owned for King of England, before his pretended Election or Coronation; for before his coming into England to be Crowned, Rocer Hoveden tells us, 
P. 373.  That every Freeman of the whole Kingdom, by the Command of his Mother Queen Elinor, swore, quod fideni portabit Regi Angliae Richardo Regis Hen. filio, which plainly shows, that he was then by common intendment looked upon as King before his Coronation; and though I confess that this very Author also relates that all the Estates of the Kingdom being assembled at London, by whose Council and Assent the said Duke was Consecrated and Crowned King of England; and though Ralph de Diceto, then Dean of St. Pawles (who in the Vacancy of that Church then supplied the Office of the Bishop at King Richard's Coronation) hath this passage, 
Col. 647.  Comes itaque Pictavorum Richardus hereditario jure praemovendus in Regem, post tam cleri, quam populi solemnem & debitam electionem involutas est triplici Sacramento, etc. Now what can this solemn and due election here signify? Or what can it mean farther than that Richard being King by Hereditary Right, was so owned and recognized by the Clergy and Laity?  F. 
I desire I may reply to this before you proceed farther. I confess what you say about the Empress Maud's surrender of her Right to her Son Duke Henry would be considerable, if you had any Authorities from our Ancient Historians to support it, but since you have not, I look upon it as no better than a mere surmise of those of your opinion, that the Crown was then enjoyed by an Hereditary Right without any consent or election of the people; and so likewise is your other fancy, that because Women were then looked upon as uncapable to Govern, therefore the Bishops and great men of the Kingdom, supposed they had sufficiently performed their Oath of Allegiance to her by acknowledging her Son Duke Henry for the right Heir of the Crown; now if this had been so, pray tell me to what purpose King Henry I. (Father to the Empress) should have made all the Estates of England swear fealty to his Daughter, if a Woman had been then looked upon as uncapable to Govern? or to what purpose should the Clergy in the Council at Winchester choose this Empress as the King's Daughter, Lady both of England and Normandy, 
Hou. p. 106.  as William of Malmesbury tells us expressly that they did, and that he was present at it? or how could the great Council of the Kingdom believe that they had sufficiently satisfied their Oath to the Daughter in conferring the Allegiance that was due to her upon her Son? I am sure no Heiress of the Crown would look upon that as a good performance of their Oath at this day; when you can answer me these queries, I shall be of your opinion in this point; but till then I beg your pardon.  
But as to what you say against the Vacancy of the Throne upon the Death of King Henry the II. till King Richard was Elected and Crowned, I desire no better Authority to the contrary than those very Authors you have now cited for your opinion; for first Hoveden in the very place you have quoted him, says, That the Duke was to be Crowned King by the Council and As●●nt of all the Parties there present; now if I understand any thing of Grammar or Sense, he was not King before, and therefore needed their Assent to make him so; likewise in the next quotation from Ralph De Diceto, the Duke is said Hereditario jure promovendus in Regem, which words being in the Future Tense, show 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 purpose are all these words aforegoing? so that though this Right gave him the fair pretence to succeed to the Crown, yet it is plain from both the Authors you have quoted, that he was not so till after the due Consent and Election of the Clergy and People, so that after, all your questions, (what can this solemn and due Election signify? or what can it mean farther, than that Richard being King by an Hereditary Right was so owned and recognized by the Clergy and Laity?) will receive a very easy answer from what has been already said, till you can show me out of any Dictionary that Consilium and Assensus (which are the words of Hoveden) and the words Solemnis & debita electio, ever signified an owning, or recognition of an Hereditary Right.  
I confess the only colour you have for your interpretation of those words in Hoveden which you have now cited of Queen Elianors making every Freeman of the Kingdom swear 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 England before he was Crowned, and consequently 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 swear to him as such, yet that could not make him so, since the same Historians also tell us, that Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury, and William Earl Marshal made the people of England take a like Oath to Earl john as their Lord, (not King) immediately after the death of King Richard his Brother, and yet I suppose you will not affirm that their swearing Fealty to him as their Superior Lord, made him King, or gave him a just Title to the Crown; and I desire you or any indifferent man to tell me which was Hoveden's opinion, whether this swearing Fealty was a sufficient Declaration of his ●eing King, or else all those other expressions which signify the contrary, when immediately before his Coronation he only calls it ducem Richar●m qui Coronandus erat in Regem, which I think is as plain a distinction, of his being a Duke before he was Crowned, and a King afterwards, as words can make.  M. 
I see it is in vain to urge this point any longer, and therefore I shall proceed to your next instance of the Vacancy of the Throne, after the death of King Richard until King john was placed therein: now though it is certain that this Prince was an Usurper, upon his Nephew Duke Arthur, yet whether he was ever Elected in a Common Council of the Bishops, Earls and Barons of the Kingdom, is very doubtful. But suppose 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, and having the Interest of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and most of the great men were of his party, and yet for all that Hoveden, who was alive at this time, speaks not a word of his being Elected, but only that upon his coming into England he was received by the Nobility, and Crowned by Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury; so that there is not one word there of any Election by, but only a submission from the Lords Spiritual and Temporal to King john; and a recognition that he was their King: nor indeed could he need it if it be true what the same Author tells us. That when King Richard despared of Life, 
Hou. f. 449.  he devised to john his Brother, the Kingdom of England, and all his other Lands, and caused all those that were present to do him Fealty; and this is related by Hoveden, in all probability an Eye Witness of these transactions.  
So that the first Author we find to mention any thing of the particulars of this pretended Election is M●tthew Paris, who has given us the Speech which the Archbishop made at this supposed Election, 
Matt. Paris f. 197.  and also reciting the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls and Barons, and all others who ought to be at his Coronation; the Archbishop standing in the middle of them, said thus, Hear all of you, your Discretion shall know, that no man hath right to succeed in this Kingdom, unless, after seeking God, he be unanimously chosen by the University of the Kingdom (that is, those that are here said to meet at London) the rest 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 consent to the Election of him; and so upon this Speech made in behalf of Earl john, and full of a great deal of fulsome slattery, he was declared King.  
But to let you see what a sort of Man this Arch bishop Hubert was, here see what the same Author tells us in the same place, that being asked afterward, why he said these things? 
Ibid.  answered, That he guested, and was thought ascertained by certain Prophecies that john would bring the Kingdom and Crown into great Confusion; and therefore, lest he he might have too much liberty in doing, he affirmed, he ought to come in by Election and not by Hereditary Succession. Now though this Learned Doctrine of the Arch bishop asserts a right of Election in the Convention of Bishops, Earls, Barons, etc. yet by his own answer when he was asked why he said these things, it clearly discovers it to be only a design and artifice in the Archbishop, to cause them to set up, and make john King: and in which also he denies any such right of Election, but since Hoveden, nor any other of our ancient historians make mention of this Election but only of his Coronation, and the Bishops, Earls and Barons assisting at it, not giving their consents to it, it may very well be, that that story of an Election and this Speech of Arch bishop Hubert might be only an invention of Matthew Paris, or rather of Roger of Wendover from whom he took most of his History: but that this doctrine of the Archbishop concerning the Election of our Kings, if meant according to the modern understanding of it, was then new. Gervase a Monk of Canterbury in the year 1122. who also speaking of the Coronation of Henry the First, says, it was manifest and known almost to all men, that the King's of England were only obliged, and bound to God for the possession of the Kingdom, and to the Church of Canterbury for their Coronation, 
Col. 1338. N. 30.  manifestum est autem & omnibus fire notum; Reges Angliae soli Deo obligari & teneri ex ipsius regni adeptione & Ecclesiae Cantuariensi ex Coronatione.  
But that King john was looked upon as an Usurper is very certain, since besides some of the honest English Nobility, that took Duke Arthur's part, the King of France did also make War upon King john upon his Nephew's account, because he looked upon him as true Heir to the Crown, and therefore when K. john had privately made away his said Nephew in prison, the K. of France summoned him as Duke of Normandy, and Peer of France, to answer for the Murder in an Assembly of the Peers of France at Paris, where for his refusing to appear, he was condemned to death and his Dukedom of Normandy declared forfeited to the King of France.  F. 
I confess you have said as much as can be, to prove that King john had no Hereditary Right to the Crown, nor was so solemnly Elected to it (as Matthew Paris relates) but yet for all this, I think I may very justly oppose all that you have now said upon this Head; for in the first place, it was then very much disputed (as it hath been also since that time) if an Elder Brother died and left a Son a M●nor, whether his Younger Brother or the Son should succeed; for though the People of Anjou and those of Guienne owned Duke Arthur for their Prince, yet the States of Normandy were of another mind, and as well by virtue of King Richard's Testament, he was immediately after his Death invested with that Dukedom, nor was he then at all opposed in it by the King of France, though Supreme Lord of the Fee, and as for England besides his Brother's Testament, whereby he left him Heir of all his Territories; it was also then generally held in England as most consonant to the Ancient English Saxon Law of Succession, that the Uncle should succeed to the Crown before the Nephew, therefore it is no wonder if Duke Arthur found so small a party here, not any Bishop, Earl or Baron (as I read of) owning his Title, and as for the King of France it is also as certain, that he did at first own King john for lawful King of England, and Duke of Normandy, and entered into a Treaty of Peace, and made a League with him as such; though it is true that afterwards, when he had a mind to pick a quarrel with that King, he then set up Duke Arthur's Title; And though 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 unjustly Conquered all Normandy, and almost all that Kings other Territories in France, and then wanting a Title to keep them, he began this Prosecution you mention against him, and upon his non appearance he was condemned unheard; but that the King of France himself, and all the great men of that Kingdom did look upon him to have been lawful King of England, appears by that Speech, 
Fol. 236.  which Matthew Paris relates to have been made after King John's Deposition 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 condemned by his Peers for the Death of his Nephew Arthur, and that he had been also for his great cruelties and other wickedness Deposed by the Barons of England; and farther reciting that the said King, without the assent of his Nobility had resigned his Kingdom to the Pope to hold it of him, at an Annual Tribute of a thousand marks, (the rest I will give you in Latin, because you yourself shall translate it,) etsi Coronam Angliae sine Baronibus alicui dare non potuit, potuit tamen dimittere tam▪ quam statim cum resignaverit, Rex esse desiit, & Regnum, sine Rege vacavit, vacans itaque Regnum sine Baronibus ordinari non debuit, etc. so that you may see that by the order of Prince Lewis, and the allowance of the King of France himself, every one of our opinions are maintained for good; first, That King john was before the resignation of his Crown to the Pope, true and lawful King. Secondly, That by that resignation to the Pope, he did dismiss or abdicate his Right to it, (for so I suppose the word demittere Regnum, is here to be rendered.) Thirdly, That upon this dismission of the Crown, the Throne became Vacant. Fourthly, That upon this Vacancy the Kingdom could not be conferred without the consent of the Barons▪ that is, the great Council of the Kingdom.  
But let King John's Right to the Crown have been what it would, it is certain, that he could not take it upon him, until such time as this Great Council had both heard and allowed his Title, and that this was in the nature of an Election, notwithstanding his Brother's Will, appears by that account which Roger Wendover and Matthew Paris have given us of it, which though Hoveden and other Writers have omitted, yet doth it not therefore follow, that this was all the pure invention of Roger of Wendover or Matthew Pari●, since the former, he living near that time, might write from the relation of ●o●e that were then present; and as for the latter, I look upon him, though a Monk, as a man of too great integrity to invent any thing of his own Head; and though I confess the account that Archbishop Hubert gives, why he put King John's Title rather upon Election than Succession, looks very suspicious; since the Archbishop must thereby have made himself a Knave and a Hypocrite, and seems also to contradict what Matthew Paris had before said, viz. That all those that heard his Speech, dares not so much as doubt of these things, knowing that the Archbishop had not th●s judged of this matter without cause; and therefore I grant that this part of the relation concerning the Archbishops vindicating of himself, for thus giving his Judgement, might be a Story commonly taken up, and being told to this Author, was by him inserted in his History at a time when I grant the Crown of England began to be thought successive by reason that King Henry the III. had succeeded as the eldest Son of his Father, though he was no● for all that admitted without Election as I shall prove by and by; but that King john was made King by Election, though he claimed it from his Brother by succession likewise appears from his own Charter still to be seen at this day, in the Archbishops Archives at Lambeth, wherein he recites, that he came to the Crown, 
Vi. Charta moderationis feodi magni sigilli.  jure hereditario & mediante tam Cleri quam populi unanimi consensu & favore: where you see plainly that he derives his Title from the consent and favour of the Clergy, and People, as well as his own Hereditary Right.  M. 
Notwithstanding what you have now said, I cannot agree with you, that by these words you have now cited from this Charter, is to be understood any formal Election of the Clergy and People; but that this unanimous consent mentioned in it, was rather their acknowledgement of his Title, and submission to him, than any thing else; for according to Hoveden's relation of his coming to the Crown (which I think the most exact extant) the whole Nation submitted, and swore Fealty to him against all men, before he came over into England.  
But as for his Son Henry the III. it is much more plain that he succeeded by Succession, and not by Election, as being the Eldest Son of the Late King his Father, as appears by the relation of his Coronation in Matthew Westminster, 
Fol. 277.  who tells us thus. Henricus Iohannis primogenitus in Regem inunctus & solemniter Coronatus est; and tho▪ from the Speech which was made to the Clergy and Nobility that was then at Gloucester by the Earl Mareshall, 
S. D. p. 13.  'tis pretended, that Henry was Elected, yet I dare say if any one do but impartially consider the tenor of it, he will find that the design of it was rather to persuade all those then present to return to their duty and acknowledge Him for their King, whom God and Nature had designed for that great charge; for the Earl begins his discourse to 'em thus, (as it is in Knighton) Ecce Rex Vester, (which certainly could not then be true if an Election was necessary to make him such) but amongst the rest of his Arguments he urges this, 
Col. 2426.  Hunc igitur libeat, regem dicere cui ipsum Regnum debetur, you ought to choose him to whom the Kingdom is due, (which surely 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 sure never since) Elective, is the answer of Hubert de Burgh to Lewis when he summoned him to deliver up Dover Castle to him, since his Master for whose use and service he held it was dead; but see his answer, If my old Master, says he, he dead, he has left behind him Sons and Daughters to succeed him. A thing he never would have asserted, had he not thought there had been a Divine Right somewhere else than in the People.  F. 
Before I speak any thing to King Henry the III ds. Election; give me leave to reply to what you have said against the express words of King john's Charter; for if Favor and Consensus does not signify somewhat more than a bare acknowledgement and submission, I understand neither English nor Latin. Nor is this any answer to the express testimony of Roger of Wendover, and Mat. Paris to the contrary. And as for Roger Hoveden, he does not say he was not Elected, but only omits the manner of it, as divers other Historians do: So that (at the best) this is but a negative Argument: And yet that Hoveden himself did not look upon him as King even after the whole Nation had sworn Fealty to him before his Coronation, may appear from this passage a little before his coming over: W●●ielmus Rex Scotorum misit nuncios ad johannem Ducem Normandiae, etc. Where you see he calls him no more than Duke 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 Succession in Henry the IIId. I doub. it will do you but little service; for according to your own principles it must have been lodged some where else than in this Prince: For when King john his Father died Eleanor the Sister of Duke Arthur was then alive, and died not till the 25 th'. year of King Henrys Reign a close Prisoner in Bristol Castle, as Matthew Paris relates. 
Mat. Paris F. 574.  So that it is apparent he could have no such Divine Hereditary Right as you suppose; and therefore perhaps his Father, to strengthen his Title, and to recommend him the more to the People's savour, 
Mat. Paris. F. 288. Mat. Westm. F. 276.  appointed him his Successor by his last Testament. And Matthew Paris, and Matthew Westminster tell us, that when King john died Henricum Primegenitum suum, Regni constituit haeredem. So that it seems there was then no such Hereditary Right, for if it had, what need had there been of this Testament?  
But for all this Divine Right I do not find that this poor Princess Eleanor had any of the Bishops or great Lords to take her part, but all the dispute than was at this great Convention at Gloucester; whether they should abjure Prince Lewis, whom most of them had before chosen for their Lord, and adhere to Prince Henry, 
P. 145.  there present before them, as Matthew Paris tells us: Erat autem tâ tempestate inter Optimates Angliae fluctuatio maxima, cui se Regi committe●ent; juvenine Henrico, An Domino Ludovico? So that it seems by the relation our Historians give us of this matter, it was not from any great sense that the Clergy and Nobility had of the justness of Prince Henry's Title, that made them agree to choose him King; but the hatred they then bore to Prince Lewis when they found he had broken his contract with them, and put all the strong places of the Kingdom in the hands of French men; and treated the English Nobility with scorn and contempt: And therefore no wonder if they preferred an innocent young Prince of their own Nation, who had never been guilty of his Father's faults; before a Stranger whose fraudulent dealing with them, they had found not to answer their expectations; and therefore Mat. Westminster tells us, That Omnes nobiles Terrae in brevi ipsi juveni Regi Hemico, qui nihil culpae versus tos merueras fideliter adhaeserunt.  
But to prove farther that this King came in by Election and not by Succession, appears, by what our Historians relate concerning the manner of it. Henry de Knyghton in his Chronicle tells us, 
Col.  that on the Feast of St. Simon and jude, Henry Son of King john in Regem erigitur viribus, & industria Gualonis Pap●e Legati; which plainly shows that he was not King before; and I desire no better an authority than your own Author Matthew Westminster, who says that he was in Regem inunctus, anointed to be King, which shows, that he thought him not so before his Coronation; and though I grant Mat. Paris makes the Earl Marshal to begin his Speech with those words, Ecce Rex vester, as you relate them, yet this was no more than an allusion to that place in St. john ch. 19 Behold your King▪ it being usual in those days to begin their Speeches with a Text of Scripture. So that the Earl did not intend to be understood literally, for than he should have in this Speech contradicted what he had said b●fore; for though to prepossess their minds, he says of the young Prince there present, Behold your King: Yet it is plain, that how much soever he thought the Kingdom his right, yet that it could not be conferred upon him without their choice; as appears by these words, which you yourself have made use of, viz. You ought to choose him to whom the Kingdom is due. And it is evident by the assent, which the whole Assembly gave to the reasons declared by him in this Speech, that it was their choice alone that made him King; their Votes being given in these words, Fiat Rex; which had been altogether needless, had they looked upon him as King already: And therefore the Speech of Hubert de Burgh, which you mention; may very well be reconciled to this Hypothesis of supposing a necessity of an Election and Coronation to confer a full and legal right in those times: For when he said," That the King if dead, had yet left behind him Children who ought to succeed him. This, if strictly taken, is altogether false; for Eleanor the true Heiress of the Crown (according to your rule of Succession) was then alive: But if taken in a limited sense is true, that is, the Children ought to succeed if the great Counsel of the Nation thought fit; without whose consent, though they might have Ius ad rem, yet had they not Ius in re: This Election and Coronation being then looked upon as Livery and Seizin at this day is to an Estate in Fee, without which, though the writings are sealed and delivered, the Land will not pass.  
To conclude, I pray answer me that question I have so long put, though without any reply, viz. why, before this Election and Coronation was performed, none of those Princes that came to the Crown by your supposed Right of Succession, are called by any higher Title than Dukes of Normandy, or Earls of Poictou? So that from what has been here said, I think it plainly appears, that no less than seven of the eight Princes from your William the Conqueror (reckoning him for one) to King Henry the III. have owed their Title to the Crown, not to any right of Succession; but either to the Election of the People alone, or else to the will or designation of the last King, confirmed by the general consent of the People given thereunto; and without which it would not have been good according to the ancient custom of the English, Saxons before your Conquest; where besides the Testament of the King deceased, there was also required the consent or Election of the great Council. So that you see here was no alteration made in the form of our choosing our Kings after your Conquest from what it was before; for no less than seven or eigh● descents; and when you can answer this, I shall then come over to your opinion.  M. 
In answer to your Question, I shall not deny but that all our Historians give all the Kings you mention no higher Titles than Dukes of Normandy, or Earls of Poictou before their Coronations; which though I suppose they might do from a foolish superstition of that Age, which made them fancy that none were properly to be called Kings until they had been Anointed, and solemnly Crowned by a Bishop; yet that they looked upon them as Kings indeed, appears in that they ordered and disposed of all public Affairs, conferred Offices and Bishoprics as if they were lawful Kings before your pretended Election, or the ceremony of their Coronation, and also had Ambassadors sent to them from Foreign Princes; as appears from your own Quotation out of Hoveden: Of those that were sent by the King of Scots to King john before he was crowned, though it is true he there styles him no more than Duke of Normandy: And this also may further appear by that passage I have cited out of the same Author; that King Richard had Fealty Sworn to him as King of England by all the Freemen of England before he was Crowned, and you yourself acknowledge the same Oath to be taken by the same persons to King john before he came over to take the Crown.  
And Lastly, To make it yet plainer that there was no Vacancy or Inter-regnum in all these Successions you have mentioned; consult what Chronologer you please, or look into the most ancient Tables of the Succession of our Kings of England, or into our old Printed Statutes or Law Books; and you will still find the Reign of the Succeeding Prince to commence from the Death of his next Predecessor without any Vacancy or Inter-regnum between. And these I think to be a great deal surer marks of their succeeding to their Royal Dignity, by a pretence at least of a right of Inheritance from their Father or Brother; rather than this fancy of yours that you lay so much stress upon: That because of their not being styled Kings by our Historians till their pretended Election and Coronation was over, they were not so indeed. And I hope this may serve to satisfy this mighty Objection.  F. 
I must beg your pardon if I still declare myself not satisfied with your answers, for though I grant, that if this Argument of the Historians not styling them Kings, had stood single without any thing else to support it, that your answers might have signified something. But if you please better to consider it, you will find that of these Princes (taking in William your Conqueror) claimed, as yourself must acknowledge, not by any Hereditary right, but by the Testament of the deceased Predecessor: and if so, where was your settled right of Succession by right of Blood? Secondly, It is likewise as plain, that these four were never admitted or acted in England as lawful Kings, till those Testaments were confirmed by the Election of the Great Council, before whom they declared their Rights: And till this was done, how the Throne could be otherwise than Vacant, I cannot for my Life conceive. But as for two of them, (whom you call downright Usurpers,) (viz.) Henry the I▪ and King Stephen; it is certain they could have no colour of a Title till their Elections, and if not till then, and that neither your next Heir of the Crown, nor yet they themselves took upon them the Title of Kings; Was not this a Vacancy of the Throne in the mean time? Suppose that time to have been but for the space of three or four days, as it was after the death of King William Rufus.  
In the next place pray consider, that upon the death of every one of these Princes we do not find the Great Council of the Kingdom, which still assembled to Elect the Successor, was ever called in their names, but met by their own Inherent Authority; for how could they be summoned by the King before he took that Title upon him, which as yourself are forced to acknowledge, he never did till after his Coronation.  
Lastly, Pray remember farther, that whoever was thus Elected and Confirmed by the Great Council, whether he was next Heir by Blood or not, was always looked upon as Lawful King, and has always passed for such in all our Chronicles and Laws, and not those that claimed as the right Heirs by Blood; and if this be not sufficient to prove that these Princes had no true and complete right to the Crown till this Election was past, I desire you would show me my mistake.  
These things premised I think it will be very easy to reply to every one of those answers you pretend to have made to my Query. Therefore as to your First, That they were really Kings before their Election or Coronation, because they ordered and disposed of all public affairs I do not deny; but that some of them, who Succeeded either as Heirs by Testament, or by right of Blood, might do many public Acts, by reason that they looked upon themselves as Heirs Apparent to the Kingdom, and whom the Great Council I grant could not without high Injustice set aside, and upon this account they might also receive Ambassadors from Foreign Princes, in Affairs relating to Peace or War, that they might know how to deal with them, or what to expect from them, after they were settled in the Throne; yet that they sent not to them by the Title of Kings, appears by that passage I cited out of Hoveden; but I defy you to show me any one instance that any of these Princes above mentioned ever took upon them to exercise any of those Prerogatives of Sovereign Power, such as making War or Peace, Enacting Laws, Coining of Money, before their Election and Coronation; which though in some of them was done both at once, yet in others it appears plainly to have been at different times, and not upon the same day, as it happened in the case of Henry I. whose Election was at Winchester upon Saturday, and his Coronation was not till the next day; as also that of Henry the 3 d. whose Election was upon St. Simon and Iude's Day, but his Coronation not till the day after.  
But as for your next reply, which I grant to have been the strongest you have made, that King Richard I. and King john had both of them Homage and Fealty sworn 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: for in the first place, the bare swearing of Homage and Fealty to a Prince, doth not make him immediately King, though I grant it might give him in that Age a right to be looked upon as Heir Apparent to the Crown: thus Henry the I. made all the Lords and Great Men of England to swear Homage and Fealty to Prince William his Son, and so after his being drowned, to the Empress Maud his Daughter, which was the true reason why she looked upon herself afterwards as Heiress to the Crown; so likewise King Stephen a little before his Death (at the great Council I have mentioned) caused all the great men of the Kingdom to Swear Homage and Fealty to Henry Duke of Anjou, as his immediate Successor: so that you see this swearing of Fealty was in those days often performed, ●efore the persons that received it were Kings indeed; and so I believe it was done in both those instances you now give me; for though I grant, that Hoveden (as you cite him) relates that Homage to be made, and Fealty sworn to Richard the I. by the Title of King; yet is it very much to be doubted whether this was not only by a Prolepsis, or perhaps a slip of the Pen in this Author; since he writ this History long a●ter King Richard's Death, and therefore without we had the very words of this Oath, there is no certain conclusion to be drawn from thence; and I think we may as well credit the Chronicle of Abbot Brompton, who likewise lived about the same time and recites all this affair almost in the same words with those in Hoveden, but there the Oath does not run exactly in the same words as in this Author, but thus, quod unusquesque liberorum hominum totius regni juraret quod sidem portaret Domino Richardo, Domino Angliae filio Domini Regis Henrici, etc. sicut legio Domino suo contra omnes mortales, where you see the Oath is not made to King Richard as King, but only as Lord of England, and that there is a great deal of difference between those two Titles not only in name but in Substance, I have already proved when I spoke of the Empress Maud's styling herself Domina, and not Regina Anglorum, tho' she had Homage rendered, and Fealty sworn to her, not only in her Father's Life time, but also after her coming over again into England, in the Reign of King Stephen, by all that owned her Title, and that Hoveden himself meant no more than this, appears by that passage I have already taken notice of (viz.) that Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury, 
P. 793.  and William the Earl Marshal being sent over to keep the Peace, made all the men of the Kingdom, as well of Cities as Burroughs, with the Earls, Barons, and Freeholders', jurare fidelitatem & pacem johanni Normanorum duci, filio Henrici regis, filii Matildis Imperatricis contra omnes homines; where you see the Oath is taken to him only as Duke of Normandy, and not as King at all; and therefore you are mistaken to say that Hoveden mentions the like Oath to be taken to Duke john, as it was before to King Richard.  
But I come now to answer your last argument whereby you would prove that there was no Vacancy or inter-regnum in this Age, which is, because that our Chronicles and Tables of Successions do still begin the Reigns of each King, from the day of the Decease of his Predecessors, without any Vacancy or Inter-regnum between them; to which I reply, That none of our ancient Chronicles or Historians reckon thus as I know of, but rather acknowledge a Vacancy of the Throne to have been between each Succession; and as for the Tables of the Succession of our Kings, when you can show me one more ancient than the time from which I grant the Crown of England began to be looked upon as a Successive, and not an Elective Kingdom, I shall be of your opinion: but admit it were so, since the Succession to the Crown has been for the most part mixed, partly Elective and partly Hereditary, our King's might, to maintain the honour of their Title, still reckon their coming to the Crown immediately from the death of the last Predecessor, tho' there has been oftentimes some days and weeks between the one and the other, as I have now proved, and shall prove farther by and by, which being but small fractions of time, are not taken notice of in the whole account, which may be notwithstanding very agreeable to Law, for both my Lords Dyer and Anderson in their Reports do agree, That the King, who is Heir or Successor, may Write and begin his Reign the same day that his Progenitor or Predecessor dies.  M. 
It will be to no purpose to dispute this point with you any longer, since I must confess that there were so many Usurpations in the Succession of most of those first Kings after the Conquest, that it is a difficult matter to prove any settled rule of Succession to have been then observed in England; and therefore I only desire you to take notice, that though it is true, King Henry the 3 d was an Usurper, for the first Twenty five years of his Reign, yet for all the rest of it, which was near Thirty more, he was a true and lawful Prince, for Elinor his Cousin being dead in Prison without issue, 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 reckoned to have a true Hereditary Right to the Crown without any Competitors.  
And that this was so, will plainly appear from the Testament of King Henry the 3 d. (a Copy of which I have by me) where tho' he Bequeathes a great many of his Jewels to the Queen, and a great deal of Money to charitable uses; yet for this Kingdom, and other Territories in France and Ireland, he makes no Bequest of them at all, either to Prince Edward his Eldest, or to Edmund his youngest Son, tho' his Father King john had bequeathed the Kingdom to him, by his Will, (as you have already showed) and what could be the reason of this? But that there being now no Title left, to contest with his Son, there was no need of it; and therefore tho' Prince Edward was absent in the Holy Land when his Father Died, yet a great Council being called in his Name at London, he was there only recognized and acknowledged to be their natural Liege Lord and Lawful Successor to his Father's Throne; 
F. 49.  pray read the words as they are in Walsingham's Life of this King, Edwardum absentem Dominum suum Leigium recognoverunt, paternique successorem honoris ordinaverunt: we meet not here with any thing like Election, which no doubt we should not fail to do, if there had been any such thing practised.  
So likewise upon this King's death, his Son King Edward the 2 d. by the like Right succeeded as Heir to his Father; and tho' this Prince by suffering himself to be too much guided by his Minions, fell at length into such Arbitrary and Irregular courses, as procured him the hatred and ill will of his Subjects to that Degree, that by the Disloyal and Ambitious practices of his Lascivious Queen, he being made Prisoner, a Parliament was called in his name, who took upon them to Depose him for his misgovernment contrary to all Law and Right; and though his Son Prince Edward had hitherto joined with his Mother against his Father, yet is he herein so far to be commended, that tho' the Crown was offered him, by Election of the Great Council; yet the same Author tells us, he swore, that without his Father's consent he would never accept it; whereupon divers Messengers or Delegates being dispatched from the Parliament to the King, than Prisoner at Kenelworth Castle, who told him what had been done, and concluded of at London, required him to resign his Crown, and permit his Son to Reign in his stead; which though with some reluctance he at last agreed to; and thereupon Prince Edward took the Crown not by Election as you set forth, but by the session and resignation of his said 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, 
B. H. S. p. 381. Rot. Cl. 1. E. 3. P. 1 M. 28. Part of it is also in Walsingham. F. 126. M. 50.  which Writ or Letter is still to be seen among the rolls in the Tower, and is also published in Walsingham as a Proclamation, which because it will give very great light in this matter, I pray now read it at length. Rex. vicecom. Ebor. Salutem quia Dominus Edwardus nuper Rex Angliae pater noster de communi confilio & assensu praelatorum Com. Baron. & Alior. Magnat. necnon Communitat. totius Regni praedict. spontanea voluntate se amovit a Regimine dicti Regni volens & concedens, quod nos tanquam ipsius primogenitus & haeres Regni gubernationem & regimen assumamus, nosque ipsius patris nostri bene placito in hac parte de consitio & avisamento Praelator Com. Baron Magnat & Communitat. predict. onnuen●es pubernacula suscepimus dicti Regni; & fidelitates & Homagia ipsorum Praelitor, & Magnat. recepimu●, ut est moris, teste Rege apud Westmonast. 29. jan. So that you here see this King takes no notice of the deposition of his Father, or the Election of himself, but only that by the Common Council and Assent of the Prelates, Earls, Barons, etc. The King his Father had by his own free Will. removed himself from the Government of the Kingdom, and that therefore he had by the good Will of his said Father, and by Council and Advice of the said Prelates, Earls, etc. taken the Government of the said Kingdom upon him.  
But King Edward the 3 d. being dead, his Grandson Richard the 2 d succeeded him, having been before recognized by Act of Parliament, as Heir Apparent to the Crown in his Grandfather's Life Time, immediately upon the Death of his Father Edward the black Prince; so that he succeeded to the Crown, though an Infant, and having great and powerful Uncles then alive, and though by his ruling too Arbitrarily, and being too much governed by Flatterers, be became hated of his Subjects, and thereupon gave occasion to Henry Duke of Lancaster (whom he had before banished) to come over and take the Kingdom from him, without striking a stroke; and having taken the King Prisoner, called a Parliament in his name, who took upon them most unjustly to Depose King Richard, tho' 'tis true he also made a solemn resignation of it by his own seeming consent; but it is certain it was forced from him, for fear of worse usage if he refused it.  F. 
Pray give me leave to answer what you have now said, before you proceed farther in this History of the Succession. In the first place I shall not deny, but that from the Reign of King Edward I. the Crown has been always claimed (tho' not constantly enjoyed) by right of Blood; yet that the custom was otherwise before, I think the Instances I have given from the time of your Conquest, are more than sufficient; it is likewise as certain that this Succession by right of Blood, was never settled by any positive Law, and therefore must be purely derived from that Tacit consent of the People called Custom. Secondly, That the two Houses of Parliament have often notwithstanding this claim, placed or fixed the Crown upon the Heads of those Princes whom they very well knew could have no Hereditary Right to it. Thirdly, That such Princes have been always obeyed and taken for lawful Kings▪ all their Laws standing good as this day without any confirmation by their Successors, tho' they pretended to a better Title. Now if I prove every one of these three propositions, I think the case will be very plain, that though the Crown has been claimed and often enjoyed by right of blood, yet hath it been held near as often otherwise since that time; so that the Succession to it hath been still declared under the direction and limitation of the Present King, and Parliament.  
This being premised, I shall proceed in the next place to answer what you have said concerning King Edward the first's being only Recognised and not Elected King by the Parliament, it is plain from this History, that the Great Council still maintained their ancient right of assembling upon the death of the King, and of Judging who should be his Successor, and that without any summons from him, which will serve to justify (as do all the other instances aforegoing) that the late Convention meeting, and settling the Crown without any Writs or Authority derived from King james was no new thing; but that they have therein done no more than what hath been anciently practised in like cases; and tho' ('tis true) the words in Walsingham is recognoverunt, yet there is also other words which seem to intimate, that it was then in the power of the Great Council whom to declare for lawful Successor; the words are, Paternique Successorem honoris ordinaverunt, that is, they ordained or decreed him Successor of his Father's Dignity, which sure is somewhat more than a bare Declaration 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 Dedimus, for all men's taking the Oaths of Allegiance in the Country, which is still to be seen in the close Rolls, and begins thus; Quia defuncto jam celebris memoriae Domino Henrico patre nostro ad nos Regni Gubernaculum successione Haereditaria Procerum Regni voluntate & fidelitate nobis praestita sit devolutum, etc. where besides the Hereditary Succession, the good Will and Fidelity of the Great Men is reckoned as one of the means by which the Kingdom came to him; and that this course was also observed upon the accession of his Son Edward the 2 d. to the Crown seems likewise as evident from the same Author, who tells us in the beginning of the Life of this Prince, that he succeeded his Father King Edward, non tam jure Hereditario quam unanimi consensu Procerum & Magnatum; which observation had been altogether needless, had an unalterable Hereditary Right to the Crown been the settled.  
But as to what you say of King Edward the 3 ds. Right, whilst his Father was Living, to have been wholly due to his resignation, tho' the place I cited out of Walsingham be express in this point; yet against this you urge a Writ, or Declaration, as also a Proclamation of this Kings, wherein he thus sets forth his Title, viz. That by the Voluntary resignation of King Edward his Father, and by the Council and Advice of the Prelates, Earls, and Barons, etc. he had taken upon him the Government of the Kingdom; and consequently that succeeding immediately upon his said Father's resignation, there could be no Vacancy of the Throne; to which I answer, that I do not deny that after this King was once settled in the Throne, but that he might think it most to his honour, and the independency of his Title, to rely wholly upon his Right of Succession as Eldest Son, and Heir without taking any notice of the Parliaments Election of him; tho' this be also convertly expressed in these words, which are in this Writ, and Proclamation, viz. ` That consenting to his said Father's pleasure, he had taken the Government, de consilio & advisamento Praelator. Com. Baron. Magnat. & Communitat. praedict. which though you translate by Council and Advice of the Prelates, Earls, Barons and Commonalty: yet I do suppose that by consilio is here mean not Council, but Consent, as I have already proved the word consilium often signifies in our ancient Statutes; for otherwise if this word must here signify Council, it would be a plain Tautology, for Advice and Council are the same thing.  
But to show you also that there must needs have been a vacancy of the Throne, either upon the Deposition or Resignation of Edward the 2 d. (take it which way you will) appears from matter of Fact, for it is plain, that when Prince Edward refused the Crown upon the Parliaments Electing him, unless his Father would willingly resign it, he did at their request resign his Title to it, by certain Commissioners sent down to him to Kenelworth Castle to take it; now that place being at least two days Journey from London, it is certain there must be as many days vacancy of the Throne if not more before the said Commissioners could get to London, and that Prince Edward had agreed to take the Crown upon his Father's Resignation; for till then the Throne was Vacant, since till the Prince had declared his assent to take it, he might have chosen whether he would have accepted of it or not; as not being satisfied whether his Father's resignation were voluntary, and not by constraint. Now if there were a Vacancy of the Throne in this case, though but for two or three days; it serves to prove the matter in question as well as if it had been for two years.  
So likewise let the Reign of King Henry the IVth. begin either from the Resignation or Deposition of King Richard the TWO d. (take it which way you please) there must have been a Vacancy of the Throne; as appears by the Parliament Roll still extant. For it is there plain, that after the instruments of King Richard's Resignation and Deposition were solemnly read, that the Throne continued Void for some space: Till such time as Henry Duke of Lancaster stood up and made his Claim to it, in that form of words which stands to this day to be seen upon the Parliament Roll, and that the Arch Bishop of Canterbury taking the Duke by the hand, had led him to the Throne, and placed him therein.  M. 
I cannot deny but as you have set forth the matter of fact, there must have been a Vacancy of the Throne in these two cases; but since the depositions of both these Kings were contrary to Law, and their resignations extorted from them by constraint whilst they were in prison; they are neither of them looked upon as valid, or to be urged as precedents in future times. But however the Throne might seem then to be Vacant in point of fact, yet in Law it was otherwise; for Edmund Earl of March ought to have immediately Succeeded upon the Death or Resignation of King Richard, as being Lineally descended from Philippe only Daughter and Heir to Lionel Duke of Clarence, Third Son of King Edward the IIId.  
But to let you see that Henry Duke of Lancaster, (as much an Usurper as he was) yet was so sensible that the Crown could not be then enjoyed by Election, but by Right of Blood; and that the Parliament also thought themselves in duty bound to submit to him to whom by Right of Blood the Crown did belong: 
B. H. S. p.  Will appear from this Duke's manner of laying claim thereunto: Which, since you have not particularly mentioned, I will. For no sooner was the Throne Vacant by the pretended voluntary resignation of King Richard. 
Vi. Rot. Parl. 10. Hen. 4.20.  but Duke Henry having fortified himself with the sign of the Cross; stood up, and made his demand of the Crown in his Mother-Tongue in this form of words (as I have extracted them out of the Parliament Roll.)  

In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  
I Henry of Lancaster challenge this Reawme of Inglonde, and the Corone, withal the Members and appurtenances; also that I am Descendit by Right Line of the Blood, coming fro the good Lord King Henry the Third: And thorghe that Right, that God of his Grace hath sent me with the help of my Kin, and of my Friends to recover it: The which Reawme was in point to be undone for default of Governance and undoing of the good Laws.   
And after which Challenge and Claim, (says the Record which I render out of Latin) as well the Lords Spiritual as Temporal, and all the States there present being all severally interrogated, what they thought of the aforesaid Challenge and Claim; the above named States, with all the Commonalty, without any difficulty or delay unanimously agreed; that the aforesaid Duke should Reign over them. Where you may see that this whole Parliament admit the Duke's Claim for good without proceeding to any formal Election of him.  
And by virtue of this pretended Right, and Claiming as Heir of Earl Edmund (Surnamed Croutch-back, Brother to King Edward the Ist.) (whom he falsely pretended to have been the Eldest Son to King Henry the IIId. and put by for his Deformity) did not only himself, but also his Son Henry the IVth. and his Grandson Henry the VIth. (though Usurpers) Succeed as right Heirs to the Crown till the 39th. year of Henry the VIth. when Richard Duke of York did in a full parliament lay Claim thereunto; in right of his Mother, being only Sister and Heir of Edmund Earl of March. And because the Judgement of the Parliament in this case is very remarkable, pray read this part of it, as it stands recorded in the Parliament Roll. Whereupon consideration of the Answer, 
Vi. Rot. Parl. 39 Hen. 6. M. 18.  and Claim of the Duke of York; it was concluded and agreed by all the Lords that his Title could not be defeated: And therefore for eschewing the great inconveniences that may ensue; a mean was found to save the King's Honour and Estate, and to appease the said Duke if he would: Which was, That the King, (viz. Henry the VIth.) should enjoy the Crown during Life, the Duke to be declared the true Heir, and to possess it after his Death, etc. And note that all this was done after a solemn hearing of all that could be said on both sides.  F. 
I confess the matter of fact concerning King Henry the VIth. coming to the Crown is truly recited by you from the Parliament Roll; yet for all that it doth not follow that the Parliament allowed this Kings feigned and false claim to be good by their not contradicting it: For though the Record says, That upon the hearing of this Challenge or Claim, all the Estates of the Kingdom being then asked their Judgements severally; they declared, that the same States without any difficulty or delay, unanimously agreed that the said Duke should Reign over them. For considering the Duke's great Power, it was not safe telling him to his face, that he had no true Right by Inheritance; therefore they only declared in general words without expressly denying or affirming his said Claim, That he should Reign over them: Which words do rather amount to an Election of him to be King, without declaring what Title he had to be so: And this they thought they might very well justify, not only for his having delivered them from the Tyranny of King Richard, but also because they then looked upon it as their Right not only to Depose the King in case of an apparent violation of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, but also to place in his stead any of the Blood-royal, tho' not next Heir by Blood; according to the Message the whole Parliament had formerly sent to K. Richard in the beginning of his Reign by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Uncle the D. of Gloucester; 
H. Knighton. Col. 2681.  which I gave you at our ninth Meeting (as I remember:) And pray take notice the words were, Et propinqai rem aliquem de stirpe Regia, loco ejus in Regnisolio sublimare: Where observe that the words were not the next of Blood, but some near Kinsman of the Blood roil.  
And though it is true that both King Henry the Vth. and VIth. might both seem to succeed to the Crown by Right of Blood, yet I do rather attribute their right of Succession to an Act of Parliament made in the seventh, and confirmed in the eighth year of Henry the IVth. 
Vi. 7. Hen. IU. Cap. 2.  whereby the Crown was entailed upon all his Sons by Name, and the Right Heirs of their Bodies: By virtue of which settlement both Henry the Vth. and VIth Succeded thereunto. For if he had thought his own feigned Hereditary Title to have been sufficient, he would never have troubled himself to have procured the Crown to be settled upon himself and his Children by Act of Parliament.  M. 
All this signifies nothing, for I have already sufficiently proved that in the 39th. year of Henry the VIth. upon a solemn hearing before the Parliament of the Claim of Richard Duke of York to the Crown, the said Act was set aside, And it was there expressly declared that the said Duke's Title could no ways be defeated: And this agreement is still on Record, between Henry the then possessor of the Crown, and the said Duke (whose Right it was) and the Judgement of the Parliament was then given in the behalf of proximity of Blood, 
B. H. S. p. 386.  as to have always been the foundation and ground of Succession to the Crown of England; and of taking it from the Son of Henry the VIth, and restoring it to the Duke of York and his Issue as right Heirs thereof: As appears by the Title and Pedigree of the said Duke set down at large in the first Article of this Agreement confirmed by Parliament; that is, by King Henry the VIth. himself, who was then King de Facto, tho' not de jure.  F. 
I will not deny the matter of fact to be as you have set forth, yet if you will but please to consider 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 constraint upon that poor Prince Henry the VIth. than by any real Right the Duke of York had to the Crown, after its being settled for three Descents in the House of Lancaster.  
For the proof of which I desire you in the first place to take notice that at this time the whole Kingdom was under general discontent, no● only for the loss of all our Conquests in France, but also for the great mismanagement of Affairs at home; by reason of the exorbitant power of the Queen and her two favourites the Dukes of Somerset and Suffolk; who made the King a mere cipher, and had without his consent made away Humphrey Duke of Gloucester (the King's only Uncle then living) contrary to Law; so that affairs being in this ill posture, it was very easy for the Duke of York and the Earl of Warwick, to procure a sufficient Interest in the Nobility and Great men of the Kingdom, to raise an Army upon pretence at first, only of reforming the grievances of the Kingdom, 
Vi. Grafton's Chronicle.  and bringing the said Dukes of Justice, the issue of which War was, that the Duke not being strong enough at first to oppose the King's Forces, was forced to surrender himself, and to obtain his Pardon, took a Solemn Oath never to Rebel against the King again; but being afterwards Attainted at a Parliament held at Coventry for new Conspiracies, he then again Rebelled, together with the Earl of Warwick; and then that King Henry being carried to head his Army, was by the Duke of York taken Prisoner in the Battle near Northampton, and being thence by him brought up to London, a Parliament was called in the King's name (though without his consent) wherein the Duke of York had the confidence to seat himself in the Royal Throne, and to make that challenge of the Crown you have recited; and under how great a terror all the Friends and Servants of this poor Prince was at that time, 
Vi. Record 39 H. 6. N. 11, 12, 13.  appears plainly from this, that neither the King's Attorney, nor any of his Council durst undertake to plead his Cause before the Parliament, nor yet would the Judges give their opinions in a matter of such great moment, but they all answered, That this Matter passed the Learning of the Justices; and also that they durst not enter into any Communication in that matter, and besought all the Lords to have them excused for giving any Advice or Council therein; but the Lords would not excuse them; and therefore by their Advice and Assistance it was concluded by all the Lords that the Articles following should be objected against the Claim and Title of the Duke; So that you see from the Record itself that the Judges were with much ado prevailed with to object any thing against the Duke's Title.  
Therefore considering the great contempt the King's Person was then under by reason of his weakness, and the great hatred and weariness the Nation had then of the evil Government, of the Queen and her Favourites, it was no more difficult for the Duke of York to procure this Judgement in Parliament in savour of his Title, than that Henry the 4 th' should after he had put Richard the 2 d in Prison get him Deposed, and make his own Title to be allowed for good; and certainly if it were Rebellion for the Duke of Lancaster to take up Arms against King Richard the 2 d and to Depose him, I cannot see why (according to your own Principles) it should not be the same crime in the Duke of York to take up Arms against King Henry the 6 th', to whom he had more than once sworn Faith and Allegiance, and having taken him Prisoner, to call a Parliament whereby himself was declared Protector of the Kingdom, and the Son of King Henry disinherited after a quiet possession in three descents, during the space of above sixty years, which if it will not give a thorough settlement after two Acts of Parliament to confirm it, I know not what can.  M. 
I confess you have given me a more exact account of this transaction than ever I had yet, and I should very much incline to be of your opinion, were it not that I am satisfied that our Kings have a Right to the Crown by God's Law as well as man's, as also by the Law of Nature, and that more than one Parliament have been of my opinion in this matter, I shall show you from several Statutes and Declarations of Parliament, which though not Printed, are yet to be seen at this day upon the Parliament Rolls; for after that Henry the 6 th' or rather his queen for him, had broken the aforesaid solemn 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 should then forfeit his present Right to the Kingdom during his Life, 
Vi. Grafton's Chron.  whereupon Queen Margaret and her Son Prince Edward, who would not submit to this agreement renewed the War, and fight another Battle at Wakefield, the said Duke was slain; but though he did not live to enjoy his right, yet his Son Edward Earl of March again, recovered it; and having in the second Battle of St. Alban taken K. Henry Prisoner, triumphantly Marching to London, he there declared himself King, 
Par. Rolls 1. Ed. 4. N. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. B.H.S. p. 388.  and having immediately called a Parliament, it was therein declared, that all the proceedings against K. Richard the ad are repealed, and the taking him Prisoner by Henry Earl of Derby was declared against his Faith and Allegiance, and that with violence he had usurped upon the Royal Power and Dignity, etc. and that he had by cruel Tyranny Murdered and Destroyed the said King Richard his Liege and Sovereign Lord, against God's Law and his own Oath of Allegiance.  
And then they proceed further to declare in these words, That the Commons being of this present Parliament, 
Ibid.  having sufficient and evident knowledge of the said unrightwise Usurpation, and intrusion by the said Henry late Earl of Derby, upon the said Crown of England; knowing also certainly, without doubt and ambiguity, the Right and Title of our said Sovereign Lord (viz. King Edward the 4 th') thereunto true, and that by God's Law, Man's Law, and the Law of Nature, he, and none other, is, and aught to be their True, Rightwise, and Natural Liege, and Sovereign Lord, and that he was in Right from the death of the said noble and famous Prince his Father, very just King of the said Realm of England, and will for ever take, accept, and repute, the said King Edward the forth, their Sovereign and Liege Lord, and him and his Heirs to be Kings of England, and none other, according to the said Right and Title.  
And that the same Henry unrightwisely, 
Id. p. 389.  against Law, Conscience, and the Customs of the said Realm of England Usurped upon the said Crown; and that he and also Henry, late called K. Henry the 5 th'. his Son, and Henry Late called Henry the 6 th'. his Son, occupied the Realm of England, and Lordship of Ireland, and exercised the Governance thereof, by Unrightwise, Intrusion, Usurpation, and no otherwise; that the ●motion of Henry late called King Henry the 6 th' from the Exercise, Occupation, Usurpation, Intrusion, Reign and Governance of the▪ said Realm and Lordship, done by our Sovereign Lord King Edward the 4 th'. was and is rightwise, Lawful, according to the Laws, and Customs of the said Realm, and so ought to be taken, holden, reputed, and occupied.  
I have been the larger on this point, because it is a full and free Declaration of the whole Parliament, nor only against all past as well as future Parliaments having any thing to do in the disposal of the Crown, but is also as express a Declaration as words can make, against any Vacancy of the Throne upon the Death of the Predecessor; and therefore I hope you will pardon me, if I have been a little too tedious in reciting these Records.  F. 
I cannot blame you for being very exact in this point, because the whole strength of your Cause depends upon it; but yet I doubt not but to show you, that this Parliament was as much awed by King Edward's Power, being now Conqueror, as ever those Parliaments were that Deposed Edward and Richard the 2 d▪ for you yourself have sufficiently set forth the manner of it, that it was not till after a great Victory obtained against King Henry the 6 th'. and I never found in all my reading, that a Victorious Prince ever wanted power enough to get a Parliament called to settle himself in the Throne, and declare his Competitor an Usurper; as I shall show you more fully by and by: but that this Act of Parliament, which thus positively declares Edward the 4 th' to be their Sovereign Lord, by God's Law, Man's Law, and the Law of Nature, I think can no ways consist either with Scripture, Reason, or Matter of Fact; for in first place, I think I have sufficiently proved, that there is no Divine Right of Succession 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 also proved, that the Succession to the Crown by right of Blood alone, was never established by any positive Law, nor yet settled by any constant or interrupted Custom, when this Declaration was made; for the Crown had then never descended from Father to Son. for above two Descents, without a deposition, or possessed by those who claimed by Right of Blood, without any other Title; for as for the three Kings of the House of Lancaster, I have already proved (and yourself must also own it) that they could have no Title to the Crown, but from the Acts of Entail of the 7 th' and 8 th' of Henry the 4 th' above mentioned so that according to Man's Law, that is Custom, and also the Statute Law of this Kingdom, the House of Lancaster, had all that time the better Title.  
But to show you what uncertain things Parliaments are, when King Edward the 4 th' had Reigned ten years, he was driven out of the Kingdom, by the Earl of Warwick's turning suddenly against him, and in his absence he replaced King Henry the 6 th' upon the Throne, who had been all this while kept in Prison; and the first Act this King did after his Restoration, 
Vi. Grafton's Chronicle.  was to call a Parliament, which revoked all the former Statutes and Declarations of the 39 th' of Henry the 6 th'. and 1st. of Edward the 4 th'. and then entailed the Crown anew upon the issue of King Henry, the remainder to the Duke of Clarence, who then took part with King Henry against his own Brother.  
'Tis true indeed that King Edward the 4 th' returning again not long after into England, and regaining the Crown from King Henry the 6 th'. the said King was not only murdered, together with his Son Prince Henry, but in the next Parliament, was also attainted of Treason, with all others of his Party, and yet lot let you see that this very Act is now null and void against King Henry the 6 th'. and his Son Prince Edward; see an Act of Parliament of the first of Henry the 7 th'. (not Printed) which because it is not commonly known, 
Rol. Par. 1. H. 7. N. 16. Restitutio Henrici sexti.  I will read it almost verbatim, The King our Sovereign remembering, how against all rightwiseness, honour, nature, and duty, an inordinate, seditious, and slanderous Act was made, against the most famous Prince of blessed memory King Henry the sixth his Uncle, at the Parliament holden at Westminstey, the fourth day of November, the first year of the Reign of Edward the 4 th'. Late King of England, whereby his said Uncle contrary to the due Allegiance, and all due order, was attainted of High Treason, wherefore our same Sovereign Lord, by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament▪ assembled, and by Authorities of the same, ordaineth, enacteth, and establisheth, that the same Act, and all Acts of Attainder, Forfailure, or Disablement made or had in the said Parliament, or else in any other Parliament, of the said Late King Edward against the said most blessed Prince King Henry, or against the right famous Princess Margaret Late Queen of England, his Wife, or the right Victorious Prince Edward, Late Prince of Wales, Son of the same blessed Prince K. Henry and Margaret, etc. are void, annulled, and repealed, and of no force, nor effect; so that by virtue of this Act, the Title of the House of Lancaster was again declared to be good.  
But to conclude, I cannot but take notice of one mistake you have fallen into, by saying, that all proceedings against King Richard the 2 d. are repealed by that Parliament of the first of Edward the 4 th'. which is not so; for though I grant that the dealings of Henry Earl of Derby (as he is there called) in imprisoning the said King, and Usurping the Royal Power, is there expressly condemned, and his Murdering of him said to be against God's Law, and his own Oath of Allegiance (as certainly it was) yet the Deposition of the said King Richard by Parliament is no ways repealed by this Act, for then all the Records thereof would have been quite Cancelled and taken off the Rolls, whereas they still remain to be seen at this day; and you see by this Act I now recited, That the attainder of King Henry the 6 th' is declared contrary to due Allegiance, and all due order, and all forfeitures, and disablements of the said King and Prince are quite annulled and made void.  M. 
I must confess you have so staggered me with this Act, that I know not what to say to it, but that it was made in the first Parliament of King Henry the 7 th'. and before he had married the Princess Elizabeth, and consequently had no good Title to the Crown himself, therefore till then I look upon him as an Usurper; but I shall now proceed to sh●w you, that that very King, nay, even Richard the 3 d. himself, chiefly relied, not upon any Parliamentary Election, but upon their own pretended Titles of being right Heirs by Blood; for after the death of Edward the 4 th'. his Son Edward the 5 th'. was proclaimed King and might have quietly enjoyed it, if his ambitious Uncle Richard Duke of Gloucester had not plotted to defeat him of it; and knowing very well that he had no way to bring it about, but by inciting a corrupt party of the Bishops and Lords, 
Vi. Grafton's Chronicle.  together with the Lord Mayor of London, and some of his Party in the City, to set forth by way of Petition to the Duke than Protector of the King and Realm, That all the Children of K. Edward the 4 th' were Bastards, supposing that King to have been Contracted with a certain Woman called Eleanor Boteler, before he Married Queen Elizabeth; moreover, that the Blood of his Elder Brother George Duke of Clarence deceased, was attainted; so that none of the Lineal Blood of Richard Duke of York could be found uncorrupted but in himself; and there was at the conclusion of that Roll, an Address to him from the Lords and Commons of the Kingdom; that he would take the Government upon himself: this fine artifice assisted on one side with his feigned excuses, which induced the less thinking sort of People to believe, he desired not the Royalty, and prompted on the other side with the fear of his power, procured his accession to the Throne, so that at last, he and his Wife Anne were solemnly Crowned King and Queen at Westminster; and by these steps did that inhuman Prince, who had no Title to the Crown, either by descent, or by merit ascend the English Throne; see you that not by Election, but by pretence of blood, and by bastardising and attainting his Nephews, he set himself up for the only true Heir of the Crown; and therefore in the Parliament he called immediately after his Coronation, when they had declared almost the very same things as were before in the said Petition, 
Vid. Collection of Records. 1 Richard III.  they proceed further; To declare that the Right, Title, and Estate which King Richard the III d had to, and in the Crown and Royal Dignity of the Realm of England, with all things thereunto, within the said Realm, and without it, annexed and appertaining, was just and lawful, as grounded upon the Laws of God and Nature, and also upon the ancient Laws and laudable Customs of this said Realm, as also taken and reputed by all such Persons as were learned in the abovesaid Laws and Customs, (and proceeds farther thus,) therefore at the request and by the assent of the three Estates of this Realm, (that is to say) the Lords Spiritual, and Temporal, and Commons of this Land, Assembled in this present Parliament, and by the Authority of the same, it is pronounced, decreed, and declared, that our said Sovereign Lord the King was and is the very undoubted King of this Realm of England, with all things thereunto belonging within the said Realm, and without it, united, annexed, and appertaining, as well by right of Consanguinity, and Inheritance, as by lawful Election, Consecration, and Coronation.  
So that you see tho' they put in his Election, as also his Coronation, as means of obtaining the Crown, yet the pretended hereditary right of blood was the main ground of his Establishment. But as for King Henry the VII th', tho' he could claim the Crown by no true Right of Inheritance, yet would he never own it to be an Election by Parliament; for as soon as King Richard was slain in the Battle of Bosworth, the Lord Stanley put his Crown upon Henry's head; who immediately styling himself King, 
Vid. Lord Bacon's Life of K. Henry the 7th.  as well by right of Conquest, as by being sole Heir Male of the House of Lancaster, He as such, caused himself to be Crowned King; and though he afterwards called a Parliament, in which he procured his Title to be recognised, 
Fol. 7.  yet, as my Lord Bacon very well observes, he was afraid to take the Crown (by his only true Title) in right of the Lady Elizabeth his Queen, for fear he should only be King by Courtesy, and must upon the Queen's death have resigned it again; and should he take it by Election, he knew there was a very great difference between a King that holdeth his Crown by a Civil Act of the Estates, and one (mind that) that holdeth it originally by the Law of Nature, and descent of Blood; and therefore upon these Considerations, he resolved to rest upon the Title of the House of Lancaster as his main Right; and thereupon he caused an Act of Parliament to pass, wherein his Title was acknowledged (as my Lord Bacon there tells us) not by way of Declaration, or Recognition of Right, as on the other side, he avoided to have it by a new Law of Ordinance, but chose rather a kind of a middle way, by way of establishment, and that under covert and indifferent words, that the inheritance of the Crown, should rest, remain and abide in the King, etc. which words might be equally applied, that the Crown should continue to him; but whether as having former right to it (which was doubtful) or having it then in fact or possession (which no Man denied) was left fair to interpretation either way. I speak not this to justify all his actions, but to let you see that he chiefly insisted upon his right of inheritance, and absolutely disowned any Title by Election from the People.  F. 
I cannot deny the matter of fact concerning King Richard the IIIds Deposing his Nephew, and Usurping the Crown to have been very wicked, and contrary to the received Law of England concerning the Succession at that time; and likewise that by Bastardising his Brother the late King's Issue without due course of Law, and by attainting the blood of his other Brother the Duke of Clarence, he would have made the World believe that he was Lawful Heir by right of blood; yet you will not deny but that for all this, he was so sensible of the weakness of his Title, that though (it is true) his right by blood is declared in the first place in that Act of Recognition, yet it is plain he would not rely upon that alone, and therefore you see the Parliament there also insists upon his right by Election, and Coronation, which they would never have done, had it not been that they looked upon it for good Law, that whoever was Crowned King, and called a Parliament, and had his Title therein Recognized and Confirmed, was thenceforth true and lawful King to all intents and purposes; therefore though you have omitted it, I shall proceed to show you, what this Statute also farther declares: For after they had declared the said King's Title, as grounded upon the Ancient Laws and Laudable Customs of the Realm, according to the Judgement of all such Persons as were learned in them; they proceed thus: Yet nevertheless, for as much as it is considered, that the most part of the People is not sufficiently learned in the aforesaid Laws and Customs, 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 question; and over this, how that the Court of Parliament is of such Authority, that a Declaration made by the three Estates, and by the Authority of the same, maketh before all other things most faithful and certain quieting of men's Minds, and removeth the occasion of doubts, and seditious Language; therefore they also declare that he was the undoubted King. Whence 'tis evident, that the reason of this Law supposeth that the Subjects in general are not capable of understanding the Laws and Customs upon which the Titles of our Kings depend; and that the best satisfaction that the generality of the People can possibly have in those high Matters, was to rest on the judgement and determination of the Kingdom, declared by Act and Authority of Parliament, and therein to acquiesce for the preventing Sedition, so much as in Language: therefore what I said before in the Case of King Stephen, is also true in this, quod fieri non debuit, factum valet; and all the Acts made in the Reign of this King Richard, though ● horrid Usurper, were never repealed, but stand good at this day.  
As to what you say concerning the manner of King Henry the VII this coming to the Crown is also true, but as for his Title to it by right of Succession, that was certainly false; for his Mother the Countess of Richmond was then alive, by whom he Claimed the Crown, and lived divers years after he was King; so that though I grant that it is recited in the Parliament Roll that he claimed the Crown in Parliament, 
Rot. Parl. 1. Hen. VII.  tam per justum titulum haereditantiae, quam per verum Dei judicium, in tribuendo sibi victoriam de Inimico suo in campo; tho' the latter of these Titles may be true, Viz. the Conquest of King Richard, especially when once he was confirmed and recognized in Parliament, yet that the former could not be so, is plain from what I have now said; so that it is certain that King Henry the VII this best Title was neither by Inheritance nor Marriage with the Princess Elizabeth, but by the Act of Parliament, as appears by the unprinted Statute itself, still upon the Roll, which since you did not repeat, 
Vid. Buck 's History of Richard the III d.  I will; the Title is Titulus Regis, and it runs in these words, To the Pleasure of Almighty God, the Wealth, Prosperity, and Surety of this Realm of England to the singular comfort of all the King's Subjects of the same, and in avoiding of all ambiguities and questions, be it Ordained, Established, and Enacted by Authority of this present Parliament, that the inheritance of the Crowns of the Realms of England, and of France, with all the preeminence and dignity Royal to the same pertaining, and all other Seignouries to the King belonging beyond the Sea, with th' Appurtenances thereto in any wise due or pertaining, be, rest, remain and abide in the Most Royal Person of our now Sovereign Lord King Henry the VII th', and in the Heirs of his Body lawfully coming perpetually with the grace of God so to endure, and in none other.  
Now this was done some time before he Married with the Princess Elizabeth, for as soon as this Act was made, the Commons requested the King to marry Elizabeth the Daughter of King Edward the fourth, that by God's Grace there might be Issue of the stock of their Kings (as their own words were;) and that this was rather to preserve the Blood Royal, than to give any new confirmation to his Title appears from hence, that there was never any other Act after the Marriage to declare the right of the Crown to be in the King, and Queen, or so much as to entail it on the issue of their Bodies; so that it is plain he enjoyed it not in his Wives, but in his own right, since he held it after her death, by virtue of this Statute, which plainly shows, (that in the judgement of that Parliament) the House of Lancaster was looked upon to have the better Title: And (though it is true) that the King procured the Pope's Bull now in the Cotton Library, to strengthen his Title, threatening all those with Excommunication that should offer to rebel against him; yet even that Bull (tho' his right by Inheritance and Conquest be first mentioned) concludes with his Title by the Election of the Prelates, 
B. H. S. p. 391.  Nobility, and People of England; and the Decree or Statute of the three Estates in their Convention, called the Parliament, as this Bull itself expresses it.  M. 
I must confess you have told me more of these matters, than ever I heard of before, for I always thought that there had been no Act of Settlement upon King Henry the VII th', until after his Marriage with the Princess Elizabeth; for till then I look upon him as an Usurper upon her right, as he was also after her death upon his Sons successively; so that if you will have my Opinion, I conceive that this Statute being made before he had a lawful right to the Crown is wholly void, as is also that of the repeal of the attainder of King Henry the VI this for the same reason.  
But let his Title be what it will, it is certain, his Son King Henry the VIII th' Succeeded to the Crown, as Heir rather to his Mother, than his Father, and so was in by remitter; but as for King Edward the VI th', he was undoubted Heir by right of blood, as being the only Heir Male to his Father; and though it is true, that King Henry made divers Statutes whereby he altered the Succession of the Crown as to his two Daughters Mary and Elizabeth, sometimes declaring them both illegitimate, and then again giving them a right to Succeed by Act of Parliament; 
B. H. S. p. 393.  yet these Acts of Succession were obtained purely by the King's Solicitation, and Command; and tho' at last he got himself impowered to make a Will, whereby he might settle and entail the Crown on whom he pleased, yet all these Acts of Parliament, as also this, will signify just nothing after his death; for tho' his said Daughter's Queen Mary, and Elizabeth, did one after another succeed his Son King Edward the VI th', yet was it not by virtue of any of these Acts of Parliament, or by the aforesaid Will, but by pure right of inheritance (or colour of it at least) and therefore in the first of Queen Mary, there is an Act declaring the Queen's Highness to have been born in most just and faithful Matrimony, 
1 Mar. 2 chap.  and also repealing all Acts of Parliament, and Sentence of Divorce made or had to contrary.  
Now certainly the intention of this Act was to declare her Succession to be Inheritance by right of blood; so likewise in the first of Elizabeth, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons do declare and confess that Queen Elizabeth is in very deed, 
1 Eliz. c. 1.  and of mere right, by the Laws of God, and by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, their most rightful and lawful Sovereign Queen, and that she was rightly, lineally, and lawfully descended 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 descent of Queen Elizabeth, was the ground upon which she was declared to be their Rightful and Lawful Queen.  
And though I grant that King Henry the VIIIth. had by his Last Will and Testament post poned all the Issue of his Sister Margaret Queen of Scots, and preferred the Children of his younger Sister the Queen Dowager of France, (which she had by Charles Duke of Suffolk before them: Yet was this Will afterward canceled, and torn off from the Rolls in Chancery where it was Recorded; 
B. H. S. 394.  and that by order of Queen Mary (as is supposed.) So that james the VIth. King of Scotland was by Right of Blood Declared and Proclaimed King of England immediately upon the Death of Queen Elizabeth, as right Heir of the Crown. And in the first Parliament after his Coronation, his Title is by them particularly recognized in the words which I desire you to read with me: Where after setting forth his Pedigree as lineally descended from the Lady Margaret, eldest Daughter of King Henry the VII th', and Queen Elizabeth his Wi●e, Daughter of King Edward the IV th'; they farther acknowledge King james their Lawful and rightful Liege Lord, and Sovereign; and farther say, as being bound thereunto both by the Laws of God and Man, that they do recognize and acknowledge that immediately upon the dissolution and decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England, the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England, and all Kingdoms & Dominions belonging to the same, did by inherent Birthright, and lawful and undoubted Succession descend and come to his Most Excellent Majesty, being lineally, lawfully, and justly, next, and sole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm▪ and thereunto they do most humbly and faithfully submit and oblige themselves, their Heirs and Posterities for ever, until the last drop of their bloods be spent. I have been the more particular in the recital of this Act, because it stands not only as a perpetual Declaration of the sense of the Representatives of the whole Nation for an hereditary Succession of the Crown without any vacancy or election, but also because it contains, their solemn engagement for themselves and their posterities for ever to King james, and his issue, and consequently to his right Heirs for ever; so that nothing can be more directly contrary than this Act to the late proceedings of the Convention, first in declaring the Throne vacant, and then placing the Prince and Princess of Orange therein.  F. 
I will not deny but that King Henry the VIII th', and Edward the VI th', both succeeded by right of inheritance, but whether the former claimed it as Heir to his Mother or his Father, is much to be doubted; since 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 Elizabeth, it is certain their best Titles were from these Acts of Parliament; for as to Queen Mary, it is plain, that at her coming to the Crown, she could not be looked upon as Heir by right of blood, because by the Statute of the 25 th' of Henry the VIII th', 
Chap. 22.  his Marriage with Queen Catherine her Mother was declared unlawful, and the Crown settled upon the King, and the Heirs of his Body lawfully begotten on Queen Anne Bullen; and besides all this, she was but Sister by the half blood to King Edward the VI th', and so could not inherit as heir to him; and though in the first year of her Reign, the Parliament ('tis true) took off her illegitimation, and repealed the Acts of the 25 th', and 28 th' of Henry VIII. whereby she was declared illegitimate; yet in this, the Parliament seems rather to provide for the honour of her descent, than (as you would have it) to declare her Succession to be Inheritance by right of blood, because the Statute of the 35 th' of Henry the VIII th', whereby the Crown was settled upon Prince Edward, and the Heirs of his Body, the remainder upon the Ladies Marry, and Elizabeth; and whereby the King had also power given him, of disposing the Crown by Letters Patents, or by Will, was not at all repealed; and for which, a memorable Reason is given in both these Acts, lest if such Heirs should fail, and no provision made in the King's Life, who should Rule and Govern this Realm, for lack of such Heirs, that then this Realm should be destitute of a Lawful Governor; whereby it seems plain, that the Parliament than esteemed no Heirs to have a Right by Law, farther than had been declared by these Statutes.  
So likewise for Queen Elizabeth, her Title was more apparently by Act of Parliament, and that she looked upon herself sufficient to have succeeded, by virtue of the limitation of the Statute of the 35 th' of Henry the Eighth, last mentioned, appears in that she never procured her Mother's Marriage to be declared good, and consequently her own illegitimation to be taken off; so that take it which way you will, it is certain that either Queen Mary's or Queen Elizabeth's Title must have been only by Act of Parliament, since she was born whilst Queen Catherine, King Henry's first Wife was living; and therefore, when the Parliament you mention, in the first Year of Queen Elizabeth, declared, that she was Rightly, Lawfully, and Lineally descended, and come of the blood Royal of this Realm, yet these words can only be understood of such a lineal and lawful descent as is here declared to be so by virtue of this, as well as the former Statute; and not according to any hereditary descent at Common-Law, since it is very well known, that as long as the Pope's dispensation for King Henrys Marriage with the Princess Catherine his Brother's Wife was allowed for good, as it was till the latter end of Henry the VII this, and all the first 25 years of Henry the VIII this Reign, the Princess Mary was looked upon as the only presumptive Heiress of the Crown; this I tell you, not to invalidate Queen Elizabeth's Title, but to let you see that Acts of Parliament, if they declare that which is apparently false in matter of Law or Fact are not to be credited, unless you will give them more power than God himself, 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 pass.  
I come now in the last place, to examine the Act of Recognition of King james the Firsts Title to the Crown, which I will not dispute to have been by right of blood, since none of the descendants of King Henry the VII th' could have any Title before him; for though it is true it was otherwise ordained by King Henry the VIII this Will, yet that (as you yourself show) was not only cancelled in Queen mary time, but was also void in itself; for, whereas by the Statute of the 35 th' of Henry the VIII th', there was a power given him to dispose of the Crown, either by his Letters Parents, or else by his last Will Signed with his Hand, yet was this power never legally executed; for those that have argued against this Will, 
Vi. Lethington's Letter to Sir Will. Cecil. Appendix to the 2 d Vol. of the History of the Reformation. fol. 269.  have told us, that he never Signed it in his life time, but that a stamp of his Name was put thereunto after his decease, as most manifestly appeared by open declaration made in Parliament of this matter by the Lord Paget, and others, that King Henry did never Sign it with his own Hand, as was also proved by the Pardon obtained for one William Clerk, for putting the Stamp unto the said Will, after the King was departed. So that though I grant that King james had a very good Title to the Crown of England by Inheritance, yet whether it was from King Henry the VII th' alone, or from Queen Elizabeth his Wife, is not there declared; only that he was lawfully descended of Lady Margaret, Eldest Daughter to King Henry the VII th', and Queen Elizabeth his Wife, Eldest Daughter of King Edward the IV th', and therefore, that they are bound both by the Laws of God and Man to Recognize his Majesty as sole Heir of the blood Royal of this Realm; all which is so far true if by God's Law, and Man's Law, you will thereby understand such Laws as God empowers the King and Parliament to make, for otherwise, there is no more heed to be taken of this Declaration, than that which was made before to Richard the III d, which also declared him to have a good Title to the Crown by the Laws of God, and Nature, and the Laws and Customs of this Realm. So that I see nothing in all this Act of Recognition, that at all contradicts my notion, that King James' Title is wholly derived from the Act of Settlement made on King Henry the VII th', from whom he was lineally descended; so that though his Pedigree be also derived from Queen Elizabeth, Eldest Daughter to King Edward the IV th', yet this was only ex abundanti, to show that he had every way a Title to the Crown, and if she herself had any Title, it was wholly by virtue of those Acts of Parliament of the 39 th' of Henry the VI th', and 1st of Edward the IV th', which vested the Crown in Richard Duke of York, and King Edward the IV th' his Son, and which last Act first declared that the three Henrys of the House of Lancaster were only Kings in deed, and not of right; for before that time I defy you to show me in all our Histories or Law-books any such distinction. In all foregoing times he that was solemnly Anointed and Crowned King in Deed, was also looked upon so to be in point of right, and therefore let those Statutes you so much insist upon, talk never so much of any Kings being so, by any fundamental hereditary right precedent to, and independent from the power of the two Houses of Parliament: I am very well satisfied that such a Declaration must be void in itself, since I have sufficiently proved that there was no such Law of Succession ever settled by any general Custom, or Common Law, since it hath been near as often broken, as observed; and as for any positive or Statute-Law enacting any hereditary right of Succession you do not so much as pretend to show it; so that I think I have sufficiently proved the three Propositions I laid down, viz. That ever since the time of Edward the First, though the Crown has been claimed by right of blood, yet has it not been very often enjoyed by Princes who had no just pretence to that Title Secondly, that the two Houses of Parliament have often, notwithstanding that claim, placed, or at least fixed the Crown upon the heads of those Princes who they very well knew could have no hereditary right to it. Thirdly, That such Princes have been always taken for lawful Kings, all their Laws standing good at this day, without any Confirmation by their Successors.  M. 
I did not think that you who were so great an admirer of the two Houses of Parliament, should now be so much against their power in joining with the King to declare what the true right of Succession to the Crown is, and hath ever been from time beyond memory: But I see Acts or Declarations of Parliament signify nothing with you if they are against your Hypothesis, or else you would never go about thus to expose those Acts of Parliament of King Edward the IVth. and King james the Ist. Whereby they are declared both by the Law of God and Man undoubted Heirs of the Crown. And the last Act I cited, (viz.) That of King james the Ist. doth sufficiently confute your Notion of a Vacancy of the Throne: Where it is expressly declared, That immediately upon the decease of Queen Elizabeth, the Crown of England with all the Dominions belonging to the same, did by Inherent Birthright, and Lawful and Undoubted Succession descend and come to his Majesty King james. So that if there then were no Vacancy of the Throne, I cannot see how there could be any such thing now; the next Heir to the Crown (be He who they will) being certainly not so far removed from King james the Ist. as himself was from King Henry the VIIth. under whom he claimed.  F. 
I must still confess myself to have a great veneration for the solemn Declarations of King and Parliament, made by any Statute; yet not so as to Idolise them, or to look upon all their Declarations as infallible: I grant indeed that whosoever is by them Declared and Recognized for King or Queen of England, is to be acknowledged and obeyed as such, by all the Subjects of this Kingdom; without farther questioning his Title: But if not content with this, they will also take upon them to declare that such 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 History of matter of Fact, and the knowledge of our Laws, that they have no other Ti●le than what the Laws of the Land have conferred upon them; and therefore you yourself cannot deny, but that it was gross flattery in the two Houses of Parliament to declare, that Richard the IIId (forexample) had a true and undoubted Right to the Crown, by the Laws of God, and Nature, and also by the Laws and Customs of this Realm, when you know he was a notorious Usurper upon the Rights of his Brother King Edward's Children. now how can I be assured that the like Declaration made to K●ng james the I. was not likewise a piece of Courtship of the Representative of the Kingdom to this King then newly settled in his Throne; since we find the People of this Nation, when they are in a kind fit, never think they can say, or do too much for their Princes; and therefore I must freely tell you, that it is not the bare Declaration of a Parliament that this or that has been always the Law or Custom of this Realm, when we can find from History that it has never been so held for above four hundred years at least, and therefore not beyond the memory of Man (as you suppose) since that must be before the Reign of Richard the First as I have already proved to you at our Eighth Meeting.  
But to answer your Objection against the vacancy of the Throne, I do freely grant, that a● often ●s the Crown descends by lineal Succession, there can be no vacancy of the Throne, as it did in the Case of King james the First: yet doth it not therefore follow, that there can never be any such Vacancy in any Case whatsoever, since certainly it may so happen, that all the Heirs Male of the Blood-Royal may fail, as it happened in the Case of Scotland, when john Balliol and Robert Bruce contended for the Crown, which not being to be decided by the Estates of the Kingdom, they were forced to refer it to our King Edward the First; and as also happened in France, when Philip of Valois, and our Edward the III d, both claimed the Crown, which was decided by a great Assembly of the Estates of France in the favour of the former, who claimed as Heir of the Male Line, against King Edward▪ who was descended by a Woman; and if King James' Abdication, or Forfeiture (call it which you will) is good, pray give me a sufficient Reason, why the Convention of the Estates of England should not have as much Authority as those 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 show me any sufficient Reason why the Convention should now Vote a Vacancy of the Throne, since there was certainly an Heir Apparent not long since in England, and I hope is now safe in France, who ought to fill it, or at least there should have been some sufficient cause alleged against him, to prove that he was not true Son either of the King or Queen; and till this was done, they could not with any Right or good Conscience, place any other Relation of his in the Throne, since every Person ought to be esteemed the Son of that Father and Mother that publicly own him for such; for it is a Maxim in our as well as your Law, Filiatio non potest probari.  F. 
How this could be performed without first declaring the Throne vacant, I cannot apprehend; for you yourself must grant, that there have been great doubts and suspicions of the Realty of this Prince of Wales; and therefore, that being one great reason of the Prince of Orange's coming over, The truth of this Child whether he was really born of the of the body of the Q. is first to be examined and determined, before he can be declared K. of England in the room of his supposed Father, whom we will also suppose Civilly (though not Naturally dead) and till this be done, (unless you would have had him been declared King without ever examining the truth of the matter) the Throne must have continued vacant till it could be decided, whether he or his half Sister the Princess of Orange were to fill it; and if so, whilst the Convention remained in this suspense, they could do no other than Vote the Throne vacant till they were sufficiently satisfied who had the best Right to it.  
But to answer your argument, that unless something could have been presently alleged against this Infant to have proved him not to have been born of the Body of the Queen, he ought to have been declared King: the Maxim you mention may be well allowed in the case of Common Inheritances, but not in that of Crowns, for in those we have read that Common and violent presumptions have been looked upon as sufficient proofs to set aside a supposed Heir of the Crown: 
Vi. Mariana's History of Hispan.  as for example, something above two hundred years since, Henry King of Castille, called the Impotent, (because he was not able to get his Queen or any other Woman with Child) did out of hatred to his Sister Isabel, permit a favourite of his to lie with his Queen, and get her with Child, she was brought to Bed of a Daughter, but the Estates of the Kingdom would by no means admit her for Legitimate, because the Queen had before declared her Husband to be Impotent, and therefore they did not only protest against her Legitimacy in the King's life time, in an Assembly of the Estates, but also as soon as he died, they set this pretended Princess quite aside and declared the Sister of the Late King, Queen of Castille, who was Married to Ferdinand King of Arragon. Now tho' I will not say, that either the suspicions or proofs against the present Prince of Wales are as pregnant as those against that Princess; yet certainly they were sufficient to debat him from being placed in the Throne, till such time as it shall be made apparent that he is really Son to the Queen.  M. 
If the Convention had gone this way to work, I grant there might have been some colour for what they have done, but then they ought before they had placed any body else in the Throne, to have first examined the Truth of the Queens being with Child, and her being truly delivered of this Prince, before ever they had declared the Prince and Princess of Orange King and Queen, and till this had been done, certainly the Throne should have still continued Vacant; therefore I doubt your Convention have made more haste than good speed in this matter, which certainly required much more deliberation.  F. 
Come, I will for once admit that they ought in the first place, to have examined your Prince's Title, but this is still to be understood, as far as it was possible 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 also the Midwife, the Nurse, and several other of the Queens near Servants and Attendants, went away along with him? who if they had been here to have been cross examined, might have declared the Imposture (if it be one.)  M. 
But pray Sir, are there not Protestant Ladies enough left behind, who have already Deposed before the Council (as appears by their Depositions published by the Kings express command, and enroled in Chancery, in perpituam Rei memoriam) not only that her Majesty was with Child, but that also she was really delivered of this Prince; so that the Prince of Orange and the Convention, aught to have in the first place summoned those Witnesses 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 must then grant that the Protestant Witnesses alone, who are now in England were not sufficient, for if they should have Deposed, that this Child had been an Impostor, I suppose, you would not have rested satisfied that they had spoke nothing but the Truth: since the Witnesses now in France (who best know the matter of Fact) might have sworn the contrary; but as for sending any Summons for them into France it was altogether in vain, and also that which the Convention were not at all obliged to do; it was in vain, because neither King james nor his Q. did ever own the Power of the Convention to hear or determine this affair, and therefore would not have let the Witnesses come over; for after the Throne was declared Vacant, the King must by sending those Witnesses have racitly owned the Authority of the Convention, in declaring himself to have Abdicated the Throne, as also that they might place his Son therein: so that any such Summons would certainly have been only rejected with scorn, and we should gain nothing, but the loss of so much time, and hindered our present settlement and defence, a whole Summer. Nor was the Convention obliged to do it, since the Parliament itself is not bound to take cognizance of any person or thing that is not within the Kingdom of England or the Territories belonging to it; and therefore it was not their business to inquire (without it had been brought before them) what was become of this Infant, whether he was legitimate or not, or whether he was alive, or else had been cast away at Sea, or taken by Pirates, any of which might very well have been; and therefore indeed this business could never have been decided, unless the Infant himself were actually present and sufficient proof made, not only that this was the same Child that was born of the Queen, but which was also carried away into France, all which could never have been examined as it ought, without the Childs personal presence here, which I suppose you will grant that King james and his Queen would never admit of as things now stand; therefore since a thorough examination into this business was impossible to have been performed, The Convention have done no more than what can be justified, in first declaring the Throne Vacant, and then who should fill it.  M. 
Well, but admit the case were so as you have put it, the Kingdom ought however to have remained without a King, till the succession had been duly settled. since according to the act of recognition to King james I. The Nation did not only oblige themselves but their Posterity (that is, we that are now alive) to that King and his Right Heirs; and therefore till this Princes Right had been determined, either the Convention should have Governed, or else they ought to have made the Prince of Orange only Governor or Regent of the Kingdom, and not to have placed him and his Princess in the Throne, till the young Prince had died, or else had been proved to be an Impostor.  F. 
I doubt not but I can show you not only the unreasonableness. but also the unpracticableness of this supposition. First, its unreasonableness, since you are very much mistaken to allege that the whole Nation, by that Act of recognition to King james obliged themselves, and their Posterities, to him and his right Heirs. 'Tis true they there tell him, That they made that Recognition as the first fruits of their Loyalty and Faith to him, and his Royal Progeny and Posterity for ever, and also when they have acknowledged him to be justly and lawfully next, and sole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm. and that they thereunto submit and oblige themselves, their Heirs and Posterities for ever, etc. there is no more meant or expressed in all this, than that the whole Nation did by their Representatives in Parliament oblige themselves and their Children to King james and his Posterity for ever, and I think that this part of the Recognition is sufficiently performed, 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 have signified nothing, either for our present security, or future settlement; not to the former, since this Regent (be he whom he would) must have Governed in the Right of some body or other, since I never read of a Regency in England during a Vacancy of the Throne; therefore I will at present admit that the Vote for King James' Abdication had never been made, only that the Prince of Orange had been declared Regent of the Kingdom, till such time as King james would have given the Nation sufficient satisfaction of his reforming all past miscarriages, and that his future Government should be according to Law. Now I would very fain know how it can be justified according to your Notion of the King's absolute irresistible power, to place a Regent over the Kingdom to Govern in his stead, whether he will or not, when it is certain he is neither a Minor, an Idiot, nor a Lunatic: so that then he must have returned again to the Government whenever he had pleased, or else the Convention must have been Judges whether the security or satisfaction he offered was sufficiently satisfactory or not, for if he himself was to be sole Judge in this case, I suppose you will grant this Regency would quickly have been at an end; but on the other ●ide, if this Right of Judging had been left in the Convention, whether the King's proposals were satisfactory or not, they might also have voted them not to be so; and till this was done, they might very well have justified there keeping him out of the Kingdom by force, now how that could have consisted with your doctrine of the King's Irresistible Power I desire you would satisfy me if you can; so that by this Regency, the King must either have been deprived of his whole Power, or he must not; if the former, that would have been as good as Deposing him from being King, and had left him no more than the bare Title, and whether this had not been a great deal worse, (as more Hypocritical) than the Conventions declaring him to have Abdicated the Government, I leave it to any indifferent person to Judge.  
But if you will suppose that this Regent must have Governed in the name of your Prince of Wales, as being declared 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 dispute.  M. 
I see you would fain find out any shifts for this pretended Vacancy, and placing those in the Throne to whom it doth not belong; yet though I grant that the word Right Heirs are not expressly recited in this Act of Recognition to King james I. yet for all that, it is employed, for the Oath of Allegiance is Enacted by I. Eliz. to be taken to the Queen, her Heirs, and lawful Successors; and by the Oath of Supremacy (Enacted in the IVth of King james) we are likewise obliged to swear, that we will bear true Allegiance to his Majesty, his Heirs, and Successors: now who these Heirs are, this very Act of Recognition doth sufficiently declare, viz. The next Heir by Descent of Blood; for as King james is hereby acknowledged to be Heir by Inherent Birthright: so when they oblige themselves, and their Posterity to King james, and his Progeny, it is to be understood (by parity of reason) that they oblige themselves and the Nation, for all future Generations to Him and his Issue in that sense, as that their Allegiance should be only due to him, or her who should be Lawful Heir to their Father, Brother, or Uncle, according to those rules of Succession, that had been commonly received for above four hundred years last passed, that is to say the Eldest Son, Brother, or Daughter, being still to be preferred before the Younger, and Sons before Daughters, and the same rule must also hold for their descendants; since upon this ground it was, that the Title of the House of York was preferred by Parliament before that of Lancaster, and the Title of the King of Scots who was descended from the Eldest Sister, before that of the House of Suffolk, who came from the Younger, and this being never altered by any subsequent Statute, (or if it had, I think it would not have been good;) the Convention ought either to have declared the Prince of Wales King immediately, or at least to have continued the Throne Vacant, let the difficulties or inconveniences that you suppose might have followed, to be never so great; and therefore it was their duty to have fought out King james and the Prince, wherever they had been, and to have desired him to have sent over the Prince, together with the Witnesses that went away with him; and till this had been absolutely refused, or else that upon a fair hearing, this Prince had been proved an Impostor. I say till one of these had been done, the Throne ought still to have continued Vacant (if it were so at all) nor till this had been cleared could they have justified the placing any body else upon the Throne, though never so nearly related to the King; whom I will suppose for discourse sake, to have really Abdicated the Kingdom.  F. 
I will not deny that the legal and common course of Succession ought to be inviolately observed according to the Rules you have now laid down, when ever it may consist with the public good and safety of the Kingdom; and yet for all that I cannot believe, that the King himself, much less any other, that only pretends as next Heir to him, can have such an absolute Right to the Kingdom, as that no considerations whatsoever can make them lose or forfeit their Right thereunto; therefore I look upon the Government of a Kingdom not to be like that interest which a private Man hath in an Estate, which is his Right let him be what he will, or let him manage it how he will. Whereas in the Right to a Kingdom, I take it to be a true Maxim, That the Representatives of a Nation (as the Convention was) ought to have more regard to the happiness and safety of the whole People, or Commonwealth, than to the Dignity or Authority of any particular Person whosoever, or howsoever nearly related to the Crown, when it is evident that the advancement of such a Person to the Throne, will prove destructive to our Religion, Civil Liberties and Properties.  
Now give me leave to apply what I have said to the Point now in question; Let us therefore at the present suppose, that your Prince of Wales is true, and lawful Son to King james and Queen Mary; and let me also farther suppose, that in his late passage over Sea, he was taken by the Pirates of Algiers, or Tunis, and by them been carried to one of those places, and been bred up in the Mahometan Religion, and after he had been Circumcised and fully grounded in that abominable Superstition, the Grand Signior, together with the Kings of Argier, and Tunis, should send this Nation word, that if they would not admit him quietly for their King, and allow him all those Priests he should bring with him a free exercise of their Religion in England, they would then make War upon this Nation with all the Forces they could raise. I ask you what we ought to do in this case, whether we should receive him for our King, or keep him out?  M. 
I must confess it is a nice Question, and since it is a thing that never did yet, nor I hope will ever come to pass, I think I may freely Answer you, That supposing this Prince could be proved to be the very same who was carried away so many years ago, we ought, notwithstanding his false Belief, to receive him; especially if he would solemnly Swear, only to worship God in private after his own way; and that he would Swear not to violate our Religion, or invade our Liberties and Properties; and this being done, I think we ought then to admit him for our lawful Sovereign; since, as you yourself have already acknowledged at our third Meeting, the Supreme Powers are not to be resisted, because they are of a different Religion from that of the People or Nation they Govern.  F. 
Very well: But let me tell you, In this you are much more kind to Mahometan and Heretical Princes, than the Church of Rome, who have decreed, That no Prince ought to be received as right Heir to a Crown, who is a Pagan, Turk, or Heretic; and upon this ground it was, that the States of France, during the time of the League, by the Pope's Decree, refused to own Henry King of Navarre for their Sovereign; and also, that the Papists of the Nuntio Party in Ireland during the late Rebellion, refused to own the late Duke of Ormond for Lord Lieutenant of that Kingdom, because the King was a Protestant.  
But pray answer me a Question or two further; Suppose this Prince refused to promise these or such things, or else if he did promise, and Swear them, pray tell me how could we be assured, that according to the Principles of that Religion he had been bred under, and those Arbitrary Notions he had learned concerning the Absolute Power of Kings in Barbary, and which he would believe due to himself, as being as Absolute a Monarch as any of them; I say, how such a Prince ever could be trusted? Since if he had the whole Power of the Militia in his hands, he might bring in what number of Turkish or Moorish Guards he should think fit, who might easily set up that Religion and Government too, in this Nation, since, according to your Principles of Passive Obedience and Nonresistance, no Man ought to lift up so much as a Finger against him, though he went about to make us all Turks and Slaves.  M. 
Well, supposing all this, as long as it is his Right he ought to have it, let the consequence be what it will.  F. 
You have said enough, I desire no more; but I hope every true Protestant and English man will be of another mind if ever such a case should happen; but indeed, it appears very strange to me, that a natural Disability, such as Ideocy or Lunacy, should be esteemed sufficient in all Kingdoms to debarr the next Heir from the Government, and yet that a Moral or a Religious Disability should not have the same effect; and though I grant that a King ought not to be Rebelled against, or resisted, merely because he is of a different Religion from that of his Subjects, for I was never for resisting King james merely upon that score; yet it is another thing when a Prince is not actually possessed of the Throne, but is to be admitted to it upon such Conditions as may appear safe for the Religion and Civil constitution of a Kingdom. In this case, if a Prince be certainly infected with such pernicious Principles either in relation to Religion or Civil Government, it is much otherwise; as for Example, That no Faith is to be kept with Heretics; That his own Religion is to be propagated by Arms, Blood, or Persecution; That no Government can be safe for the Prince, or in which he can appear Great or Glorious, but as an absolute Monarch; let such a Prince be either a Christian or a Mahometan, I think it would be a certain ruin to a Kingdom to be obliged to receive such a Prince, when they were morally sure, that he would not only subvert their Religion, but destroy the very professors of it, and not only those, but alter the Civil constitution too, by turning it from a limited Kingdom into an absolute despotic Tyranny.  
To conclude, I shall only desire you to consider, into what a Country your Prince of Wales is carried, and what Instructors he is like to have, and what Principles he will receive from them: and then pray tell me, if he continues there till he is a Man, what difference there will be between this young Prince bred up in such a Religion and such Principles, and the same, if he had been carried away by Pirates to Argier, as I at first supposed?  M. 
This is a very invidious Comparison; for though I do not approve of the Roman-Catholick Religion, yet sure there is a great deal of difference between that which professes all the Articles of our Creed, and in which we of our Church own Salvation may be obtained, and the Mahometan Superstition, which denies that fundamental Article of our Creed, (viz.) That Jesus Christ is the Son of God; and as for Civil or Political Principles, I hope the King his Father will take care to have him instructed by some of those English Noblemen or Gentlemen who are now with him, in the Customs and Constitutions of the English Government, and wherein it differs from the French, as we read Chancellor Fortescue did Prince Henry, Son to Henry the VIth. and I hope he will come over again to practise them in his own Country before he comes to be infected with the Arbitrary Principles of the French Government; 
Vid. Fortescue de Laud. Leg. Angl. in proem.  but as for those of not keeping Faith with Heretics, and a propagating his Religion by Persecution, I doubt not but the King his Father will take care not to commit his Education to any of those who are infected with such Principles; and I am the more inclined to believe it, because it is very well known that his Majesty's tenderness and moderation in matters of Religion, and not persecuting any body for the belief or bare profession of it, as it was the greatest cause of his late Declaration of Indulgence, so it was the main original of all his late Misfortunes; nor can I see any reason why a King by being a Roman Catholic, must necessarily be a Tyrant and a Persecutor, since you cannot deny but that we have had many good and just Kings of that Religion, and it is from those Princes that professed it that we derive our Magna Charta, and most of the privileges we now enjoy.  F. 
Though I would not be thought to affirm, that the Romish Religion is every way worse than the Mahometan, yet this much I may safely affirm, that there is no Doctrine in all that Superstition, so absurd and contrary to Sense and Reason, as that of Transubstantiation, held by the Church of Rome, in which the far greatest part are certainly Idolators, which can never be objected against the Turks; and therefore though I will not deny but that a Man may be saved in the Communion of the Romish Church, yet it is not for being a Papist, but only as far as he practices Christ's Precepts, and trusts in his Merits, that he can ever obtain that favour from God.  
But as for those evil Principles both in Religion and Civil Government, which you cannot deny but are now commonly believed and practised in France, and which you hope King james will take care that the Prince his Son shall be bred to avoid; I wish it may prove as you say; but if you will consider the Men that are like to be his Tutors and Instructors in matters of Religion, viz. his Fathers and Mother's Confessors the Jesuits, and for Civil Government, those Popish Lords and Gentlemen of notorious Arbitrary Principles and Practices, who are gone over to King james, you will have small reason to believe, that there is ever a Fortescus now to be found among the Englishmen in France, or who is likely to instill into him those true English Principles you mention.  
And though I do not affirm, that every Popish Prince must needs be a Persecutor, yet since that wholly depends upon those Priests that have the management of their Consciences, show me a Prince in Europe who has a Jesuit for his Confessor, and tell me, if he hath not deserved that Character.  
But though I am so much of your Opinion, that King james owns the greatest part of his Misfortunes to his Declaration for Liberty of Conscience; yet was it not so much to the thing itself, as to his Arbitrary manner of doing it by assuming a Dispensing Power contrary to Law; and you may be very well assured by the little opposition which the late Acts met with for taking off the Penalties against Conventicles and not coming to Church, in respect of all Dissenters, except the Papists, that King james might have as easily obtained a like Act to pass in respect of those also, as to the free profession of their Religion, and having Mass in their Houses, which is more than the Papists will allow the Protestants in any Country in Europe. And therefore I must beg your pardon if I still find great reason to doubt whether K. james his tenderness towards those that differed from him in matters of Religion, and the Indulgence he gave them were purely out of consideration of tender Consciences, and not rather thereby to destroy the Church of England Established by Law; since the Dispute began between King james and his Parliament, was not about Liberty of Conscience, but those Offices and Commands which the King was resolved to bestow upon the Papists, whether the Parliament would or not. And certainly there is a great deal of difference between a Liberty for a Man to enjoy the free profession of his own Religion, and the power and benefit of having all the chief Employments of Honour and Profit in the Commonwealth. But that the Indulgence of Popish Princes towards those that dissent from them in matters of Religion, may not always proceed from pure Tenderness and Compassion, appears from a Manuscript Treatise of F. Parsons, that great Jesuit in Queen Elizabeth's time) which I have been told was found in King James' Closet after his departure. This (if you can see it) will show you, that the subtle Jesuit doth there direct his Popish Successor in order to the more quiet introducing the Romish-Catholick Religion, to grant a general Toleration of all Religions, out of a like design. Thus did julian the Apostare long ago, tolerate all the Sects and Heresies in the Christian Religion, because he thereby hoped utterly to confound and destroy it.  
But as to what you allege concerning Magna Charta's being granted by Popish Princes, and that there has been many good Kings of that persuasion: As I will not deny either the one or the other; so I desire you to remember with what struglling and great difficulties this Charter was at first obtained and afterwards preserved, though it was no more than a Declaration of most of those Ancient Rights and Liberties which the Nation had always enjoyed. And you may also remember that they were Popish Princes, who more than once obtained the Pope's Dispensation to be discharged from those solemn Oaths they had taken to observe those Charters; and though there hath been divers good Princes before the Reformation, yet even the very best of them made the severest Laws against Protestants, and were the most cruel in their Persecutions, witness King Henry the IVth, Henry the Vth, and Queen Mary. And indeed, it is dangerous to rely upon the Faith of a Prince, who looks upon it as a piece of Merit to destroy all Religions but his own; and when he finds it cannot be done by Law, will not stick to use any Arbitrary means to bring it about. To conclude, pray consider whether the strict observing or violation of Magna Charta and his Coronation Oath, hath been the cause of King James' Abdication. Pardon this long Discourse which your Vindication of the Opinion and Practices of Popish Princes hath drawn from me.  M. 
Pray Sir, let us quit these invidious Subjects, which can do no good, since Princes must be owned and submitted to, let their Principles and Practice▪ be never so Tyrannical, and let us return again to the matter in hand. I will therefore at present suppose the Prince of Wales to have been either dead, or justly laid aside. now make it out to me how you can justify the placing the Prince and Princess of Orange in the Throne, when the Crown is really her right after the Prince of Wales, and not her Husbands; as also the putting the Government solely into his hands, since this can no ways agree with the Act of Recognition to King james the First, which you yourself cannot deny but aught to be observed, when it may be done without any apparent hazard or prejudice to the Protestant Religion and the Constitution of our Government, which I think might have been as well, if not better secured, by letting it have gone in the right Line, that by placing the Crown upon the Head of a Prince, who, though it is true, is of the Blood-Royal by his Mother, yet being a Foreigner▪ is a mere Stranger to our Government and Laws, and has been bred up in Calvinistical Principles, and upon that score 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 abolish Episcopacy in Scotland, upon his accepting that Crown from the Presbyterian Convention.  F. 
If these be all the objections you have to make against placing King William and Queen Mary in the Throne, I hope they will not be of any great moment to yourself, or any other considerate man; for if that upon the Abdication of King james and the impossibity of determining your Prince of Wales' Title (if it be one) a Regency was impracticable and unsafe for the Nation at this conjuncture of time, when we want a King to hold a Parliament, as well to raise Money to defend us against the Power of France, as also to make new Laws for the ease and reformation of the Kingdom, all which a Regent's acting without Royal Authority could never do, by the constitution of this Kingdom: so that if there was now a necessity of placing some body in the Throne, for the Common Good and Safety of the whole Commonwealth, I think you yourself cannot but acknowledge, that the Princess of Orange had an Hereditary right to the Crown, and if her Highness had, the Prince her Husband also aught to Govern the Kingdom in her Right during her life, and those who deny King Henry the VIIth to be Lawful King before his Marriage with the Princess Elizabeth, will yet grant he was so in her Right after his Marriage; and this has not been only the Custom in England, but also in other Kingdoms of Europe, as I can give you several Instances. For upon this ground it was that Ferdinand King of Arragon, by Marrying with Isabel Queen of Castille, Governed that Kingdom during his Life; so also Anthony Duke of Bourbon marrying with jane Queen of Navarre, did in her Right administer the Government of that part of it, which was left unconquered by the Spaniards; and here at home Philip Prince of Spain by his Marriage with Queen Mary, had certainly in her Right Governed this Kingdom, and had enjoyed something more than the bare Title of King, had he not by the Articles of Marriage, confirmed by Act of Parliament, been expressly debarred from it.  M. 
Admit all this to be true, yet this was only the enjoyment of a bare Matrimonial Crown, and held no longer than during the Lives or Marriage with those Queens you mention. But pray tell me, how can the Convention according to the ancient constitution of this Kingdom, justify the settlement of the Crown, not only on King William during the Queen's Life, But for his own Life also, to the prejudice not only of his own Issue (if ever he have any by the Princess) but also of the Princess of Denmark and her Heirs?  F. 
I doubt not but to show you, that this may be easily justified by the constitution of the Kingdom, and former Precedents of what hath been done in the like cases. First, as to the Constitution, I have already proved that upon the deposition of a King, (which is all one with a Forfeiture of the Crown) the Great Council or Parliament hath taken upon them to Elect or Admit either the next Heir by Blood, or some Prince (tho' more remote) of the Royal Family to the Crown; thus King Henry the IVth upon the Deposition or Resignation of King Richard the Ild. was placed in the Throne by the Archbishop of Canterbury, after the two Houses had Voted and consented he should Reign over them; though I grant that by right of Blood, Edmund Earl of March ought to have succeeded to it; but he being then a Child was passed by unmentioned, Duke Henry being then powerful, and having delivered the Kingdom from the Tyranny and Evil Government of Richard the ●Id. I shall pass by Richard the IIId. because I own his Government to have begun by Unsurpation and to have been established by the Murder of his Nephews. But as for Henry the VIIth. I have already showed you, that the Parliament before his Marriage with the Princess Elizabeth, settled the Crown upon him, and the Heirs of his Body, by virtue of which he held it all his Reign: whereas there is no such thing done in the present case of King William, since he hath only the Crown settled upon him during his own Life, with the remainder after his decease without Issue by the Queen to her, and not his Right Heirs; and as for such Children as he may have by her, it is agreeable to reason, that he should hold the Crown by that which we call the Courtesy of England during his Life, and not from a King to become a Subject to his own Children, in case he should desire to live here after her Majesty's decease, which I hope God will prevent.  M. 
I confess you have dressed up a pretty plausible Title for King William; but yet all that you have said amounts to no more than this, that because other Kings have been Usurpers he may be so too; for as to all the instances you have brought, they have been only from depositions or manifest usurpations, both which our Laws have condemned as absolutely unlawful, as I have showed you hath been declared by two Acts of Parliament, against the Title of Henry the IVth, and his Descendants; but since you will not insist upon the right of Richard the IIId. I pass to that Act of Henry the VIIth. which (as I told you before) so I must repeat it again, that it was done upon his supposed Right by Blood, as Heir to the House of Lancaster, and upon that pretence he claimed the Crown as his Right, in his Speech to the first Parliament he called; besides the Princess Elizabeth, the Queen de jure made no claim to the Crown, and so did tacitly resign it, which seemed to make him de jure as well as de Facto King, and if it were done otherwise, I look upon that whole Act as void in itself, because made by him before his Marriage with that Princess, and whilst he was and Usurper upon her Right; so that certainly it is no argument that since Parliaments have acted illegally, therefore your Convention may do so too; for it is a known Maxim in our Civil Law, a facto ad Ius non valet consequentia, therefore whatever they have done toward creating a good Title to King William in respect of the Queen his Wife, and his Issue by her, yet this doth no way excuse the wrong done to the Princess of Denmark and her Issue, in case they survive your King.  F. 
'Tis very wonderful to me, to see how ingenious some Men are in finding faults with the present settlement of things, though never so much for the best, if not done exactly according to suit with their Humour, or Hypothesis, when indeed there can no fault be justly found with it, for you agree that if the Queen hath a Right, King William hath so also, during his Life, and whether the Princess of Denmark and her issue may survive the King, is yet uncertain; but if either she or they should happen to survive his Majesty, yet since she hath made no claim or protestation in the Convention, against the Kings holding the Crown after the Decease of the Queen. I cannot see why this should not pass for a tacit Resignation o●●er Right, as well as in the case of the Princess Elizabeth you but now mentioned.  
But admit his present Majesty according to the late received rules of Succession, hath not a Title by Descent; yet according to those principles I have already laid down, he certainly has not only a Right to the Crown, from that inherent power which I suppose doth still remain in the Eslates of the Kingdom, as Representatives of the whole Nation to bestow the Crown on every Abdication, or Forfeiture thereof, on such Prince of the Blood Royal, as they shall think best to deserve it▪ and upon this account I conceive there is none of the Blood, that can stand in competition with his Present Majesty for Prudence, Valour, Moderation, and all other Royal Virtues; and therefore it is not at all to be wondered at, if the Convention hath in this case exercised that Original Power, which the People reserved to itself, at the first institution of Kingly Government in this Island; especially if we consider his present Majesty not only as a Conqueror over King james, but as our Deliverer from his Oppression, and that Arbitrary Government that we were so lately under, and which was like to be much worse, had his reign continued a little longer.  
Therefore I cannot but here take occasion to vindicate his Present Majesty from those exceptions you have made against his Country, and Civil, as well as Religious Principles, First, As to his Country, 'tis true he is a Foreigner; yet that can he no exception against his admission to the Throne, since it was none against his great Grandfather King james, and I doubt not but his Majesty may understand as much of the English Constitution and Government, as his said Grand father did, when he first came to the Crown.  
But as for his principles in Religion, I cannot see any reason to suspect him more inclinable to the Church Government of Holland, then that of England, since he was bred up under a Mother, who was always firm to the Religion and Discipline of our Church, and ever since he was Married to the Princess, he hath always showed a very great respect to its Liturgy and Ceremonies, by his so constant frequenting his Princess' Chapel; so that besides his Majesty's Interest to maintain Episcopacy, as most agreeable to the Monarchy, and Ancient Constitution of this Kingdom, it is likewise (if he were able) not in his power to destroy the Church of England, since the main body of the Clergy, Nobility, and Gentry of this Nation is to zealous for its preservation, that if he had any such inclinations, it would not be easy for him to effect it, and he is too wise a Prince to let others persuade him so visibly against his own interest, and having so late an example before his Eyes, that it was King James' ruin to attempt it.  
As for what you say of Scotland, 'tis true, Presbytery is for the present set up there, but it is uncharitable to impute this to the King's inclinations; for it is notorious, that of them which call themselves Episcopal in that Kingdom, a very great number did either out of prejudice to the Prince's Cause, or in contempt of his Power, refuse to be chosen Members of the Convention, or else after they were chosen, did so far adhere to King James' interest as to desert it; as did my Lord Dundee, and many others, and by that means gave the Presbyterian Party an advantage to carry all things as they pleased; and this Party finding the King not well settled here, and the Irish in Ireland in Arms against him, took hold of that opportunity to put the abolishing of Episcopacy into the very instrument of Government, and to press it upon him at a time when an unavoidable necessity and the obstinacy of too many of the Episcopal Party forced him to consent to it. wherefore this no way shows his Majesty's inclinations to set up Presbytery even in Scotland; much less doth it prove he would set it up here, where the Circumstances, are quite different; for here the main body of the People hate that Government, and will be so far from desiring it, that they will never endure it; so that as to this, your fears of King William are as vain, as your hopes of King james.  
I shall conclude with a few words in answer to your reply against those examples wherein I have shown you that the Crown hath always been under such a disposition as the two mouse's of Parliament should appoint, to which you have nothing else to object, but that their admission of Henry the IV th' to the Crown was condemned as unlawful by two Acts of Parliament, which I have already answered, by showing you that those Acts were obtained by Richard Duke of York, and Edward the IV th' his Son, by actual Rebellion, and by as great a force upon King Henry the VI th', as ever was used against King Richard the TWO d, by Henry the IV th', and as for the Statute of the first of Henry the VII th', you have found out a very easy way of answering it; by affirming that it was done whilst he was an Usurper, and before his Marriage, or that he had any right to be King. But by this way of arguing, no Act he ever passed would be good, since It is certain he did never take upon him to Govern in right of his Queen, as all those that have writ his Life do acknowledge; and therefore if the Parliament would then settle the Crown upon him and his right Heirs without any respect to his Queen, or her Issue or Sisters, in case she should die Childless, I cannot see why the Convention may not as well now settle the Crown upon King William and Queen Mary, and their issue, with remainder to himself for Life; especially since he hath also 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 shall not go about to derogate from King William's Personal Virtues, which you so highly extol; only I wish I may not prove too true a Prophet, since that is not the main question between us. I shall only take upon me to answer in the first place what you have urged on the behalf of King William's pretence to the Crown as a Conqueror over King james, and Deliverer of the Nation; for whatsoever he may pretend to in respect of the latter, I am sure he cannot justly pretend to the former; since sure he can never have any right by Conquest: who expressly sets forth in his first Declaration, that he only came to obtain a Free Parliament, and to Redress our Grievances. Much less can he be properly called a Conqueror, who never overcame his Enemy in any pitched Battle, but by false Stories made the King's Army desert him, and then, when this was done, having forced the King to leave the Kingdom for fear, he has in the day of his power by these means obtained the Crown; and as for a Deliverer, you must pardon me, if I cannot think him so, since I am not yet satisfied that the worst of King James' Oppressions ever deserved that the Prince of Orange should take the pains to come over to redress them.  
And therefore your parallel between your King's Title, and that of Henry the IV th', and Henry the VII th' doth not at all agree, since both of them claimed not so much by Conquest, or force of Arms, as by a pretended right of inheritance, as you may see by both their Claims. And as for Henry the IV th', 'tis plain, he looked upon his Title by descent of blood (having been allowed in Parliament) to be so good, that for the first seven years of his Reign he never thought it worth while to pass an Act for the Settlement of the Crown upon himself, and his Issue; but for Richard the III d, and Henry the VII th', they were so far from owning their Titles to any Act or Declaration of Parliament, that they first clapped the Crown upon their own heads, and after they had done it, they immediately called their Parliaments; which tho' they recognised their Titles, yet did not make them Kings, but found them so. whereas the Convention has by their sole Authority, made the Prince of Orange, and Princess, King and Queen of England, to the prejudice of the right Heirs of the Crown.  F. 
I doubt not, but what I have already said, may very well be descended, notwithstanding the utmost you have now argued against it. In the first place, as to what you say against King William's Title, as a Conqueror over King james, is very trivial; for though it is true, the Prince declared before he came over, that his coming was for no other end but to obtain a Free Parliament, Redress Grievances, and to remove Evil Councillors from King james, yet that is still to be understood, that the King would agree to those reasonable demands the Prince then ●a●e; for if by his own obstinacy he would bring things to that pass, as that instead of redressing those violations he had made upon our fundamental Laws, he raised an Army to support himself in them; and when he thought this Army would not sight in his so bad a Cause, he then disbanded it; and by that, as well as the desertion of the Throne, owned himself vanquished: Can any body deny the Prince of Orange a right of making what advantage he could of his Successes? And therefore I doubt not but that the Prince might if he pleased have taken upon him the Title of King immediately upon King James' first departure; and have summoned a Parliament to recognize his Title, as Henry the VII th' did after his Victory at Bosworth Field; nor would this have made him a Conqueror over the Kingdom, since he never made War against it, but came to deliver it from Tyranny and Oppression. Nor did William the Corquerour himself by his Victory over King Harold, ever pretend to a right by Conquest over the whole Kingdom, but only over the Estates and Persons of those who had fought against him, as I have fully proved at our Tenth Meeting; nor did Henry the VII th' in the first Speech he made to the Parliament after his taking upon him the Crown, claim a right to it by Conquest over the Kingdom, as his own words were in that Speech you mention to this first Parliament, but only that by the just judgement of God in giving him the Victory over his Enemy in the Field; and he then farther declared, that all his Subjects of whatsoever State and Condition, should enjoy their Lands and Goods to them and their Heirs as they did before, except such Persons who were to be attainted by Act of Parliament.  
Nor is it any objection against his right by Conquest that he obtained no Victory in a pitched Battle; since I never heard or read, that to make a Prince a Conqueror, it is necessary that so many thousand Men should be killed upon the spot; for admit the adverse Prince against whom he fights, will through Cowardice desert his Army, or that his Army will desert him, either through fear, or a sense of the greater justice of the adverse Prince's Cause, or an affection to his Person, so that it never come to a Battle, yet it has been in all Ages looked upon as all one with a Victory, as I can show you from several examples in History: and particularly in Plutarch concerning Pyrrhus King of Epyrus, who making War against Demetrius then King of Macedon, 
In vita Pyrri.  and both Armies being encamped near each other, the Army of the latter forsook him, and went over to Pyrrhus, as well out of hatred to him, as esteem for his Enemy; so that Demetrius being forced to steal away in disguise, Pyrrhus thereupon was immediately in the Field Proclaimed King of Macedon. And I doubt not but the Prince of Orange might have done the same, had it not been for his great moderation, and lest it might give his Adversaries occasion to traduce him, that he came over for no other end but to drive the King out of his Kingdom; and therefore he chose rather to owe the Crown to the free Act of the Nation, than to his right by Conquest over King james; but yet I do not think he hath at all lost that right, though he doth not think fit (for fear of giving offence) to insist upon it; and therefore certainly the Convention might very well justify the settling the Crown upon his Highness during his Life, not only as a Conqueror over K. james, but a Deliverer of the Nation from his Oppression, though the Prince was pleased to accept it upon those terms expressed in the late Declaration of the Convention, and upon his free promise to preserve preserve our Religion, Laws, and Liberties, which he has since also confirmed by his Coronation Oath.  
But as to what you say, that the Prince made the King's Army desert him, and wrought the People into hatred of his Person by lying Stories and mean Arts, is altogether untrue; since I know of no Reports he made of the King, or his Government, but what are in his first Declaration, and that is certainly true in every part of it, and as has been justified by the express Declaration of the Convention in every particular, except that concerning the Prince of Wales, which I confess is left still undecided because (as I have already proved) it is impossible to give any certain judgement in it, unless the Witnesses as well as the Infant himself could be brought over hither. nor doth the Prince in his said Declaration say any more concerning that business than that there are violent suspicions that the pretended Prince of Wales was not Born of the Queen; but for the report of the Secret League with France for the extirpation of the Protestant Religion, as there is no such thing in his Highness' Declaration, so the spreading of it cannot be laid to his charge, since he never gave it out as I know of; yet there are certainly great presumptions, and too much cause of suspicion that it may be so, as I proved at our last Meeting. But though you will not allow the Prince the Title of our Deliverer, yet I am sure the greatest part both of the Clergy, and Laity of the Church of England were once of Opinion, that King James' violations both upon our Religion and Laws were so great, that nothing could preserve the Kingdom from a total Subversion in its Established Religion, and Civil Constitution, but his Highness' coming over; and most of the Bishops were of that Opinion, who, now the Government is settled, refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties.  
But to answer what you say, that the manner of Henry the IV this, and Henry the VII this coming to the Crown, doth not at all agree with this Case of King William, because they claimed by right of blood, which you say King William cannot do; that is not so in respect of the Queen, who has certainly a right to succeed her Father by right of blood, in case the Prince off Wales be not the true Son of the Queen, and until he can be proved so, we must at present look upon him as if he were not so at all; so that the Convention hath done no more in settling the Crown upon the King, during his Life, than what the Great Council of the Kingdom have frequently done before upon other vacancies of the Throne, as I have proved from the Examples of William Rufus, and Henry the First, King Stephen, King john, and Henry the Third. And it is very hard to suppose the whole Nation to have been guilty of Perjury and Treason, up●n their Swearing to, and Fight for those Princes after they were so Solemnly Elected, Crowned, and Invested with the Royal Power. But as for Edward III. his first and best Title was from the election of the Great Council of the Kingdom, who I doubt not but if they had found him unworthy of the Royal Dignity by reason of folly or madness, or Tyrannical Principles, would have set him aside, and have made his young●● Brother King, a Protector to govern in the King's Name with Royal Power having never been known in England till the Reign of Henry the VI th'; but as for Henry the IV th', notwithstanding his claim by right of Blood, I have already proved that the Pa●liament by their placing him in the Throne did not at all allow it, nor is any such Right recited in the Act of the 7 th' of Henry the IV th', which by the Crown is entailed upon that King and his four successive Sons. And though it is true Henry the Seventh also claimed the Crown by right of Inheritance, in his Speech in Parliament, yet they were so far from allowing it, that they do not so much as mention it in that Act of Setlement, which, as I have recited, they made of it upon that and the Heirs of his Body: And therefore I think I may still maintain, that the Convention hath done nothing in the present Setlement of the Crown, but what hath been formerly done upon every vacancy of the Throne, either by deposition or resignation of the King, or Abdication, or Forfeiture of the Crown; as in the case of King james, in which the Convention have done no more than exercised that Power which has always been supposed to reside in the great Council of the Kingdom, of settling the Crown upon such a Prince of the Blood-Royal as they shall think best to deserve it.  
Thus much I have said to preserve the Ancient Right of the Great Council of the Nation. But to put all this out of dispute, I have been credibly informed, that the Princess of Denmark herself did by some of her Servants in both Houses, as well of the Lords as Commons, declare upon a great Debate that arose about securing her Highnesses Right to the Crown immediately after her Sister the Queen; that her Highness had desired them to assure the Convention, that she was willing to acquiesce in whatever they should determine concerning the Succession of the Crown, since it might tend to the present setlement and safety of the Nation: which I think is a better Session of her Right to his present Majesty, than any you can prove that the Empress Maud made to her Son Henry the Second, or than the Countess of Richmond ever made to her Son Henry the Seventh.  M. 
You have often talked of this forfeiture and extravagant Power of your Convention, by whom you suppose they are not obliged to place the Crown upon the head of the next Heir by Blood, which I shall prove to be a vain Notion; for if there be an absolute forfeiture of the Crown, the Government would have been absolutely Dissolved; for since there is no Legal Government without a King, if the Throne were really vacant, and that the People might place whom they pleased in it, yet the Convention can have no Power to do it, as their Representatives; since upon your supposed dissolution of the Original Contract between the King and the People, there was an end of all Conventions and Parliaments too. And therefore if a King could have been chosen at all, it ought to have been by the Votes of the whole body of the Clergy, Nobility, and Commons, in their own single Persons, and not by any Council or Convention to represent them, since the Laws for restraining the Election of Parliament-men only to Freeholders, are upon this supposed Dissolution of the Government, altogether void; and if you say such a way of Election is now impossible, I shall do so too; but however, it plainly shows the absurdity of supposing a King could ever now be fairly Elected were all the Blood-Royal totally extinct.  
As for what you say concerning that Session which the Princess of Denmark made of her Right to the Crown, I never heard any thing of it before; but admit it were so, this could only serve in relation to herself, and she could not give up the Right of her Brother the Prince of Wales, no, nor that of her own Children, if God shall give her any.  F. 
This Objection concerning the total Dissolution of the Government proceeds from a wan● of your consideration of what the ancient Government of England was, not only before, but a good while after your pretended Conquest; which was not a settled Hereditary Monarchy, but a Testamentary, or Elective Kingdom, where the Kings, being often recommended by the Testament of the precedent King, were chosen out of the Royal Family, though not according to the Ruler of Succession now in use; and therefore in all such Governments, it is very well known, that there was at the first institution of Kingly Government among them, a great Council, or Assembly of Estates of the whole Kingdom appointed, who upon the death of the last King and vacancy of the Throne, were still to meet of course to appoint a Successor, which was commonly one of the Sons of the last King, or at least some other Prince of the Royal Blood. Thus it was, till of late years, in Denmark and Swe●den, and so it was anciently in France during the Succession of the first Race; as also in Spain during the Government of the Vandals; and so it likewise was in England during the whole Succession of our English Saxon Kings, and so I have also proved it continued till Edward the First. And though since his time that the Crown hath been claimed by right of Inheritance, yet in all time's precedent it is apparent that the great Council of the Kingdom upon the death of every King, Assembled by their own inherent Authority, to consider whom they should place in the Throne, which they then looked upon as vacant. And therefore though I grant in the case of Edward the First, the Parliament did not only ordain him Successor to his Father, but also recognised his ●ight by Blood; yet for all this, they still remained their ancient Power of meeting without Summons from the King▪ he being in the Holy Land, and they not knowing whether he was alive or dead; so that it is a false assertion to affirm, that there can be no Government without a King, since in all those vacancies of the Throne, it is plain, the Government devolved of course upon the geat Council of the Nation. And though it is true, there can be now no Parliament without a King, according to the present notion and acceptation of that Term, yet before that word was ever in use, (which is no older than about the middle of the Reign of Henry the Third) it is plain, that our great Councils often met by their own inherent Authority without any King, and preserved the Pe●ce of the Kingdom till a new King was either chosen or declared. And though 'tis true the Crown hath been long enjoyed by those who have claimed by Inheritance, yet there is no reason for all that, if the like cases should fall out as have done in former times, why the Government should devolve to the mixed Multitude now, any more than it did then; since it may be as well supposed, that the same tacit Contract still continues of maintaining the Original constitution of great Councils, which I have proved to be as Ancient as Kingly Government itself. And though perhaps the Form of choosing or sending th●se Representatives of the Nation may have been altered in divers particulars by for ●er Laws, or received Customs, yet this is nothing to the purpose, as long as the thing itself remains the same in Substance as it was before; for it can never be thought to have been the intent of the People who Established this form of Government, that upon the extinction of the Royal Family, the Government should be so quite dissolved, as that it should be left to the confused Multitude to choose what form of Government they should think fit.  
Therefore to conclude, I wish you would be persuaded to own this Government as it is now Established, and to take 〈◊〉 Oath of Allegiance which is enjoined by the Declaration of the Convention, who are the only proper and legal Judges we can now have of conferring the Rights of those to whom our Allegiance is due. And if in case a Dispute about the right Heir of the Crown, the People of this Nation were not all bound to the decision of this Assembly, we must necessarily fall together by the ears, and fight it out as they do in the East-Indies; where upon the death or deposition of a King, he has still the Right who can Conquer his Competitors in Battle.  M. 
Well, I wish there were not something very like it practised here of late; for I think you will grant, that if the Prince of Orange's Party had not prevailed over the King's, the Convention would never have placed the Crown upon his head.  
But I must beg your pardon if I cannot agree to your Proposals of taking the New Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, since I have already taken the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance to King james, and I do not believe that any Power on earth can disengage me from that Oath as long as he and his Son the Prince of Wales are alive: For as to your Doctrine of Abdication or Forfeiture, they are too hard for my Reason to understand, or for my Conscience to comply with; and therefore it is all one to me whom your Convention places on the Throne, since I am very well satisfied, that none but the King can have a Right to it.  F. 
I wish I could see some better reasons for this opinion of yours, than those you have already given, for if you could convince that me the Nation hath done any thing in this Revolution which cannot well be justified by the Ancient Customs and Constitution of the Kingdom, I should come over to your opinion; But if King james has truly Abdicated or Forfeited the Crown (as I hope I have sufficiently made out) and that your supposed Prince of Wales either is not really, or else cannot now be proved to be the true Son of the Queen, by reason of those Obstacles and Impediments I have shown you; I cannot see any thing to the contrary why you should not be wholly free, and discharged from your former Oath of Allegiance to King james; so that King William and Queen Mary being now placed on the Throne, your Allegiance to King james, and the supposed Prince of Wales is lawfully determined: pray tell me therefore, why you cannot take this new Oath of Allegiance; since you have the Judgement and Declaration of the Convention, which is the Representative of the whole Nation, to justify you in so doing?  M. 
I must tell you once again, that I think Allegiance is not only due to the King by the Law of the Land, but also, by the Laws of God and Nature, and consequently cannot be dissolved by any subsequent Judgement of a Convention, who are and always aught to be Subjects to him and his Right Heirs, as long as they are in Being; and therefore I should not allow the Prince and Princess of Orange for such, were the King now actually dead: nay if King james himself had stayed in England, and had been so over awed by fear, or overcome by persuasions, 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 settled the Crown upon the Princess of Orange as his Heir Apparent; I could never have thought myself obliged to swear 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; since I am very well satisfied, and that by unexceptionable proofs that he is really the Son of the King and Queen; for I think I have sufficiently made out by several Declarations of Parliament, that the Hereditary Right of the Crown can never be defeated nor altered by any Statute whatsoever, but according to the Act of Recognition of King james, the first's Title (which I have already urged) the Crown ought to descend to the next Heir by Blood, according to the rules of Descent, I have now laid down.  F. 
I cannot but admire your obstinacy in this matter, which proceeds from your old error of believing, that there is a Natural or Divine Right of Succession to Crowns different or abstracted from the Civil and Political Laws, and Constitutions of particular Kingdoms, which I think I have already confuted, by showing you that there was no such thing in Nature as a Patriarchal Right in Adam or Noah, or their Heirs; nor yet to any other King as their Assigns, or Representatives; and therefore though 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 Successor in limited or mixed Monarchies (as ours is) can only be determined by the Assembly of Estates of the whole Nation: for notwithstanding all you have said, there is a very great difference between the Legal Rights of Princes, and the natural Rights of Fathers and Husbands, which yet may cease and be dissolved in some cases, 
E.L.R. p. 27.  as I have already sufficiently proved: for I think it is evident that not only a Legal Title, and Legal Authority may be parted from each other; but that Legal Titles and Legal Authority may be rightfully separated from the persons to whom they were once due, which natural Rights can never be. A King may cease to be a King, though a Father can never cease to be a Father; for Laws have not the same force and power that nature has. Now all men confess this separation may be made by a voluntary resignation as also by Conquest in a just War, both which will divest such a Prince of all Right and Authority to Govern; and if it may be done by either of these ways, his Right and Authority is not inseparable from his Person; since than there is no natural inherent property in Lands or Kingdoms, but what proceeds from the particular Laws of each Kingdom, or Commonwealth: therefore who ever the Supreme Power appointed by the Constitution of such Kingdoms shall Judge or Determine to have a true and legal Right to the same are to be owned, and esteemed as the true legal owners and possessors thereof, by all the Subjects: so that if a King can part with his Kingship, it is possible he may lose it too; since there are more ways than one, of parting with that which may be parted with, If then a voluntary Resignation of a Crown, or Conquest in a just War, can give another Prince a just Title to it, I cannot see why a ●acit Abdication or Forfeiture of a Crown upon a limited Kings total breach of the Fundamental Laws and Constitution of the Kingdom, should not as much discharge all the Subjects of their Allegiance to him, and also give the great Council, as the Representative of the Nation, a like Right of Ordaining a Successor upon such a Vacancy of the Throne, and who being once placed therein, all the people of the Nation ought to pay the same Allegiance to him as they did to his Predecessors.  
But as for the latter part of your supposition, that the right Heirs of the Crown by blood, must always necessarily succeed to it, that is likewise sounded upon two very false principles, first, that a lineal hereditary succession to the Crown, is established by the Fundamental Laws and Customs of the Kingdom. Secondly, That the Succession to it cannot be limited by the Parliament or Great Council of the Nation, the former of which suppositions I have confuted at our last meetting: and as for the other, you cannot deny but the Crown has been frequently settled and limited by Act of Parliament, contrary to the common rules of Succession, as hath been sufficiently proved by the Statute above mentioned of Henry the VII th', as also by those several Acts concerning the Succession in Henry the VIII this time, and so it continues at this day by the Statute of the 13 th' of Queen Elizabeth, 
Chap. 1.  whereby it is declared Treason during the Queen's Life, for any person to affirm that the Queen and Parliament had not power to make Laws to limit and bind the descent and inheritance of the Crown: or that this Act was not of sufficient force, to bind, limit and govern all Persons, their Rights, and Titles that in any way claim any Interest or possibility in or to the Crown of England in Possession, Remainder, Succession, Inheritance, or otherwise howsoever; and every Person so holding or affirming after the decease of the Queen, shall forfeit all his Goods and Chattels: So that I can see no just reason you can have to refuse Swearing Allegiance to Their present Majesties, and Their Successors, according to the limitation in the said Act.  M. 
Well, I see it is in vain to argue these Points any longer with you, since it would only force me to repeat the same things over again, which will neither edify you, nor myself; only give me leave to tell you this much, that the last part of your Argument (which is the only thing that is new in all your Discourse) is founded upon a very wrong ground; for though I should grant, as I do not, (since this Act you last mentioned is expired) that the Crown may be limited, or entailed by Act of Parliament, contrary to the due Rules of Succession, yet even that will not hold in respect of the present settlement thereof by the Convention, upon the Prince and Princess of Orange for their two Lives; since you cannot but know that no Parliament yet, was ever so presumptuous as to take upon them to settle or limit the Succession of the Crown without the consent of the King or Queen then in being. Whereas the present Settlement was first made by the Convention, upon the making of the Prince and Princess King and Queen; tho' I grant it was afterwards confirmed by another pretended Act, whereby all Princes that are or shall be Roman Catholics when the Crown shall descend unto them, are debarred from their right of Succession; This though I grant to be made after the Prince and Princess of Orange took upon them the Title of King, and Queen; yet since that Statute was not made in a Parliament called by the King's Writs, but in a Convention, who owe their Meeting wholly to the Prince of Orange's Letters, it is not only void in respect of the subject matter, but also in the manner of making it; and therefore I cannot believe that the Throne was ever vacant. And I have as little reason to be satisfied, that the Prince and Princess could be lawfully placed therein, or that all Roman Catholic Princes can ever be barred from their right of Succession, when ever it may fall to them.  F. 
If this be all you have farther to object, I think I can easily answer it; for in the first place, I have already told you, that the Convention did not take upon them to create or make any new form of Succession to the Crown, but only to declare that the Prince and Princess of Orange are Rightful and Lawful King and Queen of England; for upon supposition of King James' Abdication of the Crown, and that the Prince of Wales cannot be taken for the lawful Son of the King till he can be brought over, and that his Legitimacy be duly proved, it must till then certainly be their right, and no others; and as for King William's holding the Crown during his own Life, I have already told you it was not done without the tacit consent of the Princess of Denmark herself, though I doubt not but it may also very well be justified upon those suppositions of the forfeiture of the Crown by King james, and the Conquest the Prince of Orange made over him; which are sufficient in themselves to bar any legal claim of those that either are or may pretend to be right Heirs.  
But as for the other part of your Objection, whereby you would prove, that Popish Princes cannot be excluded from the Succession, because the Act was made not in a Parliament, but a Convention; this wholly proceeds from your want of Consideration,, that at the first institution of the Government, and long after, whilst the Kingdom continued Elective, there was no difference between a Great Council or Convention, and a Parliament; for pray call to mind the four first Great Councils after your Conquest (reckoning that for one wherein King William I. was Elected or declared King) whether it was possible for those Councils to be summoned in the King's Name, before any body had taken upon themselves the Title of King; the like I may say in the case of King john, and Henry the III d, and that this continued after the Succession was settled in the next Heir by Blood, appears by that Great Council that was summoned after the death of Henry the Third, which Recognized or Ordained his Son Prince Edward to be his Successor. So likewise the Parliament that deposed King Edward the Second, sat both before and after his deposition, and resignation, and elected his Son Edward the Third to be King, and appointed his Reign to begin from the time of their Election, and not of his Father's resignation of the Crown; so also upon the deposition of King Richard the Second, the same Parliament that deposed him, placed Henry the Fourth in the Throne; and though the Writs of Summons were in the name of King Richard, 
Vide Rot. Parl. 1o Henry IU.  and they were never re-summoned or new Elected in the Reign of Henry the Fourth, yet did they still continue to sit, and made divers new Acts, and repealed several old ones, all which hold good to this day.  
And that the Parliament are the only proper Judges of the right of Succession, even without the King, you yourself must grant, or else how could they declare in the Thirty Ninth of Henry the VI th', that the claim which Richard Duke of York made to the Crown could no way be defeated? and certainly if that unfortunate Prince King Henry the Sixth had had sufficient Power or Interest in that Parliament, they might, and would have adjudged the Duke of York's Claim to have been groundless and contrary to Law, and then I believe it would scarce have ever been heard of again.  
But to make it out beyond exception, that a Convention may become a Lawful Parliament, though never called by the King's Writs, when the King's Authority and Presence come once to be added to and joined with it, appears by the first Parliament of King Charles the Second; which though Summoned in the Name of the Keepers of the Liberties of England, yet nevertheless continued to Sat and make several Acts which hold good to this day; and I doubt not but they might have made the like limitations of the Crown in respect of Roman-Catholick Princes, as the Convention have now done, and that it would have held good at this day, since it is so much for the security of our Religion, Liberties and Properties that it should be so, since we have found by a dear bought experience in the Reigns of the four last Kings of the Scotch Line, that still as they began to favour the Popish Religion and Interest in this Kingdom, so did the Protestant and true English Interest in respect of our Religion, Liberties and Properties still decline, till at last they were like to be totally ruined, and extirpated; for that restless and dangerous Faction very well know, that there is no means possible for them to re-establish their Superstition among us by due and legal Methods, but only by introducing Arbitrary Power, taking away Parliaments, or else making them wholly to depend upon the King's Will, as we see was laboured and almost effected in the Reigns of the two last Kings; and therefore I cannot but believe that the present Parliament has not only acted wisely, but also legally, to enact that for the future no Prince who is actually a Roman Catholic shall succeed to the Crown though he be next heir by blood.  M. 
I must still tell you I am as little satisfied with your suppositions of the forfeiture of the Crown by King james, and the Conquest to the Prince of Orange, as I am with your instances out of History concerning the power of the Great Councils meeting and choosing a King by their own inherent Authority, since besides that it was done by Usurpation in those rough and unsettled times; yet I believe if the ancient Writs of Summons were now in being, you would find that they were called by those Usurpers, though not by the Title of Kings; but I defy you to show me since the Reign of Edward the First any Parliament ever called without the King's Writs of Summons; and though upon the deposition of Edward and Richard the Second the Parliaments you mention might continue to sit, and transact public business, yet was it during a plain Usurpation upon those Princes whom you yourself must grant to have been unlawfully deposed; and therefore we find upon the Parliament Roll of the 21st of Richard the Second, that an Act of the first of Edward the Third confirming the Judgement given upon the two Spencers, 
Rot. Par. n. 64. 21. Ric. II.  was not only repealed in Parliament, but declared to be unlawful, because Edward the Second was living, and true King, being imprisoned by his Subjects at the time of that very Parliament of 1 Edward III. But as for your last instance of a Conventions declaring itself a Parliament in the Reign of King Charles the Second, there is a great deal of difference between them, and the present Convention; since they did not take upon them to declare or make a King (as this Convention has done) but only to recognize him to be their Lawful Sovereign which (as I have already told you) being that which was their duty to do, they might very well justify, though they were not Summoned by the King's Writs; but however, all their Acts were looked upon as made without legal Authority, and therefore were confirmed in the first legal Parliament of King Charles' Reign.  
But as for the Authority of the Statute of the 13 th' of Eliz. whereby you would prove, that the Parliament has at this day power to alter or limit the Succession of the Crown; besides, that such an Act being against the fundamental rules of Succession, was void in itself, yet if you please to look upon the Act in Rastal's Statutes, you will there find it was only made to serve a present turn, and to keep the Queen of Scots and her Party from enterprizing any thing against Queen Elizabeth; and therefore it is there only declared to be Treason during the Queen's life, for any Persons to maintain, that the Queen could not riot with the Authority of the Parliament limit the Succession of the Crown; and as for the last Clause, that makes it forfeiture of Goods and Chattels, to maintain the contrary after her decease; this was made to strengthen and confirm the former part of the Statute, 
B. H. S. P. 40.  which was a provision and security against such pretences and Practices as had been lately made against her by the Papists, on the behalf of the Queen of Scots Title; and this Clause could not take effect after her death, but was added to preserve Queen Elizabeth's Memory from being defamed after her decease, or being slanderously charged with the heinous Crime of Usurping the Crown, which must have been the inevitable consequence of affirming, that she, and her Parliament could not limit the Succession. For to confess the truth, I think Queen Elizabeth's best Title was by Act of Parliament, since her Legitimacy might be justly questioned, by reason that her Mother's Marriage was declared unlawful by the 28 th' of Henry the VIII th', and she was as good as declared illegitimate by her Father in that very Act that settled the Crown upon her; but that this Statute of the 13 th' of Queen Elizabeth is now looked upon as expired, appears in Palton's, and all other late Collections of the Statutes since her time; wherein the Title of the Statute is barely mentioned with EXP. immediately following it, to show it is looked upon as expired: So that you are mistaken to affirm that the Convention has done nothing in the late limitation of the Crown, but what may be justified from that Statute; therefore if it be not Law at this day, I think they had no Authority to alter the Succession of the Crown from the right Line, let them be of what Religion they would.  F. 
I see you do all you can to evade the force of my Authorities from History, and direct matter of Fact; and therefore as to what you say, that those were rough and unsettled, and therefore no Precedents to be drawn from thence, this is to beg the Question; for what could be the Law concerning the Succession of the Crown for the first hundred and fifty years after the Conquest, but the constant usage of the Great Council of the Nation, as low as the Reign of Henry the Third; and it is a bold assertion to accuse the whole Nation of Perjury, and Rebellion against their Lawful Kings during all those Successions I have now instanced in; nor have you any thing to say against those Parliaments that met in the 1st of King Edward III. and Charles the II. but that their Meeting was Lawful because it was only to recognize those Kings, and not to make them, which is indeed to beg the Question, since you cannot deny but those Parliaments are held for good, notwithstanding they were not called by the King's Writs. But as for making a King the present Parliament have not taken upon them to do it; since they do not in the Act for the Succession Elect King William and Queen Mary to be our Lawful King and Queen, but only declare or recognize them to be so, upon supposition that the Prince of Wales is either an Impostor, or else his Legitimacy impossible to be tried and determined by them. Nor are your Objections material against the Authority of those Acts of Parliament which were made in the 1st. of King Henry the IV th' and Charles the TWO d. which were never Summoned by those King's Writs. For as to the first of those Instances most of those Acts of Henry the IV th'. stand good at this day, without ever being confirmed by any subsequent Parliaments. And tho' I grant that the public Acts made in the first Year of King Charles the TWO d. were confirmed in the next Parliament of that King, yet this does not prove that they would have been void without it; since divers private Acts passed in that Parliament which were never confirmed in any other, and yet are held for good: As particularly an Act of that Parliament for making the Church of St. Paul's Covent-Garden Parochial. And this Act, though never confirmed, was yet adjudged to be in force by the Lord Chief Justice Hales and the rest of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench, in a Case concerning Rate Tithes between the Minister and some of the Parishioners of the said Parish.  
Nor is what you have now said to prove the Statute of the 13 th'. of Queen Elizabeth (whereby the Crown is declared capable of being limited by Act of Parliament) to be now expired; since it is plain by the purport of the Act, that it is Declaratory of the former Laws of England made in King Henry the VII th'. and VIII this. and other King's Reigns, whereby the Succession of the Crown had been frequently entailed upon those who were not the next Heirs by Blood; and tho' the Queen be only mentioned in it, yet it certainly as much concerns her Successors, as all future Parliaments: as the Oath of Allegiance, in which the Queen is only mentioned, does all future Kings and Queens: And it is not only made Treason during her Life, but also there is a loss of Goods and Chattels to be inflicted on all those who shall maintain after her decease, that the Queen and Parliament had not Power to Limit the Succession. And if the Parliament in her Reign could do this, I desire to know whence it is that the present Parliament may not have the like Power?  
As to what you allege concerning the Judgement against the two Spencers being reversed in ●1 th'. of Richard II. because done whilst Edward II. was still alive, I desire you would take notice, that this Parliament of Richard the Second was wholly made and pact by King Richard after the Banishment of the Dukes of Lancaster and Norfolk; and that as well the Lords as Commons, were in such fear of the Arbitrary Power he then exercised, that they passed whatever he would: And in this Parliament it was that the Proceedings against the Chief Justice Tresilian and his fellow Judges, who had been Condemned and Executed by Judgement in Parliament in the 11 th'. of this King, were reversed. And no prove the Illegality of this Parliament, you need but consult the Statute-Book in 1 st. of Henry the IV th'. where you will find one of the first Statutes after his coming to the Crown, is to repeal all Acts and Proceedings made in that last Parliament of Richard the TWO d.  M. 
I doubt this will not do the business; for we maintain, that Henry the IV th'. also his Son, and Grandson, were Usurpers; and consequently all the Acts made in their Reigns were null and void.  F. 
I will grant you for once, that Henry the IV th'. was an Usurper, and that Edward the III d. was so also during his Father's Life-time; but than it doth not follow, that all the Laws and Statutes made during those Times, were null and void, since you must needs know the contrary; for even in that Parliament of the 21 th'. of Richard the TWO d. though 'tis true that Judgement against the Spencers was reversed for the Reason you have given, yet did that Repeal extend to no other Statutes but that, tho' made in the same Parliament of Edward the III d. whilst his Father was yet living: But they are all of them held for good at this day, as are also all the Statutes of the three Henry's, whom you suppose to be Usurpers, which have not been repealed by any subsequent Statutes, as I can assure you those of the first of Henry the IV th'. are 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 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 mean to keep that Office you hold under the Government, to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties, since you owe your Protection to their Government, which certainly deserves a Temporary Allegiance as long as you enjoy the benefit of it. And indeed, the Oath itself is so loosely worded, that methinks any Man may take it without any scruple, since it doth no ways declare, that the present King and Queen have an Hereditary Right to the Crown, but only the Person swears to bear true Allegiance to their Majesty's King William 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 sorry you should think me, after so long an acquaintance, capable of doing any thing against my Conscience for any Worldly advantage whatsoever; and therefore I must freely tell you, that as for the Employment I hold, I will rather part with it, if it were never so great, than do any thing against my Conscience, and that reputation I have hitherto maintained in the World of being an Honest Man.  
And therefore I cannot take the Oath as a mere Denizen that owes Protection to the present Government: Not only because this Oath is inconsistent with that I have already taken, but also there is much more required of those that owe a Natural Allegiance to their rightful King, than can be required of Strangers, till they become Naturalised by Act of Parliament. And therefore it is, that when any War breaks out between Neighbouring Princes, all such Denizens who do not become absolute Subjects of this Kingdom by Naturalisation, if they will act like Honest Men, must look upon themselves as obliged either to quit the Kingdom in case a War be declared against their natural Prince, or at least are obliged not to act any thing to his prejudice, though they may still inhabit and Traffic here; which is a quite different Case from those who are not only born the King's Subjects, but have also taken the Oath of Allegiance to him. And therefore I can by no means think it Lawful to take this New Oath to King William and Queen Mary, though it were required in no higher a sense than as King and Queen de facto; since it can no ways consist with that Oath which I have already taken to King james and his right Heirs; as I shall prove to you another time (since it is now very late) from the true sense and meaning of those words, I will be Faithful, and bear true Allegiance, etc. which can only be sworn to such Kings and Queens, who besides a bare Possession, have also a Legal and Hereditary Right to the Crown.  F. 
I shall be very glad to hear you farther upon this Question; for if that can be made out, I fear too many of the Clergy as well as Laity, by mistaking the true Sense of this Oath, have been Forsworn. But pray tell me when I shall wait on you, and hear what you have further to say upon this Important Subject.  M. 
Pray let me see you two or three days hence, and then I shall be at leisure, in the mean time am your humble Servant.  F. 
And I am yours.  
FINIS.   

Bibliothera Politica: OR A DISCOURSE By WAY of DIALOGUE, On these following Questions; 

I. Whether an Oath of Allegiance may be taken to a King or Queen de facto, or for the time being.  
II. What is the Obligation of such an Oath, whether to an actual defence of their Title against all Persons whatsoever, or else to a bare submission to their Power.  
III. Whether the Bishops who refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties, could be lawfully deprived of their Bishoprics.    
Collected out of the Best Authors, as well Ancient as Modern.  
The Thirteenth and last Dialogue.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, near the Oxford-Arms, where also may be had the First, Second, Third, Fourth; Fifth, six, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Dialogues. 1694.   

Author's most commonly used in this Discourse, and how denoted in the Margin.  

A Discourse concerning the signification of the word Allegiance, as it is made use of in this New Oath of Allegiance. D. A.  
Animadversions on the Modern Explanation of the Statute of the 11th of Henry the Seventh, Chap. 1. A. 11th, H. 7th.  
An Enquiry into the Nature of Legal Rights, etc. E. L. R.  
The Case of Allegiance, etc. C. A.  
An Essay concerning Obedience to the present Powers.   
Having not the Treatise called the Title of a King in Possession by me at the Writing of this Discourse, I could not quote it; yet all the chief Arguments in it being either the same that are made use of by the Authors of the two first Treatises above mentioned, are answered in this Discourse, either by myself, or the Reverend Author of the Case of Allegiance.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
BY the first Day of March next, will be published a General Title-Page, with a large Alphabetical Index to the whole Work.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
HAving in the two last Discourses considered the Lawfulness and justice of King Jame's Abdication, as as also of the late Conventions place King William and Queen Mary in the Throne; it might have seemed needless to add any thing farther on this Subject, had it not been for the satisfaction of so many of the Clergy, as well as Laity, who not being satisfied with the rightfulness of their Majesty's Title, nor with the Declaration of the said Convention, whereby they are Recognized to be of Right, and by the Laws of this Realm, King and Queen of England, etc. have taken an Oath of Allegiance to them only as King and Queen de facto, or for the time being.  
For the justification of which, it was necessary to consider all that can reasonably be said upon this Question, according to those several Heads set down in the Title Page of this Discourse; for the performance of which, I shall only tell you, that it is a Collection out of the best Treatises that have been written on this Subject, and from the best Reasons that I could gather by discoursing with divers Learned Men who have refused this Oath; who if they have done it out of Conscience (as we ought charitably to believe they have) are infinitely to be preferred in the Opinions of all honest men, before divers others, who I doubt have taken the Oath with dissastisfied Consciences, for mere gain, or the consideration of worldly advantages, and with a design to return to their former Allegiance to King James, as soon as with safety they may; and who, though they have taken this Oath themselves, yet do more highly applaud and favour the refusers, than those that have taken it with truly satisfied Consciences, and intent to keep it when they have done.  
But though I confess I have here urged all the cogent Reasons I could Collect, either from the Law of the Land, or that of Nature, for the taking this Oath to their present Majesties; I must also acknowledge, that though I have taken some answers out of a Learned Drs. Case of Allegiance, yet I must confess I absolutely waved entering into the defence of that Hypothesis, upon which that Treatise is built; since it would not only be tedious, but unnecessary; tedious, because it would be too long for such a short Discourse as this, to repeat all the Arguments he has made use of, together with all the answers that have been made to it in so many Treatises that have been written against it; unnecessary, not only because I take a different Method from his, and have ran into all those dark Labyrinths of Law and History, which he sedulously avoids; but also because his Hypothesis of making Allegiance due to the mere possession of Power, as to the Ordinance of God, let the Possessor come by it which way he will, (and that without any Election, or Recognition of the People,) is that which satisfies no party of Men concerned in the present Dispute; not the Jacobite, for he cries out, that it is but the same Argument new vamped, which John Goodwin, and Ascham set up for Obedience to Oliver, and the Rump; and that upon this ground, the Great Turk, should he once Conquer England, would have as much right to our Allegiance as King James himself; whilst those who have acted out of a Principle on the behalf of their present Majesties, say, that by his thus setting them up with an absolute irresistible Power; we do but change hands, and it is no thanks to his Hypothesis, if we fall not into the same Arbitrary Government, which by King James' Abdication we have so wonderfully escaped.  
I have therefore confined myself in this Discourse only to such Arguments as can be deduced from Reason, History, or the Law of the Land; since I must freely confess, that the Arguments that Reverend Author has made us of from Scripture, for the support of his Opinion seem to me a much darker Labyrinth than what he endeavours to shun.  
But as to point of time, I have resolved to look no farther than the first six Weeks of their Majesty's Reign, to avoid either the arraigning or defending any thing that has happened since that time.  
And tho' I have taken no notice of this present Parliaments Recognition of their Majesty's Title, as being done after the time to which I limit this Discourse; though what was done by the former Parliament, may be sufficiently defended upon the grounds I have laid down in this, and the former Discourse; yet do I not deny, but that the solemn Recognition of a free Parliament summoned in their Majesty's Name, has taken away those Obejections which were made against the Conventions declaring them to be rightful King, and Queen, and then Voting themselves a Parliament, when they were not Summoned by Writs issued in the Name of the King, or Queen, according to the usual form.  
Only I must confess I have made bold in one Point to look beyond the time prefixed; and that is, in relation to the late Schism began by some of our Clergy, and carried on by some of the Laity who refused the present Oaths: but since I have made use of some Reasons against it, which have not (as I know of) been yet hit upon by any former Writers on this Subject. I wish they may prove for their satisfaction; but if not, since I write only to discover truth, I desire that any of the present new Dissenters will show me my mistakes; and I shall take it kindly, not only for my own sake, but that of others, who may otherwise be misled by my Arguments.  
I have only one thing more to add, in relation to somewhat I promised at the end of the Preface to the last Dialogue, concerning the late Revolutions being different from the last Civil War, and Murder of King Charles the First; which though I have finished, and thought to have inserted into this Discovese, yet since it proves rather too long without it, and that the Bookseller urges for its speedy Publication; I have thought fit to omit it; since also the greatest part of it relates to matter of fact, which is variously stated by those who write the History of those times, yet I shall make bold to give you the heads of those inquiries I have made, and shall leave you to satisfy, yourself in these Points following; first, if after King Charles the first had not only passed all Bills for redressing those Grievances the Nation lay under at the beginning of the Parliament in 1640. but had also passed the Bill to make it not to be Prorogued, or Dissolved without their own consents; I say, whether there were then any such violations of our Religion, and fundamental Laws which should require the Parliament and Nations putting themselves in a posture of defence against the King's Arbitrary Power. Secondly, whether the fears and jealousies of Popery and Arbitrary Government which (notwithstanding all that the King had done) still troubled many men's minds, were a sufficient ground for the two Houses to demand the putting the whole Militia of the Kingdom out of his own Power, into such hands as they should nominate and appoint. Thirdly, whether upon his refusal of their Addresses for the Militia, their going about to take it out of his hands by force, and particularly their shutting him out of Hull was not an actual making War upon the King when he was as yet un●armed, and had given out no Commissions to raise Men, or Arms. Fourthly, when the War was begun, whether the King did not in all his Messages to and Treaties with the Parliament, propose and seem to desire Peace upon equal and reasonable terms. Fifthly. Whether the two Houses did not instead of complying with those reasonable Proposals, still insist upon higher Terms, as their Victories and Successes over the King increased. Sixthly, when the King was delivered up by the Scots, whether the Parliament and Army did not keep him as good as a close Prisoner, and vote no more Addresses to be made to him, merely because he refused to pass whatever Bills they brought to him. Seventhly, When at last he was forced by necessity to grant them at the Isle of Wight almost whatever they demanded, whether he was not hurried away from thence by Cromwell's Army; and for the major part of the House of Commons, who had Voted the King's Concessions satisfactory, excluded the House by force; till the far less Party had reversed all that the rest had done, and then Voted the King should he called to an account for making War upon the Parliament, and for Treason against the Kingdom. Eighthly, Whether in pursuance of this, they did not appoint judges to Try the King, who upon his refusal to own their Authority, Condemned him to death, and cut off his head before the Gates of his own Palace. Ninthly, Whether this fag end of a Parliament did not alter the whole frame of the Government both in Church and State, destroying both Monarchy, and Episcopacy, and Voting the House of Peers useless, and dangerous; and setting up a Democratical Commonwealth, or rather an Oligarcy in their stead, consisting of about fifty or sixty Men, wholly governed and awed by Cromwell, and the Officers of the Army.  
Now let any Man but impartially consider all these Transactions with the late Revolution, and read what hath been said in the three last Dialogues, and then let him tell meingenuously, whether he thinks this Revolution hath been begun upon the like grounds, and carried on by the same violent Courses, or has ended with the same direful effects as the late Civil War, and Murder of King Charles the First.  
I have no more to propose on this Subject, but only to wish that these Discourses written with a real design for the public good and peace of my Country, may be read with the like affection with which they were written, and may really promote that end for which they were designed; but if not, that they may at least serve as an Impartial History to Posterity of those Principles and Opinions on which this late great Revolution hath been brought about in England; and also those on which it hath been so violently opposed by the dissenting Party.   

THE Thirteenth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian, AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman.  F. 
SIR, I hope I do not interrupt you by coming too soon, for the truth is, since I intent that this shall be the last Dispute I shall ever have with you upon this Subject, I was very desirous to have it dispatched as soon as I could, that when I have once discharged the duty of an old Friend and Acquaintance, my mind may be at rest which side soever you take.  M. 
Dear Sir, I thank you, and though I intended to go abroad this Evening upon an Appointment, yet I will not put it off, that I may enjoy your better Conversation, therefore pray begin where you left off, and prove to me that I may lawfully take this new Oath of Allegiance to King William, and Queen Mary.  F. 
I cannot see any reason why you may not safely do it, since our best Common Lawyers are of this Opinion; for my Lord Coke in his Third institutes in his Notes upon the Statute of Treason, 
P. 7.  the 25 th' of Edward the III d gives it for Law, that this Act is to be understood of a King in possession of the Crown, and Kingdom; for if there be a King Regnant in possession, although he be Rex de Facto, & non de jure, yet is he Signior Le Roy within the purview of that Statute, and the other that hath Right, and is out of possession is not within this Act, etc. And if it be Treason to Levy War against him, or to Conspire his Death as long as he continues King, it can only be so, because the Subject's Allegiance is then due to him, for that all Men have either taken the Oath of Allegiance, or else are supposed to have done it.  M. 
I must beg your pardon, if I cannot come over to your Opinion, neither in point of Law or Reason; for as long as I am persuaded in my Conscience that King james is King de jure, so long must the obligation of my former Oath last; and I suppose that you will grant that it is as impossible to owe Allegiance to two Kings at once, as it is to serve two Masters, and therefore you must pardon me, if I suppose that my Lord Coke depending too much upon the commonly received sense of the Statute of the Eleventh of Henry the VII th', which he quotes in the Margin, may be mistaken in this Great Point, and may have also given occasion to divers others of his profession to fall into the same Error.  F. 
I doubt not but my Lord Coke, and others of his profession who maintain the same Opinion, may very well be defended, as well from that Statute, as other Authorities; but to pass by that at present, I shall first discourse with you upon this point, of the lawfulness of taking this Oath to their present Majesty's King William and Queen Mary, and therefore you misunderstand me, if you believe that I think this Oath doth require from you the performance of all those duties of Allegiance and Subjection which I myself am obliged to, who am fully satisfied of their Title, and therefore must venture my Life and Fortune in their quarrel, to the utmost of my power against all Persons whatsoever; but all that I think can be required of you is, that whereas King William and Queen Mary are actually in possession of the Regal Power so long as they continue thus possessed of it, you may I think Swear that you will be so far true and faithful to them, as not to enterprise any thing against them, but that you will pay them that obedience and submission which may be lawfully paid to an actual Sovereign; not engaging hereby to uphold them in the possession of the Throne against King james, and without debarring yourself from exerting that Allegiance you have sworn to him upon any emergent safe opportunity for the recovery of his Right.  M. 
I must beg your pardon, if I cannot assent to take this Oath in this low and qualified sense that you would now put upon it, since besides the signification of the words themselves, I am very well satisfied that the imposers of this Oath do intend something more than a bare negative obedience to the present Power, since it is the only Oath which is required from those who take Employments either Civil or Military, and from whom certainly, not only a passive Obedience or Submission, but also an active obedience and assistance is required in defending the Crown and Dignity of the present King and Queen de facto, with their Lives and Fortunes, against all Persons whatsoever; or else how could the present Government ever trust them? and all this cannot be sworn to, without a breach of that Oath they had formerly taken to King james; and therefore if I should take it in this sense (as the Oath itself seems to employ) I should be perjured; besides, by these words of being true and faithful, I should look upon myself as obliged to reveal all Plots and Conspiracies which I may any ways happen to know of against King William and Queen Mary, which I think would be derogatory to my Allegiance to his Majesty, since I should thereby discover and accuse such of his good Subjects as endeavoured to restore him, and should thereby hinder him as much as in me lay, from being restored again to the Throne.  
But if we consider the word Allegiance, it is yet more strict, and if I should Perform it to King William and Queen Mary, according to the true intent and legal sense of that word, I think it could no ways consist with that Oath of Allegiance I have already taken; since 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) I will defend to the utmost of my power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever, that shall be made against his, or their Persons, Crown, and Dignities. Now what kind of assistance is here meant by the word defend, may be understood from all the Writers of our feudal Laws, 
D. A. p. 15.  who expound the jus defensorium, by telling us that the word protegere implies a necessity of defending by Arms as due from the Supreme Lord or Sovereign; and further, that Subjects are in the same sense reciprocally bound to defend the Honour and Dignity of their Sovereign: and these words Allegiance, and the defence that follows it may be likewise understood from our feudal Laws, whereby the Vassals were bound by their Oath of Allegiance, as also by virtue of the tenure of their Lands to a military defence of their Supreme Lord the King, from whom all the Lands in England are held, and this is according to Glanvil, and all our old Lawyers; and though I grant that military tenors are all now taken away by a late Statute, yet am I still obliged to the like defence of the King and his heirs, not only from the words of this Oath, but from the municipal Laws of this Kingdom also; which oblige all the Subjects that are capable, to take up Arms for the King, when need shall require.  
Which my be thus further proved; first, from the Ancient Laws of Edward the Confessor, 
Ib. P. 14. Vid. Lambardi, L. L. Edwards & L. L. Will. I. c. 52.  and William the Conqueror, by both which, all the People or Freemen of the Kingdom were to affirm upon their Faith and Oath, within the whole Kingdom, and without, that they will be faithful to to their Sovereign Lord King William, and every where preserve his Lands and Honours with all fidelity, 
Stat. 51 Ibid.  and with him will defend them against all his Enemies. To this, succeeded that, which the Lord Coke calls legal Ligeance, 
Calvin 's Case. Cowel's Inst. l. 2. tit. 3. § 14.  or the Common-Law-Oath of Allegiance, which he citys out of Britton (who wrote under Edward I.) which all the Subjects were obliged to take at twelve years of age at the Sheriffs-Court, and at the Leete, and without the taking of which, they had no warrant to abide in the Kingdom; and the form of it was this effect: You shall Swear, that from this day forward you shall be true and faithful to our Sovereign Lord the King, and his Heirs; and truth and faith shall bear of life, and member and terrene honour, and you shall neither know nor hear of any ill or damage which you shall not defend, (that is, oppose) to the utmost of your power.  
And my Lord Coke also here informs us, that five things were observed by all the Judges from this Oath in the debate of Calvin's Case. First, that for the time of its obligation, it is indefinite; and without limit. Secondly, two excellent qualities were required, that is, to be true, and faithful. Thirdly, to whom? to our Sovereign Lord the King, and his Heirs. Fourthly, in what manner? and saith and troth shall bear of life and member; that is, until the letting out the last drop of our dearest heart blood. Fifthly, where, and in what place? in all places whatsoever; for you shall neither know nor hear of any ill which you shall not defend; such is the Ligeance which the Law has prescribed in that ancient Oath, which is still in force; it is neither circumscribed by time, nor place; it is unconditionate, and unreserved; it is not a lazy passive Allegiance, requiring nothing but pure submission, but an active and vigorous Loyalty, exacting all that is in the sphere of moral possibility, and engaging us to spend our dearest blood in the defence of our Sovereign's Person, and the preservation of his Crown and Dignity.  
For it is to be observed, that by the Law, this Allegiance is due to the King's Person; so the same Author says it was then resolved by all the Judges, that that Ligeance was due to the natural person of the King, (which is ever accompanied with the politic capacity; and the politic capacity as it were appropriated to the natural) and not due to the politic capacity only.  
To conclude, if my former Oath of Allegiance to King james doth still continue (as I am satisfied in my Conscience it doth) I cannot take a new Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, since I should thereby be obliged by the force of these words in the Oath (viz.) I will be faithful, and bear true Allegiance, to yield it as much to those that are not my Lawful Sovereigns, as I am to those that are so, which will be contrary to my first engagement; for though I grant that there is no express Declaration of the Right of the present Possessors of the Throne, and that I have heard that the word rightful (which was at first inserted into this Oath was struck out) because as many as could be might be drawn in to take it; yet as long as the words that remain import the very same thing, it is all one as if the word rightful were there; for though the deliberate omission of the word rightful, does necessarily infer that we are not obliged in this Oath to a recognition of their right to the Crown, yet it does not infer, that we are not obliged to pay as high a degree of Allegiance as to any rightful King whatsoever; that omission indeed is an Argument that the word King in the Oath does not necessarily signify a King de jure; 
D. A. p. 24.  but it is no argument, that true allegiance does not signify true Allegiance, that is an obligation to adhere to the King against all his Enemies; for there was no debate, that we know of, about the sense of the word Allegiance, neither is there the least intimation given that they designed to restrain it to a lower signification, though it was plainly necessary to do it, if they intended to alter the commonly received meaning of it; wherefore, as the striking out of the word rightful would not have proved, that they did not intend to oblige us to an active assistance of King William, against all men living; if those words had been expressly inserted in the Oath; so neither will it prove that the same duty is not now required of us, if the word Allegiance do, as I have proved in terminis import it; and that as fully, as if it had been in express words required in it.  
And that this word Allegiance implies something more than a bare passive submission or neutrality from all Subjects, as well as Magistrates and Officers, appears by that passage in the Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth, which you have now cited; where 'tis plainly and expressly declared, that every Subject by the duty of his Allegiance, is bound to serve and assist his Prince and Sovereign Lord at all seasons when need shall require; this is so express and authentic a Declaration of the true duty of Allegiance, that no Art or Sophistry can possibly evade it.  F. 
I confess you have argued this point of taking this new Oath of Allegiance, not only like a Civilian, but a common Lawyer also; and I cannot deny the force of what you have said, that this Oath must extend to an active obedience, and defence of their present Majesties in their right to the Throne, and not only to a bare sluggish submission, or a lukewarm Neutrality. And therefore I cannot say but you are justly scrupulous in not taking this new Oath, until you are satisfied of their Majesties Right as well as present Power; but if you will please to observe the purport of this Act of the 11th of Henry the VIIth, (which you now mentioned) you will there find it as good as expressly declared that Allegiance is due to him who is lawful Sovereign, and the King for the time being is still to be looked upon as such; for the words in the Statute are, that no Man shall suff for assisting the King for the time being, without specifying by what Title he holds the Crown, whether by an hereditary Right, or by Conquest, Election, or the solemn recognition of his Title by all the Estates in Parliament; so that by this Act, all that Allegiance that was once due to the former King de jure becomes thereby wholly transferred to the King de facto.  M. 
I grant what you now say would go a great way to satisfy me, could you once prove that this Statute is now in force, and is not now either, abrogated, or expired; or else (which I rather incline to believe) is not absolutely void in itself. In the first place therefore I hope to show 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 so before; so that the King for the time being there mentioned, must be a King de jure, or at least one that was presumed such; because at that time the Constitution knew no other, 
Ib. A. 11. H. 7. p. 2.3.  for that Possession was not a sufficient Title before the 11th of Henry the VIIth, will evidently appear from these following Remarks. First, that all the Kings of the House of Lancaster are declared in the Statute of the first of Edward the IVth, to be Kings in Deed, but not of Right, and pretended Kings, and particularly Henry the VIth is said to be rightfully amoved from the Government, and his Reign affirmed to be Intrusion, and Usurpation, and himself Attainted for being in Arms against Edward the IVth. Secondly, all Patents of Honour, Charters, and Privileges, which were granted by the House of Lancaster; all Acts of Royal Authority which the Kings of England have a right to execute by virtue of their sole Prerogative, (nay, Acts of Parliament themselves, particularly those relating to Shrewsbury, and some others, which by parity of Reason supposes the rest in the same Condition,) all Acts of this nature were confirmed by the first of Edward the IVth, which is a good Argument that this Parliament believed the Authority by which they were performed to be defective and illegal▪ for we never find any such general confirmation as these pass upon the grants of the King de jure.  
Thirdly, in the first year of Henry the VIIth, Richard the IIId was Attainted of High Treason in Parliament, under the the name of Duke of Gloucester; from whence 'tis plain, that as there was no Statute, so neither was there any Common Law to support the Title of a King de facto, 
Vid. Lord Bac. Henry VIIth.  for Treason is an attempt against the King's Person, his Crown and Dignity, but no Man can commit Treason against himself; therefore if Richard the IIId had been a King in the sense of this Law, we may be sure he would not have had such an infamous censure passed upon him after his death. Bradshaw, and his High Court of Justice, were the first that were so hardy as to pronounce a King of England guilty of Treason.  
Fourthly, If this notion of a King de facto had been allowed in the 11th of Henry the VIIth, the Principal Assistants of Richard the IIId could not have been attainted; for Richard being actually in the Throne, he was according to your Modern way of arguing, 
Ibid. p. 4.  Rightful King; and consequently the People ought to own him as such, and defend him against all opposers; and if so, certainly they ought not to be condemned as Traitors for doing their duty, as we find many of those were who fought for King Richard.  
Fifthly, at the end of this Parliament, Henry the VIIth granted a General Pardon to the common people who had appeared against him in the behalf of Richard the IIId, now Pardon supposes a fault, and the breach of a Law, which they could not have been charged with, if the plea of a King de facto had been warranted by the Constitution.  F. 
I must freely tell you, that you do not argue so much like a Lawyer in this Argument as you did in your former, and you have in that forgot to what end those Statutes you mention were made, and what is the purport of them, or else some body hath misinformed you; for though I grant that all those hard expressions you mention, are given of the Kings of the Lancastrian Line in those Statutes of the 1st of Edward the IVth, yet do none of these expressions prove, that they were not true and legal Kings in the eye of the Law all the while they Reigned; since divers Persons were attainted for High Treason against them, whose attainders were never reversed, but stand good to this day; as in particular the attainder of the Earls of Kent, Salisbury, and of Huntingdon, who were all attainted by Act of Parliament, in the second of Henry the IVth, and also the Earl of Northumberland, and his Son the Lord Piercy, attainted in the 5th of this King, all which attainders were never reversed: So likewise Richard Earl of Cambridge was found guilty of Treason by his Peers, and his Attainder confirmed by Act of Parliament in the second of Henry the Vth, and though it is true this Attainder was afterwards reversed in the first of Edward the IVth, because the said Richard was not only his Grandfather, but was also Condemned for endeavouring to make Edmund Earl of March his Brother-in-law King of England, from whose Sister King Edward the IVth claimed the Crown; yet the very reversing this Attainder by Act of Parliament, declares it to have been good until that Repeal, since it was not declared void; all which are plain and evident proofs, that Treason may be committed against the King de facto, and consequently that Allegiance is also due to him, and not to the King de jure.  
I have likewise also proved that all those Statutes which were made by those Kings, and are not repealed, stand good at this day without any confirmation by King Edward the IVth; and this you have no way to answer, but by instancing in Patents of Honour, or Charters of Privileges granted by those Kings, and confirmed by Edward the IV th', from whence you would infer, that some other Acts of like nature were in the same condition; which, let me tell you, in no good argument against them; for if you please to read that Statute of Edward the IVth you mention, and you will there plainly see, that the Grants, Patents, and other things there confirmed, or either judicial Proceedings in the Courts of Justice, or else such Charters, or Patents which being thought to the prejudice of the Crown were ex abundanti cautela, thought necessary to be confirmed by those particular Persons, Religious Houses, and Corporations who thought themselves concerned, nor were all others of like nature who were not so confirmed, thereby void, since they hold good at this day; and if you understand any thing of our Law, you cannot but know, that no Grants of the King can be made void by implication; and to show you farther, that the Letters Patents made by Henry the VIth were looked upon as good in the Reign of Edward the IVth, appears good from Bagot's Case in the Year-Book of the ninth of that King; where a Patent of Naturalisation granted by Henry the VIth, 
P. 1.2.  though it were not confirmed by that Statute of Edward the IVth, was by the greatest part of the Judges held to be good, and the reasons there given for it are very remarkable; since it was urged by the Council in behalf of the Plaintiff, that King Henry was then King in Possession, and it behoves that the Realm should have a King, and that the Laws should be kept and maintained; and therefore though he was in only by Usurpation, nevertheless every judicial Act done by him, concerning Royal Jurisdiction shall hold good, and bind the King de jure when he returns, etc. So likewise a Charter of Pardon of Felony, and Licenses of Mortmain shall be good, and also the King that now is shall have the advantage of every forfeiture made to the said King Henry, etc. and mark this farther, it is there also held that a Man shall be Arraigned for Treason done against the said King Henry in compassing his death; and the reason is very remarkable, because the said King indeed was not merely a Usurper, for the Crown was entailed upon him by Parliament; and this being not at all contradicted by the Court, is still taken for Law; and upon this report, and not only upon the Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth, did my Lord Coke found his Opinion I now mentioned, that a King de facto was within the Statute of the 25th of Edward III. and though now it is true, that the farther arguing of this Case of Bagot's adjourned to a farther day, when the Justices did not argue, but the Sergeants and Apprentices at Law, (that is the Baristers as we now call them) yet it seems to have been allowed by the whole Court, that if King Edward who was then King, had made his Charter before he was declared so, it should be void at that time; for every one who shall make a Charter of Pardon, aught to be King in Deed, at the time of the making thereof.  M. 
Pray Sir give me leave to reply to what you have now said against my first two Arguments, before you go on to answer the rest; for I confess the Authorities you bring seem so express against me, that if I cannot take them off, there will be no further need for your answering the rest; I will not therefore deny, but that all public Acts and Proceedings at Law, which are for the public good and safety of the Kingdom, do hold good though made under Usurpers, and that for this Reason; because such Acts being for the public benefit, it is to be supposed that the King de jure did give his tacit consent to them; for (as it is well observed in the Case you have now cited) that it behoves the Realm should have a King (that is some Civil Government) and that the Laws should be kept and maintained, but then those Laws can extend only to such things as are for the public good, and do not tend to the disinheriting of the King de jure, or barring him or his Heirs of their Right, as did that Act of the 7th of Henry the IVth, whereby the Crown was entailed upon himself, and his Sons, which was declared to be void by the 39th of Henry the VIth; so likewise this Act is void for the same reason, since it would give a Right to the Subjects to defend the King for the time being, though an Usurper against the true and lawful King, who would be thereby not only defeated of his Right himself, but also his right Heirs would be so too, which would be directly contrary to the intent of the said Statutes of the 39th of Hen. VI, and 1st of Edw. IVth but now mentioned, but also to the Act of Recognition of King james the Firsts Title.  
And therefore I must still maintain that my Lord Coke is mistaken in supposing a King de facto to be within the intent of the Statute of the 25th of Edw. the IIId, for sure it would seem a very odd question for any one to ask touching the Laws that are made in any settled Monarchy for the defence of the King's Person, Crown and Dignity, who is meant by the King in those Laws; whether the Lawful and Rightful King of that Realm, or any one that gets into the possession of the Throne, though he be not a Rightful King, but an Usurper.  
So likewise as to that Clause in this Statute, which makes it Treason to Conspire the Death of the King's Eldest Son and Heir; it could be never intended for the Son of a King de facto, since that would be to own him for right Heir of the Crown for ever, and thereby entail it upon his Family, to the prejudice of the Right Heir of the King de jure; and therefore, though I grant some of the Judges and Lawyers held the Law to be so as you have cited it in Bagot's Case, and that a King de facto may enjoy those Prerogatives in some respects, yet cannot this be extended to the prejudice of the King de jure, and his Right Heirs; and though I also grant that divers Acts of Parliament made by Kings de facto, have for the most part held good without being confirmed by any subsequent Statute of the King de jure, yet have they been also repealed sometimes; merely because made whilst the King de jure was alive, as I shall prove more at large by and by.  F. 
I shall also take the boldness to reply to these answers of yours, before I proceed to answer the rest of your Arguments; in the first place, let me tell you that this notion of a tacit consent in the King de jure supposed to be given to all Statutes made for the public good is to serve upon all occasions, when those of your Party cannot tell how otherwise to answer the Arguments that are brought against them, and you may as well tell me that they do also give their tacit consents to all other Acts that Usurpers may do; and I may as well suppose that Queen Elizabeth the Wife of Henry the VIIth, the Lawful Heiress of the Crown, did in the person of her Husband give her tacit consent that this Act of the 11th of Henry the VIIth should hold good for ever, since it is so much for the public good and peace of the Nation, that the Statute declares it to be against Law, Reason, and good Conscience, that Subjects should suffer for fight for the King for the time being; but I very much wonder if this supposed tacit consent were given to all Acts of Parliament by the Kings de jure, why upon their return to the Government, he did not also express this consent by confirming all those Acts which were made by his Predecessors the Kings de facto, or else declare them void: but since they neither did the one nor the other, it is plain it was because even they themselves looked upon it as altogether needless.  
Nor is your reason at all satisfactory, why a King de facto cannot be intended by the Statute of the 25th of Edward the IIId, because that maketh it Treason to Conspire the death of the King's Eldest Son and Heir, which say you can only be meant of the Eldest Son of a King de ●ur●, which is to beg the question; for though it is true, this Clause in the Act was intended for the preservation of the King's Eldest Son, yet it doth no where determine that this must be the Eldest Son of a King de jure; for though I own this Clause was made to preserve 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 facto, and one de jure; nor have you yet answered the Authorities I have brought from the Acts of attainder of those Lords, who Conspired against the three Kings of the House of Lancaster, which stand unreversed unto this day: and which also confirm the Opinion given in Bagot's Case, where it is said expressly, that a Man may be arraigned for Treason committed against the King de facto, by the King de jure; and therefore I think my Lord Coke may very well be justified in his Opinion, notwithstanding the question you put, whether the Statute could mean him who is lawful and rightful King, or any other who gets into the possession of the Throne? Now this seems to me no such odd question; for when the Law only mentions the King, and the Lawmakers' certainly known that Kings without an hereditary right had often ascended the Throne, if they had intended to except all such Usurpers, they should have expressly said so. But indeed that distinction of a King de facto, 
C. A. p. 56.  and a King de jure, was not known till many years after, being first heard of in the Reign of Edward the IVth; for a King de facto (as the late Chief Justice rightly asserts) is Signior Le Roy, within that Statute, and there is no other King but he whilst he continues so. For King signifies that person who has the Supreme Government in the Nation; and a King de jure, is he who should have the Government, but has it not; that is, who of right should be King, but is not; and the Statute of Treason tells us what is Treason against him who is King, not against him who should be, but is not King; and reason good it should be so; for it is not merely a legal Title by descent, 
E. L. R.  but a legal investitute, and recognition by Parliament that makes a legal King, or a King in Law, as it makes a legal Magistrate; and then all Kings de facto, who are placed in the Throne by a Legal Authority, and with all Legal and accustomed Ceremonies, are legal Kings, and as such, may require a legal Allegiance: so that all those hard words in the Statute of the first of Edward the IVth, that call those Kings of the House of Lancaster, Kings in Deed, and not of Right or pretended Kings, mean no more than this, that they were Kings for the time being, and according to the Laws which had made them so, though not according to that hereditary Right of Succession which those Statutes require: If you have any thing to reply to this, tell me, or else I will proceed to answer your two other Arguments.  M. 
I will not at present say more to this than I have done, and therefore you may proceed if you please.  F. 
Your two next Arguments are from the attainders of Richard the IIId, and his principle Assistants which were by Act of Parliament, as to that Prince himself, as also his adherents, the attainders of Kings de facto, and their Assistants in after Parliaments, do not prove that Subjects cannot be guilty of Treason against a King in possession; nor does the Statute of Treason relate to a King de jure only, for that Statute was not made to secure Princes Titles, but the quiet of their Government whilst they sat upon the Throne; for though a King, if he be an Usurper, when ever the Rightful King regains the Possession of his Throne, if he were a Subject before, may be attainted of Treason for his Usurpation, as was Richard the IIId, for Treason against his own Nephew King Edward the Vth; yet this does no way prove that Richard the IIId was no true King during his Usurpation; but only shows the Parliaments abhorrence of his Treason, and to deter others from falling into the like, attainted him, and several of his Accomplices who had assisted him in his said Usurpation; for that they were not barely attainted for defending King Richard's Title, appears from this, that the Earl of Surrey Son to the Duke of Norfolk, and divers other Noblemen and Gentlemen who fought for King Richard at Bosworth-Field were never attainted at all. But as for the Pardon that you say passed in that Parliament of the 1 saint of Henry the VIIth, you are very much mistaken in the purport of it; for if you please to look upon it again, you will find, that it was not a General Pardon for the Common People who had fought on the behalf of Richard the Third, 
Vid. 1 Hen. VII. Cap. 6.  but of all those who had come over with Henry the VIIth himself, or who were with him in the Field against Richard the Third, for all manner of Murders, Spoils and Trespasses committed by them, in taking part with King Henry against his Enemies; so that you see the assisting of a King de facto was not only justifiable, but those that had fought against him, thought themselves not safe till they had their Pardons.  
Nay, farther, that Attainders passed in Parliament, are no proof that the Princes against whom they were passed were not lawful Kings, appears from hence; that when Edward the Fourth was driven out of the Kingdom and dispossessed of the Throne, the next Parliament under Henry the Sixth, passed an Act of Attainder against him, and his Adherents. But as for the Attainder of Henry the Sixth, you are very much mistaken to suppose, that it was for any Treason committed against Edward the Fourth, but it was for breach of the agreement made with his Father the Duke of York, and in making War again upon him; for had he not done this, he had continued lawful King during his life, by the Duke of Yorks own consent; for in the Parliament Roll you your self have already cited, it is thus expressed; That considering the possession of the said King Henry the Sixth, 
Rot. Parl. Edw. IU. 39 Hen. VI n. 18.  and that he had before this time been named, taken, and reputed King of England, and France, and Lord of Ireland; the said Duke is content, agreeth and consenteth, that he be had, reputed and taken for King of England, and of France, with the Royal Estate, Dignity and Pre-eminence belonging thereto, and Lord of Ireland, during his life natural; and for that time, the said Duke, without hurt or prejudice of his said Right and Title, shall take, worship and honour him for his Sovereign Lord: So that you see that by the Judgement of the Parliament, and by the express consent of the Right Heir of the Crown, a King de facto 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.  M. 
I will not dispute this point any further; but yet methinks though Treason might be commited against the King de facto, whilst he continues King; yet this is not for any Allegiance due to him, but because such Treason being against the due order of Government, and the common peace of the Nation, such actions are therefore Treason from the presumed or tacit consent of the King de jure.  F. 
I grant indeed, that such Acts are against the Order of Government, 
C. A. p. 58, 59  and very destructive to it, which is the only reason why they are made Treason by Law; and this is as good a reason why the Law should make them Treason against a King de facto, as against a King de jure, for they ere equally against the order of Government, and destructive to it, whoever is King; and that is the only reason why they made it Treason at all. Now this presumed or tacit consent of the King de jure is a very pretty notion, and serves you for a great many good turns, it makes Laws, and it makes Treason, and gives Authority to the unauthoritative Acts of a King de facto; that is to say (or you say nothing) that the presumed consent of a King de jure, invests the King de facto at the time with his Authority; for if he have no Authority of his own, unless what the presumed consent of the King de jure give him, that cannot make any Treasonable Act done against him to be Treason; for it cannot alter the nature of things, nor make a Man guilty of Treason against any person to whom he owes no duty of Allegiance. And if the presumed consent of the King de jure can invest the King de facto with his Authority, it must transfer the Allegiance of the Subjects too; and then Subjects are as safe in Conscience, as if the King de jure were on the Throne; for it seems there is his Authority and tacit consent, though not his person.  
But indeed, this is all mere trifling, the King de facto has Authority, or else none of his Acts of Government can have any; for that which is done by a person who has no Authority, can lay no obligation upon us; whence then has he this Authority, since he has no legal Right to the Throne? not sure from the presumed consent of the King de jure, which is nonsense to suppose, but from the possession of the Throne, to which the Law itself, as well as the Principles of Reason, have annexed the Authority of the Government.  M. 
I am so far of Bishop Sanderson's Opinion in his Case, concerning taking the Engagement, that when Usurpers or Kings de facto have taken upon them the Government, they are obliged to administer it for the common good, and safety of the People; and as far as that comes to we are also obliged to live peaceable under them, and to yield obedience to them in things absolutely necessary for the upholding civil Society within the Realm, such as are the defence of the Nation against Foreigners, the furtherance of public Justice, the maintenance of Trade and Commerce, and the like. But sure this is no argument for transferring our Allegiance from the lawful King and his Heirs whilst they are alive; and therefore I must still suppose that this Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth can do no service to the present Government, because it's virtually repealed by several Statutes; as first, by the 28th of Henry the VIIIth, concerning the Succession of the Crown, wherein it is expressly provided, that if any of his Children should Usurp upon each other, or if any of those to whom he should bequeath the Crown by his last Will, or Letters Patents, should take the Crown in any other manner than what should be thereby limited, that such Children or others should be guilty of Treason for so doing. Now it is plain such Treason must only have been committed against the right Heir, and consequently the person so taking the Crown, was not to be looked upon as King de facto. It is also virtually repealed by the Statute of 1o Elizabeth, by which we are obliged to swear to be true to the Queen, her Heirs, and Lawful Successors; (i. e. those who have a right to the Crown by proximity of Blood) as also by the Oath of Supremacy, Enacted in the 4th of King james, by which we are likewise sworn to bear true Allegiance to his Majesty, his Heirs, and Successors; from which Oaths I argue, first, that if we are sworn by Act of Parliament to pay Allegiance to the Heirs of a King de fure, who never were in possession, than a fortiori to a King de jure; who besides the legality of his Title, had been actually recognized as Sovereign, and enjoyed an uncontested administration of the Regal Power. Secondly, If our Laws oblige us to swear subjection to the Heirs etc. of a Rightful Prince, than by undeniable consequence we are bound not to translate our Allegiance to those who are unjustly set up by the People; for without all question the words Heirs and Lawful Successors, were made use of on purpose to secure the hereditary Rights of the Monarchy, and to prevent all Usurpations upon the direct Line. And since by virtue of that Statute which framed the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, we are not to acknowledge any pretended Governors to the prejudice or disinherison of the Heirs of the King de jure, then most certainly we ought not to do this in opposition to the King de jure himself; so that now we can have no pretence to make Right the necessary consequence of mere possession of the Crown, any more than in private Estates.  F. 
In the first place, I agree with you in what you have said, that Kings de facto are to be obeyed in all things tending to the public good of Society; but than it will also follow, that Allegiance is due to them, from that great Law of prosecuting the same public good, since it were much better that Kings de jure should lose their Right, than that a Nation should be involved in a long and cruel War to the weakening and impoverishing thereof, and to the destruction of so many thousands of ordinary as well as Noble Families; as was seen in the long Civil Wars between the Families of Lancaster, and York; 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 Edward the IVth should have obtained the Crown with so great a destruction of the People of this Nation, and so great cruelty as was then exercised upon King Henry the VIth, and the Prince his Son, as you may read in the History of those times.  
But I come now to answer the rest of your Arguments, whereby you will prove this Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth to be virtually repealed; and here by the way I must tell you, Gentlemen of this Opinion, that I cannot but admire your wondrous sagacity, in discovering this Act to be repealed, when my Lord Coke, and all the rest of our Lawyers do still suppose it to be in force; but indeed, the reason you give for it is not urged like a Common Lawyer, and therefore I think it will signify little; for though I grant that an Act of Parliament may be virtually repealed by a subsequent Act, yet it is only in such Cases where they are absolutely contradictory, and inconsistent with each other; but if they are not so, an Act of Parliament can never be said to be virtually repealed: and therefore I shall now show you, that notwithstanding the Statute of Henry the VIIIth, and the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance you have now mentioned, this Statute may very well continue in force, and unrepeal'd. First, as to the Statute of Henry the Eighth, whereby it was declared Treason for any one of his Children, upon whom the Crown was settled, to Usurp upon each other; yet that part of the Statute which makes this Treason, 
1 Sess.  was repealed by the first of Edward the the Sixth, and by the first of Queen Mary; or admit it had not been so, 
Chap. 12.  yet this Clause in the Statute of Henry the Eighth would have been absolutely void in itself against any such Usurper when actually possessed of the Crown, since it was held by all the Judges in the Case of Henry the Seventh, who at the time of his coming into England stood attainted by Act of Parliament, that this attainder need not be reversed, since Possession of the Crown takes away all precedent defects.  
But as to the Statutes of the first of Queen Elizabeth, and the fourth of King james, by which the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were Enacted; I conceive neither of these Oaths can amount to a virtual repeal of this Act, for though I grant one end of these Oaths may be to secure the right of the King or Queen's Heirs by lineal descent, yet it will not therefore follow, that a King de facto, or for the time being may not be legally defended in the Throne; for as for that part of the Oath which was taken to King james himself, it can hold no longer than whilst he continued King: If therefore the Estates of the Kingdom have adjudged him to have forfeited or abdicated the Crown, the whole Nation ought to take this as to have been legally done, since it was done by the judgement of the highest Authority in the Nation, when King james had deserted the Throne; the like I may also say for the other part of the Oath of Allegiance, whereby we are obliged to his Heirs and Lawful Successors, for since there has been a dispute concerning the succession of the Crown between the Princess of Orange and your Prince of Wales, if the Convention who are the sole proper Judges in this Case, have thought fit for the reasons I have already given you at our last Meeting, to declare King William and Queen Mary the lawful King and Queen of England, all the Nation ought to accept them for such, since it was done by the highest Authority at that time extant in the Nation, and the only proper Judges of that right; and if disputes about legal rights (of which certainly that of succeeding to the Crown is of the highest importance) ought to be decided by Law, and not by the Sword, (which is not the decision of civil Authority but of force) the sentence of competent Judges must end the dispute; 
E.L.R. p. 8, 9  and if the Estates of the Realm be not the proper and legal Judges of such Disputes that concern the right to the Crown, there can be none; and if they be, Subjects must acquiesce in their Judgements, or it is all one as if there had been none; for if Men may pretend Conscience, and adhere to their own private Opinions as sole Judges, the dispute must end in blows, which is contrary to the reason and nature of humane Societies, which were instituted to prevent Civil Wars, and to end all Controversies by a legal Judgement without the Sword.  
And to let you see farther, that as to the Allegiance of the Subjects it is all one in respect of us who are Subjects, whether the Convention have judged right or wrong in this case. Let us suppose a Person who has only a pretence, but no true right to an Estate, should commence a Suit of Law for it, and at last obtain a Verdict of the Jury, and also a Judgement of the Court of Kings-Bench for his Title; can any Man deny, but that the Sheriff is by virtue of this Verdict and Judgement obliged to put this Abator into possession of this Estate, notwithstanding he may know of his own knowledge, that the person who has obtained this Judgement has no true right to the Estate, or will any Lawyer doubt whether all the Tenants of the Manor are not obliged to swear homage and fealty to this supposed Lord if they are required by him so to do. Now though the true Heir or owner has the legal right to the Estate, yet by the supreme Law of all Societies, which refers the decision of all personal rights to a legal Authothority; he who by a legal judgement is possessed of it, has the legal right in the Estate, 
Ibid. p. 19, 20.  against all other claims, and legal Authority must descend him in it; and all who will submit to Laws and Legal Authority, must acquiesce in it.  
And thus it must be with respect to the Rights of Princes, as well as of Subjects, the right to the Crown has been often disputed, as we all know, and to say that when such disputes happen, there is no Authority in the Nation to decide them, is to say that Princes have no rights to their Crowns by the Laws of that Nation; for there can be no Civil Rights of which there neither are nor can be any Civil Judges; for no man, no not a Prince can be judge in his own Cause, and if Princes have no legal rights, they can lose no legal rights when they lose their Crowns; and I doubt their natural rights swill affect the Consciences of very few Subjects: Therefore every independent Civil Society which is not wholly governed by the Sword, must from the nature of such Societies, and the reason of their institution, have authority within itself to decide all Controversies which may arise about the rights of every member of that Society, and to preserve itself from falling into a state of War, which is a dissolution of all Civil Government; and if there ought to be such an Authority in every Civilised Nation, when this Supreme Authority has given sentence in such Disputes, this must also determine all the Subjects, and aught likewise to have the same effect upon the contending Princes themselves, and no right, or pretence of right aught to affect the Conscience after such a final Judgement; unless Civil Rights can oblige Subjects to dissolve Civil Governments, and to dispute Civil Rights, not by the Law, but by the Sword; which is to overthrow all Civil Rights, and put an end to the Authority of Laws.  
I hope this may serve to show you how much you are mistaken to suppose that there can be no King in an hereditary Monarchy, but the next lineal Heir; and tho' I grant no Allegiance can be due or aught to be paid to him 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 almost half of the Kings of England since the Conquest were not, and yet have been always owned and obeyed as legal Kings.  M. 
I confess what you say would go a great way to satisfy me, could you prove, that there was no difference between the succession to Crowns and private inheritances, where I grant that the judgement of the Supreme Court of the Nation is to determine not only the possession, but the right too, in respect of the person who loses his Estate by an unjust verdict, or illegal judgement; whereas it is otherwise in the Title of Crowns, to which Princes have a right, as well by the Laws of God and Nature, as also by the received settled Laws and Customs of the Kingdom concerning the Succession by descent, which is called in the 13th of Queen Elizabeth, in the Statute (we have so much debated at our last Meeting) the Common Laws of this Realm, and it is there declared, that it ought to direct the right of the Crown of England; and it is there made Treason during the Queen's life to affirm the contrary; and this course of lineal Succession at Common Law was also declared by solemn judgement in Parliament, in the case (I have so often urged of the Duke of York's Title to the Crown against Henry the VIth,) that it could no way be defeated by Act of Parliament; and therefore I must still tell you, that you go upon a wrong ground, when you suppose that there can be now any dispute who is rightful King of England, since I have often told you, that he can neither abdicate or forfeit his Right to the Crown, and that no Parliament whatever (much less a Convention) could have any power to declare he had abdicated the Government, and that thereby the Throne was become vacant; for though I grant the judgement of the Estates of the Kingdom when legally assembled, aught to be received with great submission and respect; yet must it be only in such matters which they have a legal cognizance of, and which they are impower'd by the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom to determine; but since their Voting him whom you yourself 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 also to place those therein, whom you yourself 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 though I grant that they may sometimes judge concerning the Succession of the Crown, and who is next heir to it, yet is this only to be understood as far as they judge according to the Common Laws of the Succession already laid down at our last Meeting, and not when they go quite contrary to them; and therefore, though I own the Parliament might justly declare Henry the VIth to be an Usurper, and consequently might be deposed, yet doth it not therefore follow, that they had a like right to declare Edward the IVth an Usurper, and to pass an Act of Attainder against him, as I confess they did after that Prince had held the Crown for ten years together, since that was beyond their power to enact or declare by the fundamental constitution of the Government.  F. 
I am sorry your answer can afford nothing new but only the repetitions of the same false Principles and Arguments that have been already so often answered in our former Conversations; for in the first place I have sufficiently proved that neither the Laws of God nor Nature have ordained any such thing as a lineal Succession of Kings, or any irresistible or unforfeitable power in them which they can never fall from let them act never so tyrannically; for I think I have sufficiently proved, that not only in absolute Monarchies, but also in limited Kingdoms, where the King has not the sole Supreme power, a King may not only be resisted, but may be also declared to have abdicated or forfeited his right to Govern in case of any apparent obstinate violations of the fundamental Constitution in those great points that make that Government to differ from a despotic Monarchy, and that if they had not this right, all their liberties will signify nothing, and their Lives, Liberties, and Estates, would lie wholly at the King's mercy, to be invaded and taken away when ever he pleased. I am forced to repeat this, to remind you of the Reasons upon which those Principles are founded, and therefore you do but fall into your old mistake, when you affirm, that by the fundamental constitution of the Government, the Great Council of the Nation (which was but the same with our late Convention) had no power to declare the King to have broken the Original Contract between him and his People.  
Therefore what you say concerning the want of Authority in this Great Council, to declare the Throne vacant is altogether precarious, unless you could also prove that it is against the fundamental constitution so to do: whereas I have so far proved the contrary, that the Throne has been declared vacant no less than eight times since the Conquest, which makes up almost a third part of the Successions of all the Kings and Queens that have Reigned since that time; so that if the custom and practice of Great Councils or Conventions (and those not condemned by any subsequent Statutes) can be the only Rule or Guide for the Consciences of all the Subjects of this Nation, we have certainly had that as solemnly declared now, as in any other Great Council or Convention that has been ever held in this Kingdom; but as to what you say concerning the want of power in those Councils, to declare or recognize who are the right Heirs to the Crown, but not to make them so, is very pleasant: since that were all one as if two Men who contended for an Estate, should bring the matter before the House of Peers, and when that was done, and the Case solemnly heard by Council on both sides, that party who had lost the Cause, should declare that this Court (tho' the highest in the Kingdom) had no power to judge in prejudice of himself, who had an undoubted right to the Estate, which were only to give the Lords power to give judgement only for one side; and why the other Party if the judgement had been given against him should not have made the like Plea, I cannot understand: So that such a Judgement would be altogether in vain.  
Therefore to apply this to our purpose, though the Parliament being prevailed upon by the strength and faction of the Duke of York, did as I granted (at our last Meeting) declare that his Title could in no wise be defeated, yet Henry the VIth being then in the Throne, they might have certainly given a contrary judgement if they had pleased, and then I suppose the Title of the House of York might have been so defeated as that the Nation had never been troubled with it again; and so also, when by the power of Edward the IVth, a Parliament met, and declared him to be lawful King from the time of his Father's death; yet when the said King was driven out of the Kingdom by the Earl of Warwick, and King Henry the VIth restored to the Throne, a Parliament was summoned in the 49th of this King, wherein Edward the IVth was declared an Usurper, 
Rot. Claus 49. H. VI m. 6.  and himself attainted and to which Parliament the Duke of Clarence, Brother to King Edward the IVth is first Summoned, as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury, with all the other Bishops, Temporal Lords, and Judges, (of whom Littleton the Author of the Book of Tenors was one) so likewise upon King Edward's recovery of the Crown the year following, 
Rot. Claus. 11 Ed. IV. m. 1  King Henry was again deposed, and a Parliament called, wherein all the Dukes, Earls, and Barons, with the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York, and most of the rest of the Bishops Swore to Prince Edward, after called Edward the Vth, as Right Heir of the Crown.  
Now I desire to know what other Law or Rule there was then for the Subjects Allegiance, but the solemn judgement or declaration of the Estates of the Kingdom assembled in Parliament, since their Acts and Judgements were in this dispute directly contradictory to each other; so that it is evident from the constant practice of those times, that the King de facto was always owned as Lawful Sovereign, and had Allegiance still paid him by all the People of this Kingdom, except those who being the heads of one or the other Party were either attainted, or else forced to ●lye the Kingdom.  
But as for all others, though different and contrary Oaths of Allegiance were imposed upon the People, sometimes by the one, and sometimes by the other of those Kings, according as they got possession of the Throne; yet I can no where find, that ever any body suffered for barely swearing Allegiance to the King then in Being, for it was always taken for Law, that Allegiance was due to the King de facto, since ordinary Subjects are not supposed to understand the legal right or justice of the King's Title.  M. 
I must still say that there was some colour for the People's thus acting (as you say they did) during the contest for the Crown between the two Families of York and Lancaster, when I grant it was somewhat a difficult matter to judge which of the two had the best right to the Crown, by reason that the House of Lancaster had held it for three descents, as also from the speciousness of their Title, since it was founded upon a pretended claim by right of blood, upon supposing that Edmund, Surnamed Cronch-back (who was one of the Ancestors of this House of Lancaster) was the Eldest Son to Henry the Third, which had it been true, would have given Henry the Fourth a good right to the Crown, not only against Richard the Second, but his own Grandfather Edward the Third likewise (had he been then alive;) and this descent falling out long before the memory of any man then living who could confute the falsity of this pretended Pedigree. The People of England might very well be excused for owning an Usurper, and paying Allegiance to him, since they did not know but his claim might have been right, especially since it was approved of in full Parliament without any contradiction, as I have already shown you at our last Meeting.  
But what is all this to the matter now in debate between us, when the Lineal Succession of the Crown has been so often declared to be the only means of acquiring a just Title to it; and every one knows very well who was owned for lawful King of England within these three Months, and also who was prayed for in all our Churches as his Son and Heir apparent; and therefore I must still tell you, that your parallel between those King's de facto of the House of Lancaster, and those Princes whom the Convention have now voted to fill the Throne does not at all agree, since every Subject of this Kingdom who has but sense enough to go to Market, can very well tell (if they will deal sincerely) to whom their Allegiance is due.  F. 
As to what you have now said, it is no more than a repetition of what you have already urged to evade the force of these clear Authorities; but indeed it was all one when a Prince had been once recognized for Lawful King by Act 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 instance of Richard the Third, who though both his Elder Brother's Children were then alive, and the Eldest of them had been Proclaimed King, and also owned for such by himself, and whose Title he had also sworn to maintain in his Brother King Edward's life time, as appears by the Clause Roll of the 11th of Edward the Fourth; yet when he had once deposed him, and had called a Parliament which recognized his Title, his Acts and Judicial Proceedings stand good at this day; and though he himself was attained, and declared a Tyrant and an Usurper, 
Mem. 1.  yet all the Subjects who acted under his Authority, and had taken an Oath of Allegiance to him, never needed an Act of Indemnity for so doing; whereas those that came over with Henry the VIIth were said to have an Act of Pardon past to Indemnify them for fight against Richard the Third (as I have now showed you.) And though this Parliament of the first of Henry the Seventh agreed to repeal divers Acts which the King found fault with; yet as for all other Statutes made in the Reign of King Richard the Third (which have not been since repealed) they are still in force without any confirmation; likewise when Henry the Seventh had prevailed over Richard the Third, and that he was slain in the Field, though all the Nation very well knew that Henry the Seventh could not be Heir of the House of Lancaster, because his Mother was then alive, and had never formally given up her right, if she had any, as certainly she could have none, as being descended from john Earl of Somerset, who was base Son to john of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, by Catherine Swinford, whilst his Wife was alive; and though I grant after his Marriage with the said Catherine, the Children born of that Bed were made legitimate by Act of Parliament in the 20th of Richard the Second, yet that legitimation only respects such private Privileges and Inheritances which they might enjoy or succeed to as Subjects, and not in respect of the Crown; the Succession of which they were expressly declared uncapable of by that very Act of Legitimation, 
Vid. the Act Printed at large in Bucks History of Richard the IIId.  still to be seen upon the Parliament Roll. But for all this, when Henry the Seventh had called a Parliament, and was therein recognised for their Lawful Sovereign, and that the Crown was settled by Statute on the King, and Heirs of his Body (without any mention of the Princess Elizabeth, who ought to have been Queen by right of blood) yet none of the Subjects of this Kingdom (as I can find) ever scrupled to swear Allegiance to him, before ever he married that Princess; though they as well knew that he could have no right by blood as you can suppose, 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 lawful Son; for since they are both nice and difficult Points, and having been determined by the Convention, the Supreme Judges in this Case, in favour of their present Majesties, and that they also recognized their Title after they became a Parliament; I can see no manner of reason why all the Subjects of this Kingdom may not as well justify their taking this new Oath of Allegiance to them, notwithstanding their former Oath of Allegiance to King james, and his Right Heirs, as well as the People of England could justify their taking an Oath of Allegiance to Henry the Seventh, notwithstanding their former Oath to Edward the Fourth, and his Right Heirs, before ever Henry the Seventh had Married the Princess Elizabeth, the Heiress of the Crown; especially since this Act of the 11th of Henry the Seventh (which we are now disputing about) was made expressly to secure and indemnity all those who should attend upon the King for the time being, and do him true and faithful service of Allegiance, etc. And therefore it lies upon you still to prove, that this Statute is either expired, or else void in itself; otherwise (besides the constant practice of former times) we have here an express Act of Parliament declaring it every Man's duty to pay Allegiance to the King for the time being, and then certainly he is as much obliged to Swear it too.  M. 
I doubt not but I shall prove to you that this Statute expired with Henry the Seventh, 
A. 11. H. 7. p. 5.6  from a Clause in the Act itself; for if you please to read immediately after those words you have now cited, that all those who do the King for the time being true and lawful Allegiance, etc. [it follows thus] shall be secured from all manner of forfeitures and molestations relating to their Persons or Estates (but mark) provided always that no person or persons shall take any benefit or advantage by this Act, which shall hereafter decline from his or their said Allegiance: now we know a proviso is an exception or restraint upon the latitude and comprehensiveness of the Law, and that all Statutes are perfectly null so far as the proviso reaches. Having premised this, I shall endeavour to prove that this Act was designed only for the security of that Reign in which it was made, and cannot be stretched any farther. To make this appear, let us now suppose a competition between the King de jure, and Henry the Seventh (that is one de facto) and that the Subject engages for the latter; in this case if the King de facto prevail, there is no need of the assistance of this Statute; for we cannot imagine any Prince could be so impolitic as to punish those who have ventured their All to maintain him in his Government; this besides the ingratitude of the action, would proclaim the injustice of his Cause, and would serve only to ruin his interest.  F. 
Notwithstanding this objection, you have now made, I doubt not but this Clause will bear a very fair and legal interpretation, and that not in respect of the Allegiance that might be due to the King de facto, but to the King de jure; since if it were not for the indemnity provided by this Statute, the King de facto would have been obliged to have punished them for opposing their lawful Prince.  M. 
This is easily answered, for pray do Kings de facto always perform that which the Law requires; if so, they never would have been Kings the facto, since they could not make themselves Masters of the Sovereign power without dispossessing those who are supposed the right owners of it. Secondly, the possessor would not so much as seem obliged to punish his adherents upon a competition, except he owned himself to be no more than an unjust Usurper, but we have neither example nor reason to expect such singular concessions as these, for no Usurper will own himself in the wrong, so long as he intends to enjoy the advantages of his injustice: upon supposition therefore, that the Victory had fallen on the side of a King de facto, the Act would be wholly superfluous.  F. 
But why may we not also suppose that this Clause was inserted, not only to secure those who had assisted the King de facto against your King de jure, but also to debar all those who had fallen from their Allegiance to the King de facto, from receiving any benefit by this Act if ever they should plead it in their own justification, after the King de jure had prevailed, and was again settled in the Throne.  M. 
You may take it in this sense if you please, but if you do, it will not at all mend the matter, for tho' those that stood by the King de facto, 
Ibid. p. 6.  will have great occasion for an Act of Indemnity, yet this Act will be as helpless to them now, as it was needless before; for either they must submit to the King de jure or not; if they do not submit, it's easy to imagine the Consequences, how a Victorious and irresistible Prince will treat the obstinate and rebellious opposers of his just Title if they do submit (as of necessity they must) than they can claim no manner of privilege and indemnity from this Act; for they cannot come into the Party of the King de jure, without deserting that de facto; i. e. without declining their Allegiance to him, who was King when this Statute was made; by declining which Allegiance, the proviso expressly excludes them from all manner of benefit or advantage by this Act. In this condition the Law would have left the de facto Party, if the Sovereignty had been disputed between Henry the Seventh, and the House of York; and that the Prince de jure of the House of York had been successful: from whence it's undeniably plain, that neither the design nor words of this Statute can be drawn to such a monstrous construction as to enact bare possession to be a good Title, and make Might and Right the same thing. The only design of this Parliament was to continue the Crown to Henry the Seventh during his life; which both by the body and proviso of the Act was effectually done as in them lay, for divers reasons that might then prevail with the two Houses to consent to a temporary alteration of the Succession to the Crown, such as these, that though Henry the Seventh had no just Title in his own right, yet in the right of his Wife he had, which he did no way disavow by this Act; and you must also remember that at this time Henry the VIIth had several Children by his Queen, viz. Prince Arthur, Henry, etc. So that now the contending Families of York and Lancaster being thus happily united, there was no reason to sear, that a security (though an unusual one) to the present possessor, could be prejudicial to the right Line, especially since the force of that Act was confined to the Reign of that Prince, as has been already proved.  F. 
You may fancy if you please, that you have proved this Act to be expired, but I think if you better consider of it, you will find yourself mistaken, for though I may very well suppose that the King and Parliament to deter men from falling from their Allegiance to the King for the time being, might insert this Clause upon a supposition that the next King whoever he was, whether by right of blood, or only de facto, would out of a generous aversion to Traitors and Deserters hinder them by virtue of this Clause, from enjoying any benefit by this Act; yet I shall not longer insist upon't, whether it be insignificant or not, and therefore will at present grant it to be so, but what then? Will a void Clause vitiate or render expired an Act of Parliament which is made indefinitely, without fixing it to any time, or person? the words in the Act are, the King for the time being; which must certainly extend to any other King as well as Henry the VIIth; for I suppose that an Act of Parliament, and a Deed agreed in this, that an unnecessary Clause can by no means render the whole void.  
But as for what you say in relation to this Acts being a security for the Title of the Queen, and her Children (whom you suppose to be the right Heirs of the Crown) this rather serves to strengthen the Act than otherwise; for if this King had a good Title in her right, than it may be also very well supposed that she gave her assent to this Act in the person of her Husband, and that not for the benefit, but to the prejudice of her own Issue, since if after her death (which happened some years before his) her Son Henry Prince of Wales had set up his present Title to the Crown in the right of his Mother, and so would have dethroned his Father as an Usurper; I suppose no reasonable Man will deny but that this Act would have indemnified all those who had taken up Arms in defence of King Henry the VIIth against his Son, though (in your sense) King de jure; and if it would justify the Subjects then, I cannot see why it may not do the same thing now in their swearing Allegiance, nay, fight for the King in possession, against him whom we will for the present suppose to be King de jure.  M. 
Well, however I think I can prove that this Act was no more than temporary from the judgement of the Judges in the Case of john Duke of Northumberland, 
A. 11. H. 7. p. 56.  who when he was Tried for Treason, for leading an Army against Queen Mary, to settle the Lady jane Grace in the Throne, desired to be informed by the Judges, whether a man acting by the Authority of the Great Seal, and the Order of the Privy Council (or Prince's Council, as Stow and Heylin word it) could become thereby guilty of Treason; to which, all the Judges answered, that the Great Seal of one that was not lawful Queen, could give no Authority or Indemnity to those that acted by such a Warrant, upon which the Duke submitted; though without question he did not want Lawyers to enforce his Plea with this Statute likewise, if his cause would have born it; from whence I infer against Sir Edward Coke, that Treason lies against a King de jure, tho' out of possession; for it's plain by all our Historians, that Queen Mary was so far from being possessed of the Crown when the Duke of Northumberland acted against her, that the Lady jane was not only Proclaimed Queen in London, and most of all the Cities and Great Towns in England, but the Tower of London, with all the Forts and Naval Forces were under her Command; and she had also Allegiance sworn to her by the Privy-Council, and by the Lord Mayor, and Aldermen, and she had also the Seals in her power, by which all Patents and Commissions were granted and issued in her Name; and if all this be not sufficient to constitute her Queen de facto according to this Statute of Henry the VIIth, I know not what was.  F. 
Yet I can tell you what was yet wanting, which because she had not, she was certainly neither Queen de jure, nor de facto, and that was a solemn Coronation, and Recognition of her Right by Parliament; which legal investiture since she never had, she was not the Queen for the time being, and consequently not intended within this Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth; for though it is true, she was appointed Successor of the Crown-by the Letters Patents of King Edward the VIth, yet since she could not claim by right of blood, there being so many before her, all the Kingdom looked upon it as an Usurpation, and an artifice of the Duke of Northumberland (whose Son she had Married) to get the Government of the Kingdom into his sole power: so that it was no wonder if the greater part of the People were so averse to her Title, and that those of the Nobility who took her part, so quickly revolted from her, when once the fear they were in of the Duke of Northumberland's power was removed; for had this Bequest of the Crown to the Lady jane held good, this Kingdom instead of being Hereditary, would have become wholly Testamentary, and disposable by the last Will or Letters Patents of the King or Queen for the time being, without the consent of the Great Council of the Nation, which is contrary not only to the then received Laws of Succession, but also to the ancient constitution of the Kingdom, as well before as after the Conquest.  
But notwithstanding all this, I doubt not but that if the Lady jane had so far prevailed against Queen Mary as to have been able to call a Parliament, and to have had her Title owned and recognised therein, as it was in the Case of Richard the Third, and Henry the Seventh, but that she would have been true and lawful Queen according to the intent of the Statute we are now discoursing of, and then the Duke of Northumberland must likewise (if he had fair play) have been indemnified for taking up Arms in her defence against Queen Mary, since Queen jane would have been then within the letter of this Statute, as much as King Henry the Seventh himself.  M. 
You must pardon me, if I cannot be of your opinion in this matter, since if the bare Coronation and recognition by Parliament could confer a legal right to the Crown upon one who had no hereditary right to it before the consequence of it would be, that the Crown would be so far from being Elective (as you suppose it to have anciently been) that it would be in the power of every bold Usurper or Rebel who had but the confidence to call himself King, to gain a legal Title to be so, according to your Principles: and then if Oliver Cromwell could have found a Party strong enough in the Army to have declared him King, and had called a Parliament in his own name, who had recognised him for their Lawful Sovereign, he would then have had as much right to our Allegiance as King Charles the IId, which certainly was not only contrary to the settlement of the Crown upon Henry the VIIth, and the Heirs of his body, but also to that solemn recognition of King james the Firsts Title, as lineally descended as right Heir to the said King Henry, which I insisted on at our last Meeting.  
And therefore if you will have my sense of this Act, it is either expired (for the reasons I have already given) or else was void ab initio; since it is not only contrary to the settled course of Succession of the Crown according to the Laws of lineal descent for divers hundred years' last passed, but also to those of justice and right reason, for an Usurper not only to seize the Throne by force, but if he can once get himself solemnly Crowned, and then recognised by an Act of Parliament of his own calling, (which yourself cannot deny but to have been ever too obsequious to the will and power of Usurpers, as appears by those instances you have given me in Henry the IVth, Henry the VIth, and Richard the IIId,) the consequence will then be, that the whole Nation would not be only bound to swear Allegiance to him, but would be also obliged by this Act to descend him in his Tyranny and Usurpation to the utmost of their power, and it would also indemnify them for so doing; which would be to establish iniquity by a Law, and would destroy all the settled foundations of right and wrong, which I affirm God himself is not able to alter, without departing from those great attributes of immutability and Justice, so essential to his Divine Nature.  F. 
It will not be very difficult to reply to these Arguments, since they are grounded on such false Principles as are already answered. As first, that this Kingdom is by the fundamental constitution of it an Hereditary Monarchy, and that consequently none but he who has a right by inheritance can require our Allegiance, but pray tell me where you can find this fundamental constitution? for I think I have sufficiently proved that there never was any such thing known in England till between four and five hundred years since that King Edward the First succeeded to his Father Henry the Third, without any Bequest of the Crown by his Testament, and before any Election, or Coronation, since he was then in the Holy-Land. But suppose it now to be an Hereditary Monarchy, 
C. A. p. 57  it doth not therefore follow, that the Monarchy should continue always in such a Family, for that may sail, or may be changed by Conquest or Usurpation, as has often been, and the constitution continue. So that the most that can be said is, that when any particular Family, by the Providence of God, and the consent and submission of the People, is placed in the Throne, of right the Crown ought to descend to the Heir of that Family; but suppose it does not, must we pay Allegiance to no other person though possessed of the Throne? Pray Sir, show me that fundamental constitution; for its being an Hereditary Monarchy does not prove it, and according to the Judgement of the best Lawyers, the Laws of the Land require the contrary; viz. that we must pay our Allegiance to him who is actually King, not to him who ought to have been King, but is not, and to think to confute this, by pretending this fundamental constitution of an Hereditary Monarchy, is to take that for granted, which is still to be proved.  
And therefore I am not at all frighted at the dreadful consequences which you suppose must follow if this Statute of Henry the VIIth should be Law, (viz.) that it would be in the power of every Rebel and Usurper who could get himself Crowned, and then owned 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 himself once Crowned, and recognised, might have been defended in his unjust Usurpation against King Charles the Second. But, admit this to have been so; yet it is still to be understood, that at this Coronation he had taken the Oath anciently taken by our Kings, and that the Parliament he had summoned to recognize his Title, had consisted of the ancient Lords and Commons, consisting of Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, which never was observed in any of those Mock-Parliaments which Cromwell called; had all these Conditions been observed, I believe he would have been as legal a King within this Statute of Henry the VIIth, as he himself ever was before he Married with the Princess Elizabeth, which was not till near half a year after he had the Crown settled upon him by Act of Parliament. So that though upon every translation of the Crown from one Family to another, the first Prince of that Family could have no Hereditary Right to it, yet we find such Princes to this day taken for Lawful Kings; thus your William the Conqueror, King Henry the IVth, and King Henry the VIIth, are each of them looked upon as true and lawful Kings (according to our constitution) as if they had been right Heirs of the Crown by lineal descent; and though you may say, that as to William I. he had a good right by Conquest; that is, only gratis dictum, since I have already proved that he could be really no Conqueror. And if the English Saxon Monarchy was hereditary before the Conquest (as the Gentlemen of your opinion suppose) he could be no other than an Usurper upon Edgar Athling the right Heir of the Crown by blood; and as for Henry the IVth, and Henry the VIIth, though they both pretended a feigned Title to the Crown as Heirs by blood, yet it is plain by the very Acts of Recognition I have cited, that they durst not insist upon that Title, since I have already proved there is no such thing mentioned in that Act of Parliament wherein the Estates of the Kingdom unanimously agreed that Henry Duke of Lancaster should Reign over them, nor yet in the subsequent Act, whereby the Crown was entailed upon himself, and his four Sons successively; so likewise the Statute of the first of Henry the Seventh, it is only drawn in general terms; declaring that the Inheritance of the Crown of England, etc. shall rest, remain, and abide in the Person of King Henry the VIIth, and the Heirs of his Body lawfully coming, etc. Nor is there indeed any breach made upon this Statute (as you suppose) nor yet upon the Act of Recognition of King james, which you so much insist upon, since the Crown is certainly settled upon two Princes, who are not only lineally descended from them, but who are also to be looked upon as right Heirs unto them, since the Great Council of the Nation, who are the Supreme Judges have declared them to be so.  
But as for the rest of your Speech, whereby you would prove that this Act must needs be void, because contrary to the Laws of Justice and right Reason; this also depends upon your former error, in supposing that Princes have a Divine or Natural Right to their Crowns▪ antecedent to the municipal Laws of their respective Kingdoms, which is already sufficiently confuted; so that tho' I grant it is not in the power of God himself to alter the natural foundations of right, and wrong, just, and unjust; yet it is likewise as certain that the Civil Rights of Princes, as well as those of Subjects, can no ways be accounted for according to those Natural Laws; since all Civil property, as well in Crowns, as other Possessions, must depend upon the particular Laws and Constitutions of each Kingdom and Nation, as I have already sufficiently made out.  
And therefore though I grant that all Legal Authority ought still to go according to just or rightful Titles, 
E. L. R. p. 25, 26.  yet since God makes no Kings at this day. ●ut those who are made Kings by some humane Acts, and have a legal right to Kingship by some humane Laws: Now how can you prove from hence, that in England none can have a legal right to govern, but those who have the rightful Title of a Lineal Succession? for if the Title alone does not confer the the Authority, but that the Law says a legal investiture by Coronation and Recognition by Parliament shall also confer it, it is evident that an Hereditary Title, and a Legal Authority, may be separated, and yet the Authority continue Legal still; for Legal Authority must be conveyed in such manner, and by such forms as the Law has prescribed, or appoints to that purpose; for there is no other way of conveying it; and then that Authority which is so given in form of Law (and that only.) is the Legal Authority. If then the Estates of the Realm, who are the only proper Judges of such Disputes, have adjudged the Crown to one, whom we will at present suppose to have no antecedent legal Title to it, yet he thereby becomes legally possessed, not only of the external force and power, but of the legal Authority of the Government also; and therefore he may challenge as his due, all Legal Obedience, (which is the true notion of Allegiance, for nothing more than Legal Obedience can be due to a mere Legal Authority) so that because he is invested with the Legal Authority, the Crown is his Legal Property, against all other Claims, and his Subjects must defend him in it, as the Legal Properties of private Persons being once determined by Judgements of inferior Courts of Law, are also to be defended by the Civil Power against the force of him who perhaps may have the better Title to the Estate by right of blood. And if God makes Kings by humane Acts, I hope it is no injustice in God to make him a King, whom the Law makes a King▪ and to enjoin our Obedience to a Legal King; which Legal Authority may be said to be annexed to the Legal Title, while there is no Legal Judgement against it: which was not the Case of Queen Mary, and the Lady jane her Competitor; nor yet of King Charles the Second, and Oliver Cromwell: since neither the one ' or the other were ever Crowned or acknowledged as Lawful Queen, or King by Parliament, and therefore could obtain no Legal Title against the Right Heirs; but on the other side, when one is solemnly declared King or Queen, being Crowned or placed on the Throne by the Estates of the Realm, he is then Legal King, and has the Legal Authority, as the Royal Estate and Dignity, was owned to be in Henry the VIth, when the Duke of York claimed the right to the Crown.  M. 
I am not yet convinced I am mistaken in this matter; for waving at present any Natural or Divine Rights of Princes, I think this Act of Henry the VIIth, (if supposed to be now in force) is no ways to be reconciled with the former declared Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom; much less can this last pretended Act of Recognition of King William and Queen Mary reverse the Statute of Recognition made to King james the First, whereby the Parliament does not only own him for true and lawful King by descent from Henry the VIIth, and Edward the IVth, but also engaged themselves and their Posterities to his Majesty, and his Royal Progeny for ever. And they do likewise conclude in these words (I have not yet mentioned) which [Act] if Your Majesty shall be pleased (as an argument of your gracious acceptation) to adorn with your Majesty's Royal Assent (without which it can neither be complete and perfect, nor remain to all Posterity according to our most humble desires, as a Memorial of your Princely and tender affection towards us;) we shall add this also to the rest of our Majesty's unspeakable and inestimable benefits. Here they plainly acknowledge these two things. First, that the Crown descends by proximity of blood, and that immediately, even before any Ceremony of Coronation, or otherwise; so that there can be no inter-regnum, or vacancy of the Throne; and accordingly it is a maxim in Law, that Rex non meritur. Secondly, That the Assent of the King is that which gives the life, being, and vigour to the Laws, without which they are of no force; therefore I shall plainly prove these Acts to the contrary to be void. It is a Maxim in our Civil as well as your common Law ' that every S●natus-Consultum, or Decree of the Senate as also every Statute or Act of Parliament must be abrogated and repealed by the same Authority by which it was made; since therefore that Act of the first of Edward the IVth, whereby he was declared to be Lawful King, as descended from L●●nel Duke of Clarence, third Son of Edward the Third, by Philippe his Daughter, and Heir; and that Henry the Fourth, and Henry the Sixth, who had successively held the Crown were Usurpers, and only pretended Kings; it would necessarily follow, that none can after this so Solemn Law and Declaration, lawfully succeed to the Crown of this Realm, but such as have a true and just right as Heirs by blood, according to the course of descent allowed of by the common Laws of this Kingdom; and therefore Henry the VIIth being an Usurper, and enjoying no more than a Matrimonial Crown, could not join with a Parliament in making any Law contrary to that of the first of Edward the IVth, which had been so solemnly passed, and settled in Parliament by a King whose Title was by descent indisputable.  
So likewise in the matter now in dispute between us, I can never apprehend how a pretended Statute made in a Convention, and not in a Lawful Parliament summoned by the King, can first declare the Throne vacant, and then appoint those to fill it, who certainly can have no just Title to it, according to that Act of Recognition of King james; which expressly declares, that they themselves could not have made that Act to be complete and perfect to remain to all posterity, without his Royal Assent; which being once past into a Law. by a King whose Title was indisputable, can never afterwards be altered (if ever it can be at all) but by a Parliament as legally called, and that by a King whose Title is also as Legal as that of King james the First's; this Objection, though I have often urged in other words, yet could I never yet obtain a satisfactory answer from you.  F. 
Though I have already in part answered this Objection at our last Meeting, and have also partly done it already in this; yet since I see you so much insist upon it, and do also urge it again in other words, with a fresh addition of new arguments; I hope you will not think me tedious, if I am also necessitated to repeat the same things again, and put you in mind of what I hayh already proved; which when I have done, I doubt not but this argument of yours will signify very little. Your first mistake therefore is, that King Henry the VIIth being an Usurper, had no power to alter the course of Hereditary Succession, settled by the Statute of the first of Edward the IVth whereby he was declared lawful King; in answer to which, I must put you in mind, that this was the first time that ever this Point was so settled before, and that not till after a long War, and that by subduing all those that held with the House of Lancaster, he had made such a perfect Conquest of all that opposed him, that there was no Lords or Commons in this Parliament but what were entirely of his Party; yet we see that when Henry the VIth got the upper hand again, and his party reversed this Statute of Edward the IVth, and declared the Crown to belong to Henry the VIth, and his Heirs, which Act was to reversed again by the next Parliament, in the eleventh of Edward the IVth; when he again recovered the Crown by another Battle against Henry the VIth, so evident it is, that whoever is once seated in the Throne, and is recognized by Act of Parliament tho' of his own summoning, all his Acts till they are repealed do hold good, though he were declared an Usurper, and himself attainted by Act of Parliament; and therefore admitting that Henry the VIIth was an Usurper at the time when this Act we now discourse of was made, yet would it not render this Act void as you suppose, since it was never yet repealed by any subsequent Statute.  
But indeed, Henry the VIIth was no Usurper at the time when this Statute was made; for you yourself have already granted that he had a good Title in right of his Wife, which he never renounced, or disavowed; and therefore we may very well suppose that she, though Queen de jure, gave her tacit consent to this Act in the person of her Husband; and if so, I cannot see any reason why it should not stand good, not only against herself, and her own Children, 〈◊〉 also against all others who should claim under her Title; but if you say she could not do this in prejudice of her own right Heirs, because the Crown had been already declared by Act of Parliament to be Hereditary, and not to be acquired by Usurpation; this is to beg the question, and to suppose an Hereditary descent to have been the fundamental Law, and constant practice of the Succession of the Crown before that time; whereas I have already proved, that till the Reign of Edward the First, the Crown was partly Hereditary, and partly Elective; and ever since that time, though it has been still claimed as Hereditary, yet has it been always believed to be the right of the Parliament to declare who was Lawful King: and that whosoever was so declared and recognised, has been always looked upon in the eye of the Law as the only Rightful and Legal King, to whom the Allegiance of the Subjects was due, and whose Statutes are obligatory at this day.  
This being so (as it cannot be denied) your Argument from the Act of recognition to King james the First may be easily answered, though I should grant at present (for discourse sake) that their now Majesty's King William and Queen Mary are only King and Queen de facto, for if all the Statutes of these three Kings of the House of Lancaster, and of Richard the Third (nay even those Statutes by which themselves were declared to be lawful Kings, and the Crown settled upon them and their issue) have at all times held good, till they were lawfully repealed I desire you would show me any sufficient reason why the late Act of Recognition of their present Majesty's Title, and for the settlement of the Crown upon their right Heirs of the Protestant Religion, should not have the like force and effect in respect of our Allegiance to them, as it had been to all other Kings de facto, who have hitherto sat upon the Throne, though perhaps it may derogate from the intent of that Statute of Recognition of King james the First; nor does it make any difference, though we suppose that this Act was made by a King by descent, and that we now discourse of only by a King and Queen de facto, and a Parliament called or owned by them; since the Law allows no difference as to their Legislative Power between Acts made by a King de facto, and one de jure.  
And therefore, though I grant that those conclusions you draw from this Statute are true, that there is no inter-regnum or vacancy of the Throne. And Secondly, that the assent of the King is that which gives the life, being, and vigour to the Laws; yet as for your first conclusion, that there can be no vacancy of the Throne, it is only to be understood, that ordinarily, and according to the common course of Succession there can be none, and yet extraordinarily there may, as you yourself must grant: since upon the death of Queen Elizabeth there might have happened a contest between King james, and the than Earl of Hartford, as Heir to Mary the French Queen, second Sister to King Henry the VIIIth, upon whose Heirs the Crown was settled by Henry the VIIIth's Will, as I have already mentioned at our last Meeting; and if it had been a doubt whether this Will had been rightly made, or not, could have been no otherwise decided but by War, or else the solemn Judgement and recognition of Parliament of that Title they had judged to be best; and he who had been so declared, would certainly have been lawful King, and all the Nation had been obliged to swear Alleglance to him. Apply this to the present case, admitting King james to have truly Abdicated the Throne, and see whether it be not exactly the same; supposing (for once) your Prince of Walts to have been indeed the Son of the late King and Queen; and though it is true, he is not yet declared an Impostor, yet is he neither acknowledged as their right Heir, for the Reasons I have already given.  
But as for your next conclusion, that it is the assent of the lawful King that gives force and vigour to a Law; from whence you would infer, that the late Act of Recognition and Settlement is void, because not made by those who were lawful King and Queen at the time of the making this Act; this is also to beg the question; for though it is true the Act of Recognition to King james declares this Act could not be complete without his Majesty's Royal Assent, yet it is not there said, that no other King but he who claims by descent (as King james did) could pass an Act that should be good in Law; since we find by the whole Course both of Law, and History, that the Statutes made by Kings de facto, are as truly and as much Laws, as those made by your Kings de jure; and Attainders for Treason committed against them, have been so far from being declared void, that they could not be reversed by any other means than by particular Acts of Parliament made for that purpose, as I have already shown you from divers instances, both from History, and Records. Nor is your exception against the present Parliaments not being called by the Kings Writ of any force, since I have already proved at our last Meeting, from the example of the Great Council that assembled to recognize and ordain Edward the first to be King when he was in the Holy-Land; as also by the Parliaments of Edward and Richard the Second, by which they were deposed, and Edward the Third, and Henry the Fourth declared to be their Successors: That those Parliaments could not be summoned by those Princes whom they so recognised, and therefore though they were called by the Writs of the former Kings; yet their Authority determined as to be the Parliament of that King that called them, upon his ceasing to be King; and therefore must owe their sitting longer, wholly to the Authority of him they had already declared King, whose Presence and Authority was then looked upon as sufficient to give them power to sit and make Laws with the succeeding King, though they were never summoned by him.  
To these Parliaments I may add that of the first of King Charles the Second, which called home the King, and after his return, made several Statutes both public, and private, which stand good to this day; so that to conclude you have no reason either from Law or History to maintain that there can be no vacancy of the Throne, or that none can be declared King or Queen, but in a Parliament summoned by the Writs of that Prince, whose Title they are to recognize.  M. 
I shall not deny the matters of Fact to have been as you lay them, as to the Great Councils or Parliaments you mention; but in answer to this, you may remember, that as for those Parliaments called in the name of Edward, or Richard the Second, there is no Procedent to be drawn from them, because they served only to depose their Lawful Kings, and to set up those who had no right, at least as long as they lived; and you very well know, that any coersive power in the two Houses of Parliament over the King, is expressly renounced and declared against in the Parliament of the thirteenth of K. Charles the Second, as I have already shown you; but as for the Convention which was called in the first year of that King, I have also given you my judgement of it; that though they might lawfully meet to vote the return of their Lawful Sovereign, and to recognize his Title, yet were they not for all that a lawful Parliament, as to the raising of Moneys or making of Laws; and therefore what ever they did to both these, they were fain to be confirmed by the Parliament of the 13th I now mentioned.  
But indeed I cannot but admire as this mongrel hodge podge course of Succession which you now suppose to take place in England; for you cannot deny but the Crown is hereditary, and has been always claimed as such for near 500 years; and yet for all that, when ever an Usurper and a Parliament shall agree together, he to take the Crown by force, and they to recognize his Title as soon as he pleases to call them, he must then be looked upon as a lawful King, and the just and rightful Title of the true King, or lawful Heir of the Crown shall be so far destroyed, as that Allegiance must be due to this Usurper, though perhaps he obtained the Crown by the most horrid villainies in the World; as the deposing and murdering of his Lawful Sovereign, as Henry the IVth did, and which would also have been the case of Oliver Cromwell, had he ever taken upon him the Title of King; so that is to set on foot at once two contrary legal rights, a legal right and title to the Crown by descent of blood, without a right to exercise the Authority belonging to a King, and a legal right to wear the Crown, and exercise the authority belonging to it, without any antecedent legal right to the Crown itself; which would indeed render the legal authority in England to be like the right that men have to those Creatures that are ferae naturae, which belong to him who can get them into his power; for as to the consent or recognition of Parliament, I look upon that as a mere ●auble, since yourself cannot show me any Usurper since the Conquest, though never so wicked and notorious, who ever failed to have his Title so recognized and confirmed by Parliament, as you yourself cannot deny, which methinks is a high derogation from the Dignity of a true Hereditary Monarchy, such as ours either is, or at least ought to be.  F. 
I shall reply but this once upon this head, since I see there can be nothing new said upon it: and therefore you yourself are for●ed to repeat what you have already ●urged at our last Meeting; only you strive to support it by fresh Authorities; therefore as to the Parliaments which deposed King Edward and Richard the Second, I cannot blame you for denying them to be lawful precedents, because they make directly against your opinion; but you say nothing to that of the first Great Council or Parliament of Edward the First, which not only ordained he should be King, but also appointed all the Great Officers of the Kingdom which were to govern it in his absence; but you may deny the authority of those Parliaments of the first of Edward the Third, and first of Henry the Fourth, as much as you please in a Chamber, but if you should do the like at Westminster-Hall against any Act of Parliament, because made whilst Edward or Richard the Second were living, you would soon be overruled, and told that those Laws had still continued in force, and unrepeal'd, and it did not belong to private men to question those Acts that have been hitherto received for Law.  
But as for what you have said against the authority of the Acts of that Parliament that brought in the King, I have already proved that they were only confirmed 〈…〉 cantela, and that they had been good without it, appears by this, that all their private Acts, though never confirmed in the following Parliament, are still in force. But if the solemn Recognition of a King's Title by Parliament be such a bauble, and so easily obtained (as you suppose,) I may say the same of that Act which recognized King james the firsts Title; that it was done merely out of flattery upon his Accession to the Crown; nor can you reply that they might do this, because he was the only right Heir, this is to beg the question, since if he had not been so, it would have been all one, as you yourself confess.  
As for the rest of your Arguments which you draw from the different means which our Law allows for Princes succeeding to the Crown, which you call a mongrel hodge podge course of Succession, and that it derogates from the Dignity of a true Hereditary Monarchy; to which I shall only say, if now our Law has established it so, no private Man ought to judge otherwise; for nemo debet esse sapientior legibus, is a maxim as old as true; but indeed, though our Laws do establish a legal right in the present Possessor of the Crown, when once Crowned, and Recognised by Parliament, since they will not allow the Parliament to judge of or examine the King's Title. or by what means he attained the Throne; yet this does not to alter the ordinary hereditary course of Succession for the Law still looks upon the Crown as Hereditary, and the change of the Person or Royal Family does not make the Crown cease to be so; and therefore whoever has possession of the Crown, has an Hereditary Crown, and as such, may leave it to his Heirs as long as they can keep it; as is plain from the example of the three Henries who succeeded each other, and who had not only Allegiance sworn to them, but they who acted contrary thereunto, were judged and executed as Traitors; so that the Law did all it could to maintain the Crown in the right line of Succession; and if any Kings have gained it by Usurpation, though the Parliament have owned the Authority of such an Usurper, yet have they not thereby approved the action; and you yourself must acknowledge a great difference between these two, since you have more than once acknowledged that an Usurper, or King in possession, has a good Title to a Crown, in case all the right Heirs are extinct, or by their not claiming it for any long time, are supposed to have made a ●acit session of their right; since it is not so much to the Person as to the Authority (which we grant to be from God) that we pay our obedience.  
But let us also for once suppose that there may be a legal Title to a Crown without a right to exercise the Authority belonging to it; and a legal right to wear the Crown, and exercise the Authority belonging to it, without an antecedent legal Right to the Crown itself; this is no such absurdity as you suppose, 
E. L. R. p. 18.  if you please to consider that allowed distinction between jus ad rem▪ and jus in re, with the reason of it; for 'tis an approved distinction 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 possession: and that this may and must be in all Civil Governments, and mere legal Rights, appears from the different Laws and Customs on which such different rights are founded. This I have hinted before, but must now explain it more particularly; in all Civil Societies there must be particular Laws to determine personal and particular Rights; and whatever is due to any Man by such Laws, is his legal Right. But yet we know these Laws can determine no controversy without a living Judge; for if every Man were to judge for himself, every Man will make the Law to be on his side, and then we had as good have no Laws at all; and therefore the Fundamental Laws of all Societies, which is superior to all particular Laws, is this, That the last and final Judgement of Authority, shall be taken for Law, and that shall be every Man's right as to all the Effects of Law, which is thus adjudged him; whoever calmly considers these things, will find that it is impossible it should be otherwise without overturning all Civil Governments. And this I have proved to you from the Example of a right owner of an Estate, when outed of his Possession by a Verdict of a Jury and an unjust Judgement in one of the King's Courts, that no Man ought to restore him by force to his Possession, till he has again reversed that unjust Judgement given against him.  M. 
Though I grant this is true in the Case of private Persons, and their Inheritances, yet is it not so as to Princes who hold their Crowns by a Title superior to the ordinary Municipal Laws, and therefore are not only Kings by Law, but by Divine Right, and a Fundamental Constitution of the Government; and so cannot have their Title adjudged by Parliament, as you suppose; for our best Divines have unanimously concluded out of Scripture, that all lawful Kings and their Royal Power is from God, by Divine right, and is not from the People, no not in Elective Kingdoms, (such as Poland, for Example;) for even there, the conferring of the Royal Authority is from God, and not from any Law made by the People, and neither they nor their Representatives have any thing to do to judge of it; for I 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, must (of necessity) precede and be before the King, who had his Royal Power and Kingly Office from that Law.  F. 
I see you are very hard put to it, since 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 consent of the People, and if this be true, I desire you would show me, how Kings can at this day owe their Crown● immediately to God, and not to the Law, since God does no longer confer Kingdoms by any express Designation of the Person, but by the ordinary course of his Providence; and then pray tell me, why all Princes whatsoever, when they are once seated in the Throne, let them come by it which way they will, must not derive their power alike from God? and consequently, Kings by an unjust Conquest, or Usurpation, are as much from God, as those who ascend the Throne by the Consent or Election of the People; for if the People's consent, do no more than design the Person, but that it is God alone which gives him his Authority, than which way soever he obtains this power of the Sword, which is the only sign of God's conferring this Authority, it will be also the Ordinance of God, and consequently their present Majesties being once seated in the Throne are upon, these principles as much to be obeyed as the Ordinance of God; as King james or any other Hereditary Monarch whatever.  
But if you do not like this Doctrine, and tell me of a legal Successive right which King james and his right Heirs have to the Crown, according to the Fundamental Constitution of the Nation; this is plainly to own the King to be so by the Law of the Land, though in words you deny it; for every hereditary right is either a continued Usurpation by force, which can give no right at all; or a right by Law, which is by the consent of the People to entail the Crown on such a Family, which certainly is to make a King by Law, that is, by the consent of the People. But if you will suppose that it was the Authority of the first King alone who thus entailed the Crown upon himself, and his right Heirs, I desire you would show me how the Crown could be so entailed without the consent of the People, so as that his Successor may not alter it, and give it by his last Will or Testament to which of his Sons or Daughters he pleases; since Sir Robert Filmer himself acknowledges that a testamentary heir to a Crown in an absolute Monarchy, is as much by Divine right, as if he had come in by Succession, as appears by the instances he gives in Seth, who could have no right to succeed his Father Adam in the Government of Mankind, while Cain his Elder Brother was alive, by the Will of Adam his Father; the like I may say of Solomon, who by his Father's Crowning him King in his life time, and thereby making him his Successor, gave him a right to Rule over Adon●jah his Elder Brother; so that I may very well ask you, if the present Law of the Land did not proceed from the free consent of the People testified by long Custom, or express Declaration of the People by their Representatives in Parliament; I desire to know why the King of England cannot as well settle the Crown by his last Will upon which of the Blood-Royal he pleases, as that it should be Lawful for the English Saxon Kings to exercise this Prerogative, as Dr. Brady supposes they did before the Conquest, without the consent of the Great Council of the Nation? So that I think I may much better ask you what that Law was, and who made it, which you suppose to make King's prior to, and independent from the consent of the People; since if there be any such Law, it is either as yet unknown to Mankind, or else all those who are once possessed of Kingdoms, have an equal Title to them by Divine Right? But indeed, it is only some Divines who were more scrupulous than knowing in Politics, who first started this question, whereas indeed there is no such great Mystery in it; for that Law by which the first 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; but when the first King was made so, by the consent and election of the People, the King, and the Law that made him so, began both together; that is, the People by choosing of him to Govern upon certain Conditions, and he by accepting the Crown upon those Conditions, was that Law by which he then took the Crown, and by which it has been held ever since that time. So that if the Crown ought to be enjoyed according to a legal right, and that there must be some Judges appointed of this right, when ever any Disputes may happen about it, either every pretender to the Crown must judge for himself, and then he will be both Judge and Party in his own Cause, or else it must be left to the conscience of every individual Subject in England to side part with what Party he pleases, that may thus pretend to it: and so there may be a dozen Competitors for the Crown at once, and all with equal right as for aught that any body knows; or lastly, this right must be left to the determination of some Civil Judges to judge whose Right it is; and who can these Judges be who shall thus judge what are the ancient Laws of Succession, and Rules of Allegiance, but the Great Council of the Nation? therefore, if they have already declared and recognised King William and Queen Mary to be lawful King and Queen of this Realm, I think every Subject of the same may very well justify their Swearing Allegiance to them; not only by virtue of this Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth, which requires Allegiance to be paid to the King in being, but also from the equity and reasonableness of the thing itself, to hinder the Nation from falling together by the ears, and to entail Civil Wars from Generation to Generation, if the Subjects were obliged by their former Oath of Allegiance to the King de jure, to endeavour to restore him by force of Arms; and therefore the Preamble to this Statute very well and truly sets forth, that it is not reasonable, but against all Law, Reason, and good Conscience, that the Subjects going with their Sovereign Lord to the Wars, any thing should lose or 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 strange and unjust, and that by your own showing, that a Prince should have a legal Right and Title to the Crown, without a right to exercise the Authority belonging thereunto; for they must now pay Allegiance to the King in being, let him be never so great an Usurper; so that indeed the preamble to this Act is expressly false, since I think it is very unreasonable, nay against all Law, Reason, and good Conscience, to Swear Allegiance to an Usurper; since by that means, not only all good Subjects would be put out of a capacity of endeavouring to restore the King de jure to his Throne, though never so unjustly deposed, or driven out, as in duty they ought; but also those who were instrumental in this Rebellion, and in depriving the Lawful Prince of his just Rights, may not themselves endeavour to restore him, which would put them out of all possibility of making amends for the wrong they have done him, and of making restitution, by again restoring him to his Throne.  F. 
If this be all the difficulty that is left upon your mind, I doubt not but to prove to you, not only from the Law of the Land, that Allegiance may be lawfully Sworn in this Case, but also that it is for the common happiness and peace of the Nation, which is the main end of all Government that it should be so; and therefore I shall first freely grant, that though it is Rebellion unjustly to deprive a King and his right Heirs of the Crown, and that those who had a hand in it, are bound in conscience to endeavour to restore him or them to their just rights again; yet this must be done by no other methods but what are consistent with the public peace and safety of the Common wealth; for if a King de facto, has once got possession of the Throne, and has been Crowned and Recognised 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 also, because I have now said, all private Persons ought to submit their Judgements in this matter to that of their Representatives, who if they have judged falsely, are 〈◊〉 bear the blame, but yet their Judgement for all that is to be held for good, till it be reversed in the same way in which it was given, since if after such a recognition every private person should still be free to pay his Allegiance to him whom he supposed King de jure, 
E. O. p. 57  it would certainly follow, that the Civil Society or Commonwealth must of necessity fall into Civil Wars, which is against the nature of Civil Societies, and inconsistent with the duty of self-preservation, which obligeth men not to expose their Lives and Fortunes, but to obtain a greater good than both those, which can only be the public good of the Community, and not the single interest of any one person or Family; and though I grant it is a great sin in those who are instrumental in raising Rebellion, and who are thereby guilty of a very enormous Crime, yet that which made it so, was not barely the injury they committed against the Prince to whom (if alone considered) the breach of an Oath, (in withdrawing their Allegiance, could be no greater a Sin than the breach of an Oath to another person) but indeed the fatal mischief and irreparable damage they did the Commonwealth, is that which aggravates the Sin; and if a new commotion to restore the King de jure, would in all probability, prove yet more destructive, and a Nation by being so much weakened by a former Civil War, be less able to bear a new Civil War, which may happen so far, to the weakening of it, as to expose it to the Invasion and Conquest of a foreign Nation, who may be Enemies both to our Religion and Civil Constitution in such a case I cannot think it our duty to restore a Prince by force, though never so unjustly driven from his Throne. And therefore if I had been then a man, tho' I should have been as much for bringing home King Charles as any body ought to be, yet I should have been only for it in the way in which it was brought about, and should never have desired it, if it could not have been done but by an Army of French or Irish Papists; and the like I say now, as to King james, as long as he is joined with the Interest of France, and is already gone into Ireland on purpose to renew the War, by the Arms and Assistance of those, whose Fathers, as well as several of themselves, did all they could to destroy, not only the Royal Power, but also the English Religion and Government in that Nation.  
And therefore I must freely tell you, that if even Rebels have put it out of their power to make reparation for all the wrongs they may have done by Rebelling against their Lawful Prince, because he in possession is too powerful to be driven out again without a violent Civil War, and a general concussion of the whole Commonwealth; This reparation to the injured Prince being not to be made without a greater evil than that they endeavoured avoid, it ought to be omitted till it may be done with more safety to the Nation, or else not at all. I say, if there be no other way to make reparation to their injured King, but by engaging the Nation in fresh Civil Wars, they ought not to attempt it by such unlawful and destructive means.  M. 
I confess the Discourse you have now made, carries the greatest appearance of truth, of any thing you have yet said; since it is drawn from the public Good of the Nation, which I grant to be comprehended under the common good of Mankind, and you have done well to own it to be Rebelion, to deprive a lawful Prince and his Heirs of the Crown; yet that it is unlawful to restore them again to it, if we think it cannot be brought about without a general Subversion of our Religion and Civil Liberties, may be a question; I grant indeed, if we could be absolutely certain of this, there would be some colour for this Argument: but since future things are not capable of Demonstration, if the restoring our lawful Prince be a Duty incumbent upon every good Subject, we ought to endeavour it, though with some Danger and Hazard of what ever is dear to us; for God will either protect us both in our Religion and Civil Liberties, for thus honestly performing our Duties (according as we are bound by our Allegiance) or if he has called us to suffer for the Truth he will either find us Patience to bear it, or else provide us a way to escape; this I speak in Relation to the French and Irish, whose Conquest and Malice you are so much afraid of, in case the King should happen to be restored by their assistance; but indeed, I think this a needless fear, since I suppose the King will be too wise to bring over so many of either Nation, as shall be able to make an entire Conquest of this Kingdom, lest thereby both he and his Crown may lie wholly at their Mercy, when the Business is done; nor do I think it either in the power of the French, or Irish, to perform these dangerous things, not of the former, because (as I now said) I suppose the King will never bring over more of them along with him, than what may serve to make a stand against the Prince of Orange's Forces, till his Good and Loyal Subjects can come in and join with them to his Assistance; and as for the Irish, they are also the King's Subjects, and though Ignorant they are, very inveterate against the Protestant Religion, and the English Nation and Interest; yet they may be so governed, and overruled by the King, as not to be able to do us any considerable Damage  
But as to the King of France, I do really believe he is far from intending to make an entire Conquest of this Kingdom for himself, much less desiring to make the King as Absolute a Monarch here, as himself is in France, for us to the form●, he has too much consideration of his own Glory, and Reputation in the World, to seize upon the Kingdom of a near Kinsman and Ally of his own Religion, and who had been driven from his Throne chiefly for being too much in his Interest; and besides all this, he may very well fear, that if he went about any such thing as an entire Conquest of this Nation, all Parties may join against him as a common Enemy, and drive him out again, as the English Barons did Prince Lewis in the time of King Henry the III d. nor can it be the French King's Interest to make our King Absolute here; for then having the Persons and Purses of his Subjects wholly in his own Power, King Lewis might justly fear, that either this King, or his Successors may prove as dangerous Enemies to the Crown of France as ever they have been in former Times, if ever our Kings should go about to revive their ancient pretensions to France or Normandy, or make War upon some other Quarrel; and therefore I think it will be more far the Interest of France, to leave us our Laws, Liberties and Privileges as we now enjoy them; nay, to make an express Capitulation for them, and when he has done to foment those Jealousies and Disputes, that are still like to arise between the King and Us about them, thereby to hinder us from joining against him; then by rendering the King Absolute to take them quite away, and put the sole power of the Purse as well as of the Sword wholly into his Hands.  
To Conclude, you do also very much misrepresent the matter in supposing, that though the King cannot now be restored without falling into a new Civil War, yet that, does it not therefore follow, that such a War is not to be desired for the Public Good of the Nation; since we shall thereby not only restore the Crown to its right Owner, and the Succession of it to the lawful Heir; but also shall restore Episcopacy in Scotland, and prevent the Church of England from falling into a dangerous Schism, by depriving the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, and as many other of the Bishops, who are so Honest as not to take the new Oath for standing out against it, by the Temporal Power of a pretended Parliament, without the Judgement of a Lawful Convocation, who are the only proper and legal Judges.  
You likewise as much mistake, in supposing that this War can no ways be finished, but by so great a Concussion as shall so much weaken the Kingdom, as to render it exposed to the Invasions of Foreign Enemies, in which you may be very much deceived; for who can tell but the hearts of this Nation may come to be so inclined to receive their lawful King, and his right Heir, and may be so weary of the present Usurpation, as upon his first appearance in England, with an Army sufficient to defend those who shall come into him; so many of his Subjects will take this advantage, as will be more than enough to restore him with as little Bloodshed, as when he was driven out, and then I think no indifferent Man but will acknowledge that such a War would prove for the best, since it will not only settle the Government upon in ancient Foundation of a lineal Succession, but will also extinguish those fatal causes of War, not only from among ourselves, but also from Foreign Princes, as long as the King, and the Prince of Wales, and his lawful Heirs shall continue in being, which I hope will be much longer than those upon whom your Convention has settled the Crown, either in Present or Reversion.  F. 
I doubt not but to show you, that all you have now said, is either built upon false Principles, or else deduced by very uncertain Consequences; for in the first place, though you doubt my Principle, that the People of this Nation, are not bound to restore King james to the Throne, if it cannot be done without the evident Destruction both of our Religion and Civil Liberties, which certainly is true (granting it to be never so much our duty to restore him, when with safety we may;) for if the obligation of all Moral Duties whatsoever, is only to be judged of according as they more or less conduce to the Happiness or Destruction of the common good of Mankind, (whereof this particular Nation makes a part) it will necessarily follow; that this Duty of restoring King james, is not to be practised, if it cannot be brought about without the Destruction of our Religion and Civil Liberties, since it is only for the maintenance of those, that even Kings themselves were first ordained in this Nation; and it is evident, that this Kingdom may be sufficiently Happy and subsist in the State it is now in, though neither King james nor your Prince of Wales be ever restored to Reign over us.  
So that then all the Difficulty that remains, is, That since his Restoration being not otherwise to be brought about without the assistance of great numbers of French or Irish Forces, whether it be not only so small a hazard as you make it, but twenty to one, that his coming in upon these Terms will produce those dreadful Effects, which I say, will certainly happen from it? and though I grant that future things, especially, in the Revolutions of Government are not capable of Demonstration as Mathematical Propositions, yet if all the circumstances of Time, and the Temper and Disposition of the King himself, and those who are to join with Him in bringing Him in again be considered, it shall appear, that Morally speaking nothing less than the evident Destruction of our Religion and Civil Liberties will follow. I think I may still positively affirm, that we are not obliged to restore Him till this Temper of Mind be altered, and that he can be restored without these Fatal Consequences I now mention; and if these cautions are not observed, I deny that God hath any way promised to protect either our Religion or Civil Liberties, or that he is bound to provide us a way to escape as you suppose; if to perform this supposed Duty of Allegience thus unseasonably, we slight the only means God has ordained for our Preservation. But as for the patience under those Sufferings that may then happen, that is a very sorry reason to embrace them, since God may give us that Grace, if he pleases, as the only Comfort we can have left us, when by our own Folly and mistaken Notions of Duty, we have brought all those Evils upon ourselves.  
I shall therefore now proceed to show you, that these Evils I speak of, must necessarily happen to us, in Case King james be restored by the French or Irish Papists. In the first place therefore, it is very falsely supposed, that this Alteration can be brought about without an entire Subduing, or Conquest not only of their present Majesty's, but the whole Nation, is apparent since none but the Papists and some few of the Clergy, Nobility and Gentry desire his Restoration, and who if they were put altogether, will not I believe amount to the hundredth Man, who would be either willing or capable to come in to his Assistance with Men or Money; and therefore it is a vain Supposition to believe (as you do) that this new Revolution can be brought about without any more Difficulty or Bloodshed then the last, as long as the present King and Queen continue to Govern us according to the Declaration they subscribed upon their acceptance of the Crown, and the Coronation Oath they have since taken; which I hope they will always do, since nothing but following King James' Example, as well as to Religion, as Civil Liberties can ever make this Nation willing to receive Him, or your Prince of Wales with so little difficulty, as you are pleased to imagine.  
Since therefore the Business must be wholly done by force, I shall in the next place consider all those Suppositions you have laid down, as well in respect of the French as Irish, who are the only Hands that I see likely at present to do this Work. First, as to what you say, that the King would be too wise then to bring over along with him so great numbers of the French and Irish Nations, as shall be able to make an entire Conquest of this Kingdom, lest thereby both he and his Crown, may lie wholly at their Mercy, when the Business is done: you have hereby granted as much as I desire. For if their Majesties are never like to be without an Army in England, of at least Fifteen or Twenty Thousand Men as long as this War lasts, and that the Militia of this Nation, which are almost totally against King James' Interest, and do amount altogether to above a Hundred Thousand Men, I think you yourself will grant that King james cannot attempt coming over hither with an Army of less than 30 or 4000 Veteran Soldiers of the French and Irish Nations, though you should reckon the Papists and others who should come into his Assistance at 20000 more, who if they should be (altogether) able to beat not only King William's standing Army, but the Militia of the Kingdom to Boot; I desire to know what shall hinder them from making as perfect a Conquest of this Nation, as ever Cromwell's Army did, either of England or Scotland? And consequently, of setting up what Religion or Government they please in this Kingdom; which, that it will not be, that which is now exercised either in Church or State; I think any unprejudiced Man will easily grant me.  
But your next Suppositions are altogether as Precarious, that it is not either the Design, or Interest of the French King, to make an entire Conquest of this Kingdom for himself, nor yet to make King james an absolute Monarch here, one of these I must needs believe will happen; for though perhaps that King may at present stand so much upon his Glory, as not Seize the Kingdom of a Kinsman, and an Ally wholly to his own use and benefit; yet it is most likely, that he will retain French Garrisons in all or most of the strong places of England, not only for the security of the Charges he will have been at to place King james in the Throne; but also as a tye upon us that we shall never endeavour to drive him out again, let him use us as he pleases; so that tho' I grant, he may not make an absolute Conquest of us now, yet it may be in his or his Son's power to do it hereafter, if ever King james his Son shall go about to shake of that Yoke when once the present Obligation is forgot, or the near Relation between the two Kings shall be farther removed: nor is what you say less Precarious, that it will not be for King Lewis' Interest to destroy our Liberties and make King james an absolute Monarch, because the Kingdom will be then weaker and more divided-then it is now, by those Jealousies and Disputes we shall then maintain with the King about our Civil Rights, which is indeed so far true, if he Governs when he returns in the same Arbitrary manner as he did before; but if he Govern according to Law (which no wise Man can expect) there needs be no more Divisions among us than was for a great while after King Charles the Seconds coming in; but that the French King should fear, if he once made the King of England an absolute Monarch, and put the whole power of the Purses as well as Swords of his Subjects in his Hands, he might then become so formidable as to be an equal Match to France itself, and to be able to demand either the whole Kingdom, or any part of it, is yet more pleasant, since France is now in comparison with England, not only in respect of Men, but also the Revenues belonging to the King as Ten to One; and I think I may very well maintain, that if England should once come to be Governed as France is, it would be so far from growing Richer, or more Powerful thereby, that from the Intestine Grieviances, and Discontents that such a violent course of Government would cause in the minds of the People, of all Sorts and Conditions by those excessive Taxes and Oppressions, that would follow from such an Arbitrary Government the Kingdom would quickly diminish and decay, as well in People as Trade and Riches, and so consequently in power too; which is but the product of both these, notwithstanding whatsoever the fair appearance of an outwardly Magnificent Court, and a great standing Army may produce in the minds of those that do not truly consider or understand the true Grandeur and Safety of the Prince, and Happiness of the People.  
But granting all this to be as you suppose, pray tell me what shall become of our Religion and Civil Liberties, not only 〈◊〉 respect of the French King, but of King james himself; 〈…〉 believe, that either of them will cease to be instigated by the Jesuits their Confessors to destroy the Northern Heresy (as they term our Religion) as well in England, as it has been in France? No, the poor Vaudois in Savoy have been too recent an Example, that the King of France would carry the Persecution to the same degree here, as he did there, and that King james being wholly in his Power, will not be able to withstand his Commands; besides, the constant Solicitation of his Confessors of the 〈◊〉 Order and Principles of those of the French King, to which Holy Fathers, the Protestant Religion in France and Savoy do chiefly owe its Destruction.  
To Conclude, let us suppose that King james shall now prevail in this War by the help of the Irish Army, now raised by the Earl of Tirconnel, can we ●●pect better Quarter if the King prevails by their Arms and Assistance, then if they were entirely French? For having once Conquered this Nation, it will not be in the King's Power to Govern them so easily as you expect, but being inve●●●te Enemies to the English, they will not only possess what Estates they please of the English Nobility and Gentry in Ireland, but in England too, which will be declared forfeited by their Owners opposing of King james, and then I will leave it to yourself to Judge in what a Condition we shall be in, both as to our Religion, and Civil Liberties, when the King shall come to be managed by Men who are declared Enemies to both; neither will it be in the power of those few moderate men, either of the Popish or Protestan● Religion, who take King Iame's part, to hinder it, since the other Party will by means of the Priests and Jesuits, and the interest of France, run down all sober Councils, and they will be but looked upon but as Trimmers (at best) that oppose it.  
But as for King james himself, I desire to know of you what trust there can be put in him, or what assurance he can give us for the maintenance of our Religion, and Civil Liberty, more than the renewing of those Promises, and that Oath which he has already broken; this being most likely to be the consequence of things, if King james prevail. I shall leave it to yourself, or any indifferent person to judge, if what I have undertaken to prove, be not as clearly made out as future things are capable of, and are sufficient to deter any Man that loves his Religion or Country, from joining in such pernicious Designs.  M. 
I confess you have made a long and tragical Narration of the dreadful consequences that may follow both upon our Religion, and Civil Liberties, if the King prevail by the present assistance of the French or Irish Arms; and were I sure of all this, I should so far agree with you as to this point, as never so join with them for the King's return, and yet for all that I can never look upon myself 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 they are in being; for I think I have already proved as well from Law, as Reason, That first the Bond of Allegiance (whether sworn, or not sworn,) is in the nature of it perpetual and indispensable. Secondly, that it is so inseparable from the relation of a Subject, that although the exercise of it may be suspended by reason of a prevailing force, whilst the Subject is under such force, (viz.) where it cannot be imagined, how the endeavour of exercising it, can be effectually serviceable to restore the Sovereign power to the right owner, for the establishment of that public Justice and Peace wherein the happiness of Commonwealths consists, yet no outward force can so absolutely take it away or remove it, but that still it remaineth virtually in the Subject, and obligeth to a vigorous endeavour (whenever the force that hindereth it is over) & to the actual exercise of it for the advantage of the party, to whom of right it is due, and the advancement of the common good thereby, upon all fit occasions. Thirdly, That no Subject of England, that either hath by taking the Oaths of Supremacy or Allegiance, acknowledged, or that not having taken either Oath, yet otherwise knoweth, or believeth that the true Sovereign power in England to whom natural Allegiance is due, is the King, his Heirs, and Lawful Successors, can without sinning against his Conscience, take any new Oath, or do any other act whereby to transfer his Allegiance from the King or his Heirs, to any other party who have no right to it, and thereby put himself into an incapacity of performing the Duties of his bounden Allegiance to his Lawful Sovereign, when it may appear to be useful and serviceable to him. This is the express Opinion of the Learned Bishop Sanderson in his case of Conscience concerning the lawfulness of taking the Engagement; which though he did not think absolutely unlawful, because it might be interpreted in a dubious and qualified sense, without abjuring the King's lawful right to the Crown; yet cannot this new Oath be taken in the like doubtful sense, because (as I have already proved) the words in the Oath being to bear true Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, would be indeed a transferring of our Allegiance from our lawful Prince, to others, which is absolutely unlawful.  F. 
I am somewhat pleased to see you are so far come off from your bigotry, as not to think yourself bound to assist for the restoring King james, as long as it is no otherwise to be done but by the evident destruction of our Religion, and Civil Liberties; but yet you say you cannot take the Oath, because it is Bishop sanderson's Opinion, as well as that of our best Lawyers, that Allegiance is perpetual, and untransferrable to another, whilst the King or his Heirs are in being. Which let me tell you (speaking as a Lawyer) since it may well be proved from this Statute, as from the constant practice before that time; that Allegiance was due to the King de facto, and that by the judgement of all the Judges in the Reign of Edward the IVth; but to speak of this matter, either as a Civilian, or a Divine, 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 which you suppose a man is indispensably Subject to the King in whose Territories he is born, and that as long as he lives, I can by ●o means understand, 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, should make one become a Subject, more than being in the same Country at another time. 
E. O. p. 49.  Besides, common experience shows this to be false, because whoever is born in a Country, where his Parents are Foreigners, may, (as it is allowed by all) leave that Country when he pleaseth; but perhaps i● may be said, he is a Subject to that Prince where his Parents were born; but what if they were born under the same Circumstances? or suppose his Parents are of different Countries, as if a Dutch Woman, and an English Man have a Child in France, since France does not pretend to him, which of the Nations can claim him for their Subject? or must he be divided? So that I can see nothing at all in this notion of natural Allegiance, that can oblige any body in Conscience to observe it.  M. 
If then Natural Allegiance signifies nothing, p●●y tell me is no body obliged to obey the King, or not to plot against him until he has taken an Oath of Allegiance to the contrary? this would make mad work indeed, and upon these Principles no man were bound to obey the King or his Laws, and not to conspire against his Person, or Government, until he had taken the Oath of Allegiance; so that three parts of four of the Kingdom would be absolutely free from this great duty.  F. 
No, Sir, you are very much mistaken, since I think I can found Allegiance to the King and Government upon a much firmer foundation than that of being born his Subject, that I am so far from supposing that our obligation commences from our taking the Oath of Allegiance, that though I think it may serve to enforce our former obligation to our King and Country, yet does it not super-induce any new obligation thereunto; for indeed our obligation to any particular Government may be made out from much surer Principles, viz. That every person though he be born free, yet is he for the sake of his own safety, obliged to part with his liberty, and put himself under the protection of some Government; 
Ibid. p. 49.  nor can he be secure in what he enjoys but by it; nor can he have a right in a Country (that is already possessed) to property, but by owning the Government of that Country; and when by enjoying the Rights and Privileges of the Subjects of that Commonwealth, he has owned himself a member of it, and a Subject to its Government, he is then bound to maintain this Government, and also the King that administers it, from a double obligation: the one particular in respect of himself, and that protection he receives from him; the other more universal proceeding from that duty which is incumbent upon every particular Subject to maintain the peace and happiness of the Commonwealth, as long as he continues a Member thereof. So that he is bound never to disturb it as long as the main ends of Government can be had and enjoyed therein; and this is the only means that I know of, by which any man (except by express Oaths and Promises) can consent to become Subject to any single person, or Government: Now this tacit consent of particular persons being separately and singly given, unthinking people take no notice of it, and suppose they are as naturally Subjects as men; and consequently that they have no more right to free themselves from their Subjection, than from their Humane Nature; nay, must suffer themselves to be destroyed rather than endeavour it, let the Government oppress them never so unmercifully; which is indeed to reduce men to the condition of brute Beasts, who belong to this or that Owner; because he either bought them with his Money, or else because they happened to drop from their Dam● upon his ground.  
From what has been here spoken, I think we may deduce this general Conclusion, that every ordinary Subject who enjoys the common benefits and protection of any Government, i● bound in gratitude, not only to obey it; but also to be true and faithful to it during the time he lives under it, and is bound likewise not to conspire against it; and therefore that Oaths do not alter the nature of Allegiance, or make it due where it was not before, or any ways extend it, but only add a new tye to pay that Allegiance which is due upon the account of protection. He that lives under a Government, though he has not sworn to it, ow● it the same Allegiance as he that has; and if he should deny his Allegiance to it, would be equally guilty of Treason, though not of Perjury. It is evident by the universal practice of Mankind, that no Subjects ever thought themselves obliged by those Oaths of Fidelity (which all Governments have constantly imposed on them) when they could not be protected by them, and that this failure of Protection did not proceed from any fault in the whole Nation, or People themselves. And this may be proved by the common and constant practice of all the Subjects of Europe; for who does not know that the Subjects of the King of France's last Conquests in Flanders, have been forced to swear Allegiance to him, though they were satisfied that his Title was unjust, and that their Natural Sovereign the King of Spain, to whom they had formerly sworn Allegiance, is still living? We have had also a late Example of the Subjects of the Duke of H●ls●ein Go●torp, who having both his person taken Prisoner, and his Territories unjustly seized upon by the King of Denmark, in time of Peace, the Subjects of the said Duke were forced to swear Allegiance to the King, notwithstanding their former Oath to their Master; nor do our Modern Casuists as I know of, blame them for so doing. And why the People of England should be tied to harder terms than all the rest of Europe, I wish you could give me a sufficient reason; since the Legislative Power of England (wherein it is certain the People have a share) are presumed to recede as little as possible from natural equity, and therefore design by imposing such Oaths, 
Ibid. p. 55.  only the good and preservation of the Civil Society; whose interest it is, that they who have the public Administration of Affairs should not be disturbed; but it is not at all material to that end, whether this or that Man hath this power provided they are well managed; nor can it without the greatest absurdity be supposed, that such numbers of Men as Societies are composed of, who are by nature equal, should oblige themselves by the most solemn ties to become most miserable by living without protection; nay, to lose even their lives, rather than own the Government that can and does protect them; for no other reason, but such an extraordinary fondness to this or that Person, or Family, as to fancy to be inseparable from him: not to the necessaries or real conveniencies of life but only an Office (for Government is no other) which is but an imaginary happiness; I grant therefore, that People should be true to those that have the present administration of Civil Affairs, is all that all Oaths of Fidelity require; and it is evident from the intent of it, that the late Oath of Allegiance required no more, and to extend it farther than the King in Being, is not reconcilable with the reason, end, and design of paying obedience; which is the peace and happiness of the Civil Society; which can never be maintained, if people may, for the sake of a single person disturb him that has the administration of their common Affairs; and it would require impossibilities; because private persons are incapable of paying Allegiance to a King when out of possession of the Government.  M. 
Notwithstanding what you have said, I think I am able to convince you of divers great mistakes you have now committed in this Discourse of Natural Allegiance, as also in the obligation we are under by the Oath of Allegiance to King james. For first, as to Natural Allegiance, you are very ●old to suppose there is no such thing, when all your Law-Books hold so expressly that there is; I am sure this is to be guilty of the fault for which you have already reproved me of being wiser than the Laws; you are also much mistaken to suppose that this Natural Allegiance merely springs from hence, 
D. A. p. 15.  that the persons obliged by it are only such as are born within the King's Dominions; for persons born without the Realm may be also his natural Subjects, as are the Children of Ambassadors born beyond Sea, and the Children of Aliens born within the Kingdom are not therefore Natural Subjects of the King; so that the mere circumstance of Birth does not alone entitle any one to the privileges of a Natural Subject, nor consequently bind him to all the duties of Natural Allegiance: But it is therefore called natural in our Laws, because, as the best Lawyers have affirmed, it is ●ounded upon the Law of Nature, which gives the Sovereign power a right to the Allegiance of every one who is Born under the Jurisdiction of it. As every Son is born a Subject to his Parents, and is by the law of Nature obliged to Honour, Obey, Assist and Support: So also is he born a Member of the body Politic, and by consequence a Subject to the Sovereign of it, and accordingly by the same eternal Law, is bound to pay all faithful Service and Obedience to him, when he in a capacity to perform them.  
But your next Mistake is yet worse, when you confound that common Obligation of a Foreigner or mere Denizen to be true and faithful to the Common Wealth wherein he lives, with this Natural Allegiance of every English Subject; for though I grant the taking the Oath of Allegiance does not enforce any new Obligation upon him that takes it, more than he was subject to before; yet for all that, I think you will not deny, but that there is a great deal of difference between that common Obedience or Submission which such a Foreigner pays to the King, and his Laws in a Country where he Sojourns, and that more perfect Allegiance arising either by Birth or from such a strangers being naturalised, and by taking the Oath of Allegiance, becoming as true and perfect a Subject as a natural English Man; and hence it is, that in all Wars declared between Neighbouring Princes, whatever Subjects of theirs shall presume to stay and reside in each others Dominions after once they are recalled home, may be justly Executed as Traitors when ever they shall be taken; and therefore though I grant that every Person now living in England, and of ripe Age, is obliged to obey your King and Queen, de facto, in all ordinary and lawful things which tend to the public Benefit and Defence of the Civil Society or Common-weal, and which being for the benefit of the King de jure, and his liege People; it is to be morally supposed they have his Tacit consent for what they do as long as it tends only to this end; yet does it not therefore follow, that the bare protection of this usurped Government, and the enjoyment of the common privileges of a Subject, should give such a King de facto, or Government a right of exacting an Oath of Allegiance to them, since I have already proved from the true signification of being true and faithful, as also from the legal signification of the word Allegiance, that no true Subject can lawfully take it without renouncing his Allegiance to his natural Prince; since not only a bare Neutrality or Obedience in not transgressing the Laws, is thereby required of them, but also an Active Obedience and Duty in performing the King de Facto's commands, and the de●ending him when ever there is occasion in his illgotten power.  
But since the only difficulty is, how a strict observation of this Oath can consist with the quiet and happiness of the Subjects, when ever a new Oath of Allegiance comes to be imposed by the King de facto, since the Subjects may be all ruin'd that do not take it, if it be once offered to them. This difficulty might be easily removed, if the whole Nation would ●lick firmly to the Duty required by their former Oath of Allegiance, and resolve never to take a new one, for then the numbers of the refusers would be so great▪ as that they would be more than could be made to suffer for their refusing it. I speak of such Subjects as are in our case, and who are not forced by a Prince, who either has the Right or Power of a Conqueror to compel them by force, and therefore your instances of the Subjects of the King of Spain, or of the Duke of Holstein, who were conquered, or else as good as conquered by the power of France and Denmark; whereas, we are only overawed by an inconsiderable number of Dutch and Germans and might set ourselves free, if we would give but a vigorous Effort towards it: For that King William is a Conqueror over the whole Nation, I think you dare not affirm. And without he were so, he could challenge no right to our Allegiance as such; and therefore I must still believe, that the Oath of Allegiance I have taken to King james and his Heirs is perpetual, unless you could show me, that their Right is determined which you have not done by any thing you have yet said; and therefore I cannot be of your Opinion, that the bare protection of an usurped Power, can justify our Swearing Allegiance to it, either in Law or Conscience, for then all Men had been obliged to pay as firm an Allegiance to the Rump Parliament, and also to Oliver Cromwell, as to King William and Queen Marry, since both the former protected the People as much in their Religion, Civil Liberties and Properties, as the latter I fear will ever do.  
And that the bare protection of a Government does not give it no absolute right to the Allegiance of all those that enjoy their protection, I think may be sufficiently proved from the instance of a Frenchman, or any other Foreigner: who though by his living here, and enjoying the common protection of the Government, I grant he is obliged to be obedient to its Laws, and is not to Act or Conspire against it, yet this does not discharge him from his natural Allegiance which he still owes to his former Prince, so as to do any thing which may prejudice that Allegience he owes to him, either by Conspiring, or Fight against him. And this was solemnly declared to be Law by the Judges of the Kings-Bench, in the case of Dr. Story, in the 13 th'. Year of Queen Elizabeth; He being a violent Papist, fled over into Flanders to the Duke of Alva, and there conspiring with him, to invade this Kingdom, and being afterwards taken and brought over Prisoner, was Tried as a Subject of England, though he refused to plead as such, because he said he had Sworn Allegiance to the King of Spain, notwithstanding, which Plea he was Executed as a Traitor, as you will find at large in my Lord Chief Justice Dyers's Reports; 
13. Eliz. p. 303. b. l. 2.  which Judgement is also confirmed by the Lord Chief Justice Coke in Calvins' Case, where he expressly Asserts, That a Person born under the Dominion of the King of England, owes him perpetual Faith and Allegiance, and this by virtue of the Law of Nature, because jura naturalia sunt immutabilia; from whence will also appear the falsity of your Conclusion, that Oaths of Allegience extend no further then to the King in Possession, or to that Government to which we do at present owe our common Protection, and therefore that our Law has a much higher consideration of this inherent Allegiance that belongs to a King de jure, as to his particular Person, and his Heirs; so that it cannot be indifferently paid to any body else who can by seizing of the Government, force us to owe our Protection to them. Which appears by what my Lord Coke hath also laid down, to have been agreed by all the Judges upon this Oath of Allegiance, in Calvins' Case as I cited it to you at the beginning of this Evenings Conversation; so that I confess, I much wonder, considering what he has there said, how he can so positively maintain as he doth (in the place you have also quoted) that Allegiance is due to the King de Facto, and not to Him de jure, whilst the former is possessed of the Crown, since it seems a flat contradiction to me how a Subject 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 last drop of our dearest Heartsblood, and that in all places whatsoever. And yet that this Obligation should last no longer, then whilst the King de jure is in actual Possession of the Throne, and therefore I think I have still very good reason to maintain that we are still obliged by our former Oath of Allegiance to King james, so as not to take a new one to any other King, unless we had been constrained to it by an absolute Conquest, which you yourself will not maintain to be our present Case.  F. 
I confess, you have now argued this point very stiffly, and I confess, what you have said, carries with it the greatest appearance, both of Law and Reason of any thing you have yet urged upon this Subject; and therefore, if I can fairly answer it, I hope you will come over to my Opinion, and take the Oath which is now required of you. In the first place therefore, I cannot deny, that all you have said concerning a natural Allegiance due by Birth to the King, is true according to our Laws, and I do myself allow the thing, viz. That Allegiance is due to him, though not for the Reasons upon which our Lawyers have founded it, but upon those I have already given; and therefore though granting it was held to be Law in the Case of Dr. Story, that his Plea of his becoming a Subject to the King of Spain, was overruled by the Judges, and he refusing make any other Plea, was condemned upon a Nihil Dicit. Yet this being only a Penal Law, I think obliges the Subject to the penalty if he be taken, but does not oblige him in Conscience never to change his Prince or the Government he was born under without their consent, let his Circumstances become never so uneasy under it; and that this is so, I need go no further than the late Case of the French Refugees, who thought they are strictly commanded by their King, not to stir out of France whatsoever persecution they may suffer, yet I think no Man of Sense, can blame them if being persecuted there, they remove themselves into other Countries, and become perfectly Naturalised Subjects or Denizens at least in that Government whereunto they remove; and this is so known a thing, that no Casuist as I know of, thinks it a sin in such Subjects of England, as finding it for their advantage go over into another Country, to settle and make their Fortunes, or are there Naturalised, or made free Denisom in those Kingdoms or Commonwealths whereunto they remove; nor are such Persons obliged in Conscience, to return Home upon the Command or Summons of that Prince, to whom you suppose them to be Subjects by Birth; nor is your Argument at all convincing, that because a Man's owes a duty to his Parents by the law of Nature, and by being Born their Child, that therefore the subjection to the Prince under whose Government he is Born, must be alike perpetual, since the ground upon which you found this Consequence is altogether false, since I have already proved at the first meeting we had to discourse of these matters; that a Man's being Begotten, and bred up by his Parents, does not make him become their Subject or Servant in the state of Nature as long as he lives, so that he may never withdraw himself from their subjection without their leave.  
But in the next place, I think I am as little mistaken in my Notion of Allegiance, which I suppose every Person who is a true and perfect Subject of the Government, owes to the King or Sovereign Power thereof; for tho' I grant there is a great deal of difference between that imperfect Allegiance or bare Submission which every Foreigner owes the King or Government under which he resides, and that more perfect Allegiance which every Subject owes the King, who enjoys all the Rights and Previledges of a true English Man; yet to let you see that this distinction proceeds not from the bare protection of his Person and Goods by the Government under which he lives, but by his being Naturalised and becoming thereby a perfect Member of this Civil Society, is plain from your own showing; and therefore whosoever not only enjoys the common protection of an Inhabitant, but also all the Rights and Privileges of a true English Subject is bound to swear Allegiance if required to the King or Queen de facto, without enquiring into their Right or Title; for if they are strangers, or have never taken any Oath of Allegiance before, 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 also proved to to be due to the King and Queen de facto, not only from the Opinion of the Judges in Bagots' Case, but also from my Lord Coke interpretation of the Statute of Treason, which though you suppose to be contradictory to what he had before laid down in Calvins' Case; yet if you please better to consider of it, you will find it not to be so; for though it is true, the Judges do there assert, That the Obligation of the Oath of Allegiance is indefinite and without Limitation, as being made to the King and his right Heirs; and also that it extends to the venturing of life and members, and to the letting out of the last drop of our Blood; yet is this still to be understood only of such a one, and his Heirs who still continues to be King in a legal Sense, which can be only he who is King for the time being, as he is styled in this Statute of the 11 th'. of Henry the 7 th'. and only during the time that he continues in actual Possession of the Throne: And therefore the word King or Majesty being indefinite and without having any respect to his Title, whether by descent of Blood, or else by his being Crowned and Recognised by Parliament; it is no contradiction to suppose this Allegiance is only due to the King in this limited Sense, according to this Statute of Henry the 7 th'. where pray take Notice that I have made this Allegiance to be only due to Kings and Queens de facto, because they only are within intent and letter of this Statute, as also of that of Treason, according to the legal Government of this Nation by the Fundamental Laws thereof, and can no ways be extended to any other Powers under other Titles, such as the Rump Parliament under the Title of a Commonwealth, or Oliver Cromwell under that of a Protector; who though they took upon them to Protect the People after a sort in their Lives, and Estates, yet since it was not according to the true Rights and Privileges of the Subjects of this Nation, which they highly violated, and in some points quite destroyed; and that they also took upon them this protection without the free consent of the lawful Representatives of the Nation Assembled in a full and lawful Parliament; I can by no means allow them to have given the People such a true and legal Protection as the Law requires to constitute a true and perfect Allegiance, or can make them to be the Supreme Power of the Nation, and within the Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third; so that this Statute, and that of the 11th Henry the Seventh, must be our Rules in this Case.  
But I cannot but smile at the expedient you have found out to hinder the People of this Nation from being ruined if they do not take the Oath of Allegiance to their Majesties. which is by a general and absolute refusal of it; and this you suppose, if unanimously agreed on, would hinder them from suffering any thing by this their refusal; and you think they are also strong enough to oppose it, because the King has only a small Army of Foreigners which he still maintains here, and this you think may lawfully be done, because their Majesties do not claim by Conquest, but by the Election of the Convention; and therefore that this Case does not come up to that of the Subjects of Flanders, and Holstein; in which Argument I doubt not but to show that every one of your suppositions are false, for though the Nation is not Conquered, yet it is certain that all priva●● Subjects are under as great a restraint by this legal change of the Government, as if they were in the power of a Conqueror; for to resist would be equally fatal to them in both cases, and there is no visible Power nor Authority that can defend them against the present Power, in case they should go about to refuse this Oath when it is offered to them; and therefore though I grant the King's standing Army of Foreigners is but small, in Comparison of the whole Nation, since he does not intend to keep us in Subjection by force, but only to hinder any sudden Insurrection of those of your Party; yet besides all this, God be thanked, their Majesties have the main body of the Common People of the Nation on their side, who are sufficiently able to destroy all those that shall go about to make those vigorous efforts you so much desire; so that you have nothing else to plead, but that which I hope never to see, that we are not under a force, because we still entirely enjoy our Religion, Liberties, and Properties; and though the King out of his great goodness and modesty, did not think fit to insist upon his Title by Conquest over King james, and his Adherents, yet I think I have already proved at our last Meeting, that he may as justly claim by Conquest, as his Namesake William the First, since he came not over to Conquer the Nation, but to vindicate his former right, and after his Conquest of King Harold, could have no just Title to the Crown, till he had been solemnly elected and recognised for King, according to the Laws and Customs used at that time: and why the Nation might not do the same thing now for their Deliverer from King Iame's Arbitrary Power, I should be glad if you could show me a sufficient reason; but if the whole Nation should have been as pevish and discontented as those of your Principles, and should not look upon the King as their Lawful Sovereign, because he does not claim by Conquest, it would be altogether as grateful and reasonable, as if a Woman having by the assistance of an honest Gentleman, been rescued from being ravished, and he afterwards falling in love with her himself, should Court her to Marry her, she should refuse him, because he had not ravished her when he might, or at least have forced her to Marry him whither she would or no; apply this Comparison to the Case in dispute, and see if it does not hold; and therefore I must still maintain that the parallel Cases of the Subjects of Flanders, and Holstein, are still good, as to those of your Opinion, who have no notion how Allegiance can be transferred, unless by perfect force, and Conquest; since if you please to desire it, I'll undertake the Government shall seize upon your Estates, and Imprison your Persons, till you do take the Oaths, as the Kings of France, and Denmark, did those that refused to swear Allegiance to them.  M. 
I have heard you a great while upon this Subject, and I wish I could say I were fully satisfied with your Reasons; however, since it grows late, I will not dispute this Point any farther, but will take time to consider what you have now urged, but only I must needs tell you thus much; I could wish that Princes could find some other way of securing themselves of their Subjects Fidelity, besides this test of an Oath of Allegiance, which serves as a snare to many pious and conscientious Men; whereas those of none, or at least of very loose Principles, will swallow any Oath that can be imposed upon them; and I am sorry to see so many of those, who I know are in their hearts of my Principles, prevailed upon to take it, not out of Conscience, but mere Worldly interest, and advantage; and whom I am satisfied will never serve this Government the more heartily or sincerely for having taken it; and therefore to tell you the truth, I begin very much to incline to Grotius' Opinion, that promissory Oaths are absolutely unlawful; yet considering the several changes and turns of Government which we have seen in England for above forty years' last passed, I am so far for the good and happiness of my Country, as to think every true English Man obliged so far to obey the Powers in being, as may tend to the common good and defence of the Nation, by the administration of Justice between Man and Man, and in the punishment of Offenders, and for defence of the Nation against Foreign Enemies. But, sure methinks this might verywell be done without the imposing any Oath at all, either upon Magistrates, or Officers, and much less upon ordinary Subjects; since if they are persuaded in their Consciences that it is Lawful to act under this present Government, let them do it if they will; but a for the Common People, I confess they are so stupid, that they have seldom any other measures of the justice or lawfulness of any Government, or Prince's Title, than the ease or advantage they find by it; and therefore upon the whole matter, I think it were much better for the Government in the unsettled state it is in, to follow Cromwell's Example, and to impose no Oaths of Allegiance at all, since the Government may be as secure without it, (as for all that I can see) they can be with it; and as it is now managed, I see little it can serve for, but to distinguish and divide us one from another; and besides, its being a snare to the Consciences of so many that take it, it is like also to prove the ruin of divers of our Bishops, and other honest Men, both of the Clergy, and Laity, who will certainly rather lose their Dignities and Employments, than ever take it; which will also cause a great Schism in the Church, as I doubt you will find when it is too late; whereas if these men might have held their Bishoprics, and all other Preferments and Offices without having this Oath imposed upon them, I doubt not but they would serve both the Church and State in their several stations, according to their duties, and as far as lawfully they could.  F. 
I cannot deny but you have spoken very honestly, and like a good English Man, in many things you have now said, in case your intentions towards the present Government were real, as your words are fair; and therefore I cannot wonder that you have been formerly a stiff asserter of the lawfulness and necessity of the Oath of Allegiance, should now be for taking it quite away, now it grows too hard for you self, and those of your Opinion to digest. As if to oblige Subjects to defend their Governors, were a necessary security for your rightful Princes, but were unnecessary for those whom you shall think fit to suppose to be Usurpers. And though I confess I must very much pity the overnice Principles of those of your way, who are truly peaceable, and conscientious, and are like to be ruined by their refusal of it; yet for all that, I very much doubt whether it would be for the best to take this Oath quite away, since it would make a strange alteration in the Government, to admit all persons into ordinary Charges, much less into Employments of Trust and Profit without taking any Oath at all. Your only Objections against it are these: First, that you doubt that it is unlawful to impose promissory Oaths, and the next is, that it will not perform the end for which it is intended (viz.) to distinguish those who will serve the Government faithfully, and those that will not; since you confess that a great many who are not at all satisfied in their Consciences, will for interest, not only hold their old Employments, but will also take new ones under it, which I grant is not to be avoided, if men will venture to be damned. So likewise on the other side, I must tell you, that the quite taking away the Oath of Allegiance will not at all mend the matter, but make it much worse; since then, not only those whose Consoiences will give them leave to take the Oaths, but also those who think they ought not to take them, will be alike capable of Employments; and when they are in them, though I grant they may be both alike free to act as they please against the present Government, and for restoring of King james; yet I must needs tell you for all that, that I am much more fearful of the ill will or malice of those who think themselves obliged in Conscience to overthrow the present settlement, and who continue stiff to their first Principles, than of those who will so far comply with this present Government and their own interest, as to take the new Oath of Allegiance in whatever sense they please: for I am very well satisfied, that such men, though they are not so right for the Government as I could wish them, yet either fear of punishment, or else the consideration of their own self-interest, will always make them desire to retain those Employments they have already got, since they can never be assured of bettering their Condition under King james, and a Popish Government, should he ever return; whereas those that are bigoted to Principles, will always think it their duty by virtue of this notion of a Natural Allegiance, as well as their former Oath, to endeavour to restore him by all the ways and means that can ever lie in their power: But as for the unlawfulness of a promissory Oath, since you yourself speak doubtfully of it, and few Casuists, except Grotius, have been of that Opinion; I think it is not safe to quit our ancient Laws, which particularly prescribe, that not only all Magistrates, and Officers, but also all other of the King's Subjects, should take the old Oath of Fidelity or Allegiance (as we now style it in the Court Leet, or Sheriffs Torn, when they come to the Age of fourteen years; which Oath as appears by what we can find of it in Edward the Confessors, and King William's Laws) which we have already recited) as also you may find it in Sir H. Spelman's Glossary, (Tit. Fidelitas) was made to the King as their Liege Lord, of Life, and Limb; and which implies an active Obedience to defend him against all his Enemies, without any exception of such as may claim by Inheritance, or right of Blood.  
Now this being so, I cannot be persuaded that the Government ought to quit any lawful means whereby it may preserve itself, and distinguish those who would really serve it, from those who will not; and though perhaps the Government may find itself mistaken in its account, in some Men whose Consciences are large enough to swallow any Oath whatsoever, yet I think I may still safely maintain, that it is still in less danger from a few such Libertines, than from those of your Opinion, who would not only keep their Places under this Government, but will also continue in a perfect state of War against it, let them be treated never so kindly; and therefore, as to those dreadful Consequences of Schisms in the Church, and the lessening and dividing our Party; as to the former, we must run the hazard of it, since it was never heard of, that the Bishops, who are in some respects Temporal Barons, held their Bishoprics under any King since the Conquest, without owning his Authority: And I can also show you, that the King and Parliament have either actually deprived, or else declared such Bishop's Traitors to the Government. So that if any such a Schism be made, it will proceed from a scandal unjustly taken by some scrupulous Men, and not by the Government. And as for the other inconvenience, I think it is much safer for the Government to employ fewer Men then by not knowing who are Friends or Foes to trust all promiscuously, though perhaps notwithstanding their utmost care, some Men of little or no Consciences will places in this as well as they have done formerly, which can by no other means be prevented as I know off, but by chus●ing Men of honest Principles, and sober Morals, and of a quiet different Interest, to those employed in the two last Reigns; and therefore I am so far from taking away the present Oath of Allegiance, that I rather wish that there were a new one more strict and full than the present ordained to be taken by all those who shall take Offices, and Employments of Trust or Profit, whereby they should not only declare their present Majesties to be true and lawful King and Queen of this Realm; but also, that they will defend them against all their Enemies, King james himself not excepted.  M. 
I confess I cannot expect so great a Tenderness from this Government, which has been introduced by so much Artifice, that they should absolutely take away all Oaths of Allegiance whatsoever, since I doubt not but it will assume to itself all those advantages which any former usurped Power could pretend to; yet this much I must needs tell you as a Friend, the depriving those Bishops and Dignified Clergymen who shall refuse this new Oath, will be highly ungrateful; since many of them have been as violent opposers of Popery and Arbitrary Government as any Men in England, as appears by their late Petition to the King; if therefore the Archbishop of Canterbury, and those other Bishops I know to be so averse to this Oath, should be deprived upon the refusal of it, since it will be done uncanonically, by the Temporal Power of an Act of this Convention, without the Sentence of the two Houses of Convocation, I doubt that it will be thought by many to be a sufficient Cause of departing from the present Church Communion, and of setting up distinct Congregations by those who will be deprived, and turned out of their Livings for refusing this Oath, and what the consequence of that may prove God knows.  
But whereas you think this present new Oath not full enough, and therefore wish there were another made, declaring the present King and Queen to be lawfully and rightfully so, etc. since this would amount to as good as an Oath of Abjuration of King james, and his Title, I doubt it were better let alone; for I do not think the present Government will get any thing by it, since the intent of the Oath you propose, can only serve, either to gain the present Government more new Friends, or else to fix the old ones faster to it, or else to discover secret Enemies; now if I can prove it will not serve for any of these three ends, I suppose you will grant that it were better to let it alone; now that it will be so far from gaining it more Friends, that it will rather serve to drive away a great many from it, is apparent; since many men are now in Offices and Employments, who think they may lawfully take this new Oath of Allegiance, as long as the present King and Queen are not therein declared to be lawfully and rightfully so, and I believe may serve them faithfully enough in their several stations, who if they should come to be put to it, to declare and swear that they were rightful and lawful King and Queen, would rather lose their places than take it; neither will it fix those that are for this Government faster to it, since those that are zealous for it, will be so 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 present King and Queen are to be defended as lawfully so, by the Swearer to it, which is the main reason, that I, and those of my Opinion, can by no means think it lawful to take it. Nor last, will it discover any secret Enemies to your Government; since those who being rightly instructed in the true sense of this Oath, and what is thereby required, shall notwithstanding, take it against their Conscience, will I doubt take any Oath whatever the Convention shall think fit to impose; since nothing but the fear of losing their present Employments, or else the desire of getting new ones, could have made them take the Oath as it is, since to my knowledge, it hath been taken by many now in Places much against their own judgement; and I doubt the conviction of their Consciences too.  
I speak this only in relation to some of loose Principles, but as to myself, and many more of my Acquaintance, who refuse this Oath, we should be so far from taking any Place of Trust under this Government, that we should not do it tho' no Oath were at all required of us; since I think it not only wicked and dishonourable for any honest man to serve a Party only to watch an opportunity to betray it; but I also believe myself 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 serve those whom we look upon as Usurpers of their just Rights.  
But if you would also have this new Oath to be an absolute abjuration of the King and his Title, it will not only be unjust, but impossible; since who can tell but either by the help of a foreign Force, or the general consent of the Nation, tired out by a long expensive War, either his Majesty, or the Prince of Wales may be again placed upon the Throne; and then sure, whenever they shall call a Parliament to recognize their Title, they will be even according to your own hypothesis, more lawful and rightful Kings than King William, and Queen Marry; since they will not be only Kings de facto, but de jure too; and therefore I believe it was out of this Consideration; that in all those long and various Contests which so often happened between Competitors for the Crown, they never presumed to proposed to the Parliament the passing any Act to impose an Oath to abjure the Title or Person of the Rival Prince. Thus in all the long Wars between King Stephen, and Maud the Empress, as also between the two Houses of York, and Lancaster, each of whom, as they prevailed in their turns, were very well contented to make the Subjects take the ordinary Oath of Fidelity to themselves, without abjuring each others Title; and even in the later times of the Rump Parliament, when the most violent and hotheaded Commonwealthsmen would have imposed an Oath of Abjuration of Charles Stuart, and all his Family, (as they then termed his late Majesty) the most Wise and Moderate Men among them, such as Lenthal their Speaker, and others, stiffly opposed it, saying it would be a fight against Providence, to take an Oath never to own his Majesty for their King, if once he should come in again without their assistance; and I think there is as much, if not more reason now against such an Oath of Abjuration, as ever there was then.  F. 
I cannot deny but you have spoken like an honest Man, in absolutely refusing to act under this Government, though without an Oath, unless you could be satisfied of the lawfulness of the Powers to whom it is taken. And I must acknowledge, that you therein act with much more Sincerity and Honour, then divers of your Party, who though they have been, and are of your Opinion, as to the Justice of King James' Title, yet think they may take this Oath well enough in that loser and more qualified Sense you grant they put upon it; and therefore to answer in the first place, what you have said against the imposing any more explicit or stricter Oath of Allegiance, than what is already appointed, though I think I can very well answer all the Arguments you have now brought against it: Yet to let you see I am a fair Adversary, I will show you how far I agree with you, and wherein I must differ from you.  
In the first place therefore let me tell you, That you very much mistake me, if you believe, that by this new Oath I propose, I'do design an express Abjuration of King james, or the Prince of Wales, in Case that King should ever happen to recover the Throne, and call a Parliament who shall again Recognize him for lawful King, and the Prince for the Right and Undoubted Heir of the Crown. I am too sensible of the frequent Alterations that have happened in this Nation, even to desire or propose any such thing, since a Man may as well abjure the having a fever, or the Small Pox. Change of Government, and consequently our submission to it, when ever it happens, being no more in our power to prevent then the having those Diseases; all therefore that I intent by a stricter, and more explicate Oath of Allegiance, is, only for Men who shall undertake any employments of Trust and Consequence, either Spiritual, Civil or Military in the Commonwealth, since I grant the Oath as it is now worded may be sufficient for all ordinary Subjects, from whom a passive Submission, and true Obedience is a sufficient performance of their Duty; but as for all others that either now have, or expect to enjoy Places of Trust, I could wish a stricter Oath asserting their present Majesties to be lawful and rightful King and Queen of this Kingdom, and that the Taker will defend them in the present Possession of it, to the utmost of their Power against all Persons whatsoever, King james and the Prince of Wales not excepted; and this I must think necessary, not only from that Low and qualified Sense of this Oath, which I gave at the beginning of this Night's Conversation, and in which Sense you cannot deny, but that many if not the greater part of those, who still hold such employments have lately taken it, and as long as they do so, how they can ever think themselves obliged to defend their Majesties against King james, nay, or any French or Popish Forces that shall act by his Commission, I cannot understand; for since they now look upon the present King and Queen, to have no other right to the Crown than what their bare Power and present Possession of it gives them, no wonder if such Men take the first opportunity to Revolt, and join with King james as soon as ever he Lands with an Army, or appears upon our Coasts with any Fleet formidable enough to oppose ours, and (must also, if they are true to their Principles) in the mean time do all they can to protect, and indemnify those who being of tender Consciences, cannot stretch it as far as themselves, and who underhand do Act as far as they dare for King James' Interest; and though it is true you have very solidly proved, not only as a Civilian, but like a Lawyer that the word Allegiance inserted in this Oath, does of its own Nature imply, not only that the King or Queen to whom it is taken aught to be rightly and lawfully so, but that more than a bare Neutrality, viz. a real and vigorous defence of them, and their right against all their Enemies is required, and employed by it, and that is one great Reason why you say you cannot take it. Now though I confess the Reason you have given are very weighty, and convincing, yet since the words are in themselves too general, and doubtful for every Person that takes or holds such Offices or Employments of Trust, to understand it in that Sense, I could be glad there were another more plain and explicit Oath to be administered to those who expect to keep or hold such Employments. Since the present Government cannot well be safe without it, as long as such Persons are employed, who can take the Oath with a Mental Reservation of serving King james as soon they safely may by virtue of that former Oath of Allegiance they have taken to him.  
This being the Case, I shall now answer all the Objections you have brought against it, which indeed are rather framed to keep those Men in places that they may serve your designs when ever they are able; than to do any service to tender Consciences. First then I think I may maintain, that such an Oath will notwithstanding what you have now said, have contrary effects than what you are pleased to allow; for in the first place, it will gain the present Government more new Friends amongst these Neuters, who steer their Allegiance to it only from its present Settlement, and the hopes of its Continuance when they find that none can be employed in places of public Trust, who will not take an Oath to acknowledge their present Majesties to be Lawful and Rightful King and Queen, and who will also Swear to Defend their just Right, which will for the most part put Place● of Trust into their Hands, who will think themselves obliged faithfully to perform what they have Sworn. Secondly, it will also fix the old Friends of this Government faster to it, when they see none but themselves, or those who will really come into the Government upon their Principles admitted to such Places of profit and trust; and whoever will take this Oath, are to be presumed to take it willingly and wittingly, and understanding what they do, since the words will be of themselves so plain and evident, that they will admit none of those loose, and doubtful Senses in which so many have taken the present Oath of Allegiance; but your main Objection against this is, that a new Oath will not discover secret Enemies to the Government, because that most of the same Persons that have taken the former Oath will take any other that can be required of them; which I suppose is not so, since you yourself do grant that such an Oath would be a snare to a great many, who if it were not for that, would serve this Government faithfully enough, that is to say, as long as there is no necessity of showing their goodwill to King james, or have no opportunity given of returning to their former Allegiance to him with safety to themselves: and you yourself cannot deny, but according to their Principles they must needs perform it when ever they think they may; now certainly it were very well to be rid of such false Friends (if it were possible to discover them) by such an Oath, then to keep them where they are, only to take an opportunity not only of doing a Mischief, but of serving this Government very carelessly and lukewarmly, whilst they are in those places they enjoy; as also of favouring and assisting those that are the declare Asserters of King James' Right as far as they dare; so that then all the dispute remains about those who having Consciences large enough to swallow any Oath whatever, provided it will suit with their present advantage; no Oath can tie them, or serve to discover their private Sentiments; as I cannot deny but that there too many Men of such large Consciences as you describe, and could heartily wish they were fewer, yet though I grant an Oath alone will not keep them out; yet it might be in great part prevented, if the King would take a true Character of the Men fit for public Employment, from those about him of whose Worth and former Intergity he is already fully satisfied; but admitting, some such Men shall get into Places, and consequently when they are in, manage things for their own Advantage, (that is, Vilely and Corruptly;) yet even these will not prove half so fatal to the Government as those Men of half Consciences, who think they may take this Oath in their Own Sense, and for their own present Advantage, and also believe it no Breach of it to assist King james whenever safely they may, because they hold their present Oath to be only Temporary, but their former to have a perpetual Obligation upon them. Whereas those of no Principles at all never Espouse any Interest longer than it serves their own turns; so that as long as they can make their Fortunes under this Government, they will never desire to change it for another, in which they cannot but expect a much less free enjoyment of their Liberties, and Properties, which are things that all Men (as well those who have no Principles, as well as those that have) desire to to enjoy. And lastly, some even of these Men that have been formerly notorious Asserters, of, and advanced in the Arbitrary Government of King james out of shame and as well as fear of the loss of their Credits with those of their own Party (which they are not assured but may again prevail) will stick to take this stricter Oath, though they do not this that is now enjoined, since they can find an Evasion for the one, but will scarce be able to do it for the other.  M. 
But pray tell me, will not this new Oath declaring King William and Queen Mary to be Lawful, and Rightful King and Queen of this Realm; and that all Men that take it shall assist them against all their Enemies, prove an employed Oath of Abjuration of King james, though not in express Words, and you have not yet showed me that such an Oath hath ever been Administered during all the various Contests that have been for the Crown since the Conquest.  F. 
I grant that such an Oath would be a Virtual, and implied Abjuration of King James' present claim to the Crown, and would also oblige all Persons to fight against him, and hinder his regaining it● which though I grant to be the design of it; Yet would not such an Oath oblige us at all to abjure the obeying King james, should he ever by an irrestible Providence be again set over us, since it is not abjuring of a Future, but a present right which I now contend for; and that, all the Ancient Oath of Fidelity or Allegiance (as it is now called) were of the like Nature, and taken in the same Sense with this I propose: I shall show you from the form of the Oath of Fidelity, which all Freemen were to take at Fourteen Years of Age, as appears by King William the Firsts Law which I have so often cited, 
Cap. 5.  Whereby all Freemen were to affirm upon Oath, that within the Realm and without, they will be True and Faithful to King William their Lord, and preserve his Lands, and Honour with all Fidelity; together with his Person, and defend them against all his Enemies. So likewise in the ancient Oath of Homage, which was taken by all the Earls, Barons, and Tenants in Capite in England, at the Coronation of our Kings: It was in these words, 
Vi Spelmans' Gloss. f. 23. H.  I N. N. become your Leigeman of Life and Limb, and earthly Honour, and Faith and Troth to you shall bear to live and die, so help me God; and in the latter Oath of Fidelity or Allegiance, which Sir H. Spelman gives us out of the Customary of Normandy, the words were much the same, only the person is there sworn to be True, and Faithful in the King and his Heirs (which they were not before Edward the Firsts time.) And also what they would hear of no Evil or Damage against them, which they would not hinder to their Power; now pray tell me, were not all these Oaths taken to the King for the time being, as Lawful and Rightful King? and since they were thereby to yield him Life and Limb, that is, were to defend him with their Lives against all his Enemies, then certainly all others who might pretend to, or claim the Crown were included within this number; and though it is true in these ancient Oaths, there is no Swearing to the present King, as Lawful and Rightful King, yet these words were needless in that Age; when (as I have proved at our last meeting) there was no difference between a King de jure, and one de facto; 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 such, was to be defended against all his Enemies; so that it was till that distinction was broached, that there might be a King de de facto, different from the King de jure, (which I have proved was not elder than Edward the IV this. Reign.) There was no need of any mention of such words in the Oath of Allegiance as lawful King, and lawful Heirs, which are first found in the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, prescribed by the Statutes of Queen Elizabeth and King james; in the latter of which, (it is needless to recite it Verbatim) it is first sworn, That the King's Majesty is Lawful and Rightful King: secondly, There is an express abjuration of the pretended Authority of the Bishop of Rome, which shows that the Abjuration of the Temporal as well as Spiritual Right of a Foreign Prince (who claims it ever since King john's Resignation) is no new invention; and lastly, there is an express abjuration or Engagement to defend the King's Person to the utmost of the Swearers Power against all Conspiracies at Attempts whatsoever, and why the same words may not be inserted into this new Oath, as well as it was in those. I can see no Reason since they are only Declarative and Persuant to the late Act of the Convention, whereby after the Declaration of the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects, King William and Queen Mary are Declared, That they were, and of Right aught to be by the Laws of this Realm, our Sovereign Liege, Lord and Lady, and King and Queen of England, etc.  M. 
Well, it is late, and besides to no purpose to argue this Point any longer, since it concerns not me, nor any of my Principles what new Oaths you make and impose upon those whose Consciences will never permit us to take them. What I have said, was only to show you the Folly, and Weakness of such Oaths, and Consequently, that they can be subservient to no other end then a renewal and aggravation of the Sin of Perjury among us, which God forgive this sinful Nation, among the many crying Sins it now growns under. Yet give me leave still to mind you, that you have not given any answer to the Objection I have made concerning the Schism that is like to follow from the depriving of all such Bishops and Clergy that shall refuse to take the new Oath by such a time, which Deprivation being uncanonically ordained by the mere lay power of the Convention, without the authority of a Convocation or Synod; such proceedings are sufficient cause for all of our way to break off all Church Communion with you, as soon as the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, and those other Bishops shall happen to be deprived and new ones put in their Places, since all Church Communion wholly depends upon the lawfulness of the Bishops, who are the supreme Pastors of our Church.  F. 
I forgot to say any thing of this, because I said so much to answer concerning the new Oath I proposed as sit to taken by those in places of Trust; but since you desire it, I shall say somewhat though not so large as I could speak upon this Subject, First, I must tell you it is altogether a new Notion, and contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England, whereby it is declared that the Kings of this Realm have the same Power with Persons in the Church, as the Kings of judah and Israel had among the Jews; therefore you must either depart from the Doctrine of this Canon, or else the King and Parliament, (who are certainly as much the supreme Power of the Nation, as the Kings of judah were to that of the Jews) may as well deprive the Arch Bishop of Canterbury (for Example) for Treason, or Disobedience to the Government, as Solomon did Abiathar for Anointing his Brother Adonijah King; and besides this, I can show you many Examples of the like power exercised by the Roman and Greek Emperors, in depriving and banishing not only Bishops, but Patriarches; for the matters of State without any Sentence or Judgement of a Synod, or general Council of other Bishops; if your Doctrine were true, the poor Greek Church would be in a sad Condition and all her Members in a perpetual Schism for some Ages past; that there hath been scarce any Canonical Elections or Deprivations of the Patriarches of any of the great Seats, viz. Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, but they are all nominated, and put in and out at the Grand Signors, nay, Viziers Will and Pleasure, as any Man who will but pe●u●e Sr. Paul Rycauts account of the Greek Church may easily see.  
But indeed you fall into this Error for want of considering the original of Bishoprics in England, and the true meaning of this intended Deprivation; for pray take Notice, that though Episcopacy was settled in England in the time of the Britain's, yet all the Seas, and Jurisdictions of the Bishops of this Realm, in respect of such and such Dioceses, have been wholly oweing to the bounty of our Kings, and the Authority of our Great Councils, which were also confirmed by the Pope's Bulls; and since the Reformation to the Authority of the King and Parliament, as were all the Bishoprics erected in Henry the VIII this. Reign; so that let the Bishop's mere Spiritual Power of Ordaining, Excommunicating, etc. be derived immediately from Christ if you please; yet the Exercise thereof as limited and appointed to this or that Precint or See, is as mere a temporal Institution, as that of Parishes which was not introduced till long after Christianity was settled in this Island. So that the Exercise of this Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the See of Canterbury (for Example) being a Civil Institution, it hath anciently belonged to Supreme Powers, not only to confer this Power, (as appears by their ancient Investitures of our Bishops per Baculum & Annulum) but also to take it away, for Treason or Disobedience against the State; since the King and Parliament do not pretend to deprive them of their Spiritual Character, or Episcopal Orders, but only of their right to exercise it within such Sees, or Dioceses; thus, although the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of London and Wichester, with the rest of the Popish Bishops, were deprived by Act of Parliament in 1 o th'. of Elizabeth, for not taking the Oath of Supremacy; the Queen and Parliament never took upon them to degrade those Bishops of their Episcopal Orders, but only to forbid their acting as Bishops in their former respective Dioceses, and therefore I doubt not, but that notwithstanding this Depriviation, those Bishops might (if they had pleased) have ordained Priests, and confirmed Children, and that such Ordinations and Confirmations, would been good even in our Protestant Church, if such Priests or Children had afterwards turned Protestants; since 'tis 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 those Protestant Countries where there are no Bishops at all; the like I may say for their Confirmations too.  
But pray Sir, consider how upon your Principles, this Schism can be so Universal as to influence and involve all England in it, for if the Arch Bishop of York (for example) will rather take this Oath then suffer Deprivation, and that the rest of the Bishops of his Province should be of the mind (as I am credibly informed they will;) pray tell me how the People of that Province (being a distinct Church, or body Ecclesiastical from that of Canterbury, as to all Spiritual matters, as having a distinct Convocation of their own,) can ever be involved in this Schism, by the deprivation of the Arch Bishop and Bishops of the Province of Canterbury?  
And pray also tell me in the next place, how all the Members of the two Universities can ever be involved in this intended Schism, since they owe no Canonical Obedience to the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury or York, nor to any other Bishop, but only to their Chancellor and the Vicechancellor as his Deputy, who exercise all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the said Universities; and therefore their Church Communion cannot depend upon the Canonical or Uncanonical deprivation of any Bishops in England I desire you to consider these things as a Canon-Lawyer, and give me your answer if you can, against the next time we meet, and then tell me whether the causes of this threatened Schism be so just and apparent that it is like to involve so many of the Wisest, and most Considerate of the Clergy and Laity into open separation from the Church, as you suppose it will; not but that I will grant there be many of the Clergy of this Opinion; who as well out of Conscience, as for their own interest, will be contented to set up and encourage such a separation, thereby to make themselves heads of separate Congregations, when they shall be deprived of their present Benefices and Employments, upon their refusal of this Oath.  M. 
I must confess I never heard so much said upon this head before; and if you could make out to me all the matters of fact you have now instanced in, I know not but that I may come over to your Opinion; though let me tell you, this is the first time that ever you can show me that any Bishops were deprived in England by the mere Lay Authority of the King, and a Great Council or Convention of the Laity, whilst they continued of the same Church-Communion with those Bishops; for as to your instance of the Popish Bishops deprived by Parliament in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, I doubt you will find it does not come up to the Point in question, since the Queen and Parliament having then newly declared themselves Protestant's, did not own them for true and Orthodox Bishops, and consequently thought they might justly depart from their Communion, and upon the same account might deprive them, and the Queen might then nominate others of their own Religion in their Places.  F. 
I cannot but differ from you in the matter of fack as you now relate it; 
Vid. Dr. Burnet' s Hist. of the Reformation. 2d Part.  for Queen Elizabeth, and the Parliament were when they made this Act, so far from being separated from the outward Communion of the Church of Rome, that Mass was then said, and the Romish Priests still continued in all the Parishes and Churches of England, and yet they still maintained an outward Communion, though their Bishops were deprived by the Civil ●ower, and others ordained in their stead. So that it is plain, the Papists themselves had then no notion of this new cause of Schism, by reason of their Bishops being Uncanonically deprived; nor indeed can we well vindicate the Honour or Legality of our Reformation, if the Protestant Bishops who succeeded in the places of those who were thus deprived by Act of Parliament, could not be Canonical, because their Predecessors deprived by the Lay Power, were still alive.  
But admit this was the first time that ever it had been thus practised, yet if it were then reasonable, and done upon good grounds; I cannot see but when the necessity of the Church and State require it, and that the Clergy in Convocation are so wilful, and wedded to some old false notions, as not to consult the peace and safety of the Church and Kingdom; why the King and Queen (who are acknowledged to be Supreme over Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal Persons) may not together with the two Houses of Parliament make the like Law now, as was done in the first of Queen Elizabeth, for a less matter; for none of those Popish Bishops, though they believed Queen Elizabeth to have no better than a Parliament Title to the Crown, yet ever denied her to be their lawful and rightful Queen; only they would not own her Supremacy in Spiritual Matters.  
But leaving the farther discussion of this Point, to those who better understand it, I would gladly know of you what you intent to do, and what you would have us do, who are like to be made Deputy Lieutenants and Justices of Peace; for if as you yourself allow, there be a necessity that some Civil Government be maintained during King James' absence, I desire to know of you how it can be managed, and who shall manage it, in case all the Gentlemen of England were of your Principle, and should positively refuse the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties; for if King james be never so much our lawful King, it is not now possible for us to be Governed by him, since he is go●e, and God knows whether ever he may return again; since than you cannot have him if you would; and that there is a necessity we should be Governed by some body. And since it is also as certain, that those who actually Govern us, will exact this, or the like Oaths of Allegiance from us, as were due to their Predecessors, and that no man must expect to enjoy or execute any Place or Office, not only of profit, but of burden and charge, for the necessary execution of Justice, and the maintenance of Civil Government (without which we cannot live or subsist) without taking this new Oath of Allegiance, as the only means to qualify them for it; if then the end (viz.) Civil Government, be absolutely necessary, and the taking of this Oath is the only means allowed of to qualify men for it, this seems as evident to me, that taking of this Oath is not only justifiable by Law, but by Reason, and good Conscience; since it is done for the highest and noblest end; (viz.) the public good of the whole Nation, or Common wealth; which you grant cannot subsist without some kind of Civil Government amongst us.  M. 
I will say something in answer to what you have now alleged concerning the necessity of taking of the Oath, in order to the maintenance of some Civil Government, without which I grant the King's good Subjects cannot subsist till his return; since I confess this is the strongest Argument you have yet brought; all I can say to it at present, it, that if all your Country Gentlemen, and all the Lawyers in England, would be so firm in their Loyalty to his Majesty, as unanimously to declare that they cannot take this Oath with a safe Conscience, the consequence than would be, that either the present Usurped Power must be forced to give up the Government to the right owner, or else they must at least desist from pressing this Oath upon you.  F. 
You know well enough this is altogether a vain supposition, since you cannot but be sensible that their Majesties have not only a sufficient force both of Native Englishmen, and Foreigners on their side, who can force those that should make any opposition to the taking it; and that there are also many fanatics, and Commonwealth's Men, who not looking upon themselves as 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 Employments of the Kingdom, to the great prejudice and destruction, not only of the Church, but the Monarchy itself, which is as yet preserved, though the Person that administered it is altered; so that it would conduce nothing to King James' Affairs, if all the Gentry and Lawyers of the Kingdom should go about to refuse this Oath, which, as I have already proved, they are also obliged to take by the Law of the Land, and also that greater Law of prosecuting the public good of the Nation, to the utmost of their power-  M. 
Well, since I cannot expect so great firmness of mind and courage from your Country Gentlemen, and especially the Lawyers, who have been always but too forward to comply with all Governments, how unlawful soever, and since 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 Opinion, but also from a higher and nobler Law (viz.) that of the common good of the Nation, or Civil Society, which I grant must be maintained during the King's absence, since you say there is a necessity for it, though I am not fully satisfied of the lawfulness of it, so far as to take it myself, yet will I not absolutely condemn you or any other sincerely and honest men, who do only take it out of a good intent, to maintain some Civil Government amongst us, and also to keeping out the fanatics from having any share in it; so I hope the Government will excuse me, if my Conscience will not give me leave to take it myself, since there are enough of you who are free to do it without us; so that if I cannot keep that small Employment I have without taking this new Oath, I will freely give it up, since as long as I am not satisfied in my Conscience of the lawfulness of it, and whatsoever is not of Faith, is Sin, as the Apostle has truly defined it.  F. 
I confess you speak very honestly, and charitably in this matter, and I could wish all those of your Opinion had the like moderation, and that they would not condemn of wilful Perjury so many good Bishops, Noblemen, Gentlemen, and others, both of the Clergy, and Laity, who have been persuaded that they might take this Oath with a safe Conscience, and therefore pray, however we differ in Opinion about these matters, let us maintain the same Friendship for each other as we had before.  M. 
Sir, I readily embrace so fair and kind an offer, and as I hope you will do me what kind offices you can whilst you continue to act under this Government, so I will promise to do the same for you, when ever the King shall come to be restored to his Throne again.  F. 
I willingly and thankfully accept the proposal of the continuance of your Friendship, since I look upon your dissenting from me, not to proceed from any wilfulness or obstinacy, but out of a tender Conscience, and too great and high a sense of your duty, which I must still confess are errors on the right hand; and therefore now taking my leave of you, shall only desire you to believe me your real Friend, and humble Servant.  M. 
I hope you think I have the same esteem for you, and therefore must always own myself yours.  
FINIS.   

A General Alphabetical INDEX, OF THE MATTERS and QUESTIONS Debated in the Thirteen Dialogues OF Bibliotheca Politica:  
LONDON, Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane, near the Oxford-Arms, where also many be had the First, Second, Third, Fourth; Fifth, six, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Dialogues. 1694.   

A General Alphabetical INDEX of the Matters and Questions debated in the Thirteen Dialogues of Bibliotheca Politica.  
The Reader is desired to take notice, that these Dialogues being written discursively, and not determinatively, this W. signifies the Question, by the word Whether. Note, D. signifies Dialogue, P. Page.  


A  
ABEL W. Subject to his Brother Cain by Divine Institution. D. 2. p. 67. to 70.  
Abesses often present in Saxon and French Great Councils. D. 6. p. 393.  
Abbots, W. all that were anciently summoned to Parliament held in Capite, D. 8. p. 556. and how many came to be by degrees omitted, Ibid.  
Abbots, and Abbesses sometimes granted aids by themselves, D. 7. p. 447.  
Abdication of the Government, W. a King can do it any other way, than by some express Act, D. 11. p. 813, 815, 832, to the end.  
Abuses of Governors, their several kinds, D. 3. p. 161. to 164.  
King's Acts Illegal, W. also Inauthoritative, D. 9 p. 644. to 649.  
Acts of Parliament W. they to hold good, tho' not called by the King, D 12. p. 894. to 896.  
Adam W. he had conferred on him by God the Dominion of the whole Eaath, and of all Creatures therein, D. 1. p. 37. to 39  
W. By being a Husband, and Father, he was also absolute Lord over Eve, and all her Posterity, Ib. p. 12. to 25.  
Adel, and Adelman, their signification among the Saxons, and Danes, D. 6. p. 374.  
Alderman, its signification among the same, Ib. p. 375.  
Aldermen of Countries, who. D. 5. p. 370.  
King Alfred his Testament, D. 10. p. 721.  
St. Alban Burrough Petition to King Edw. the Second, D. 8. p. 576 to 578.  
Allegiance W. due by Law to a King de facto, D. 13. p. 905. to the end.  
The word Alij in ancient Statutes, and Records, W. it signifies only the lesser Tenants in Capite, D. 7. p. 491, 493 518. 523.  
Archbishop of Canterbury hath been sometimes Elected in the Great Council of the Kingdom, D. 8. p. 570, 571.  
Standing Army in time of Peace, against Law, D. 9 p. 638, 639.  
Great Assembly at Runne-Mead, W. it was a Great Council of the whole Kingdom, p. 453, 454.  
Attainders of Treason against Kings de facto, have always held good till repealed, D. 13. p. 910.  
Authority of Parliament, the Phrase how ancient in our Statute-Books, D. 5 p. 334. to 340.    


B  
Babel when Built, D. 2. p. 76, 77.  
Banneret, its ancient signification, D. 7. p. 540.  
Baro. the Title. W. it anciently signified no other Person than a Baron of Parliament, D. p. 402. to 407.  
Barones Angliae, W. Tenants in Capite only, Ib. p. 394 p. 406. to 411.  
Barones Comitatus, who they were anciently, D. 10. p. 743, 744.  
Barnstaple Burrough, its ●lea to send Burgesses to Parliament, by grant from King Athelstan, D. 8. p. 605.  
Bishop's W. they derive their right of sitting in Parliament from the Saxon Kings, D. 5. p. 366. to 368.  
They sometimes granted Aids by themselves, D. 7. p. 447.  
Seven Bishops W. their Petition to King James, against his Declaration, and his Commitment of them, were justifiable by our Laws, D. 12. p. 823. to 830.  
Bishoprics, and Abbeys, anciently conferred by the King, per Annulum, & Baculum, D. 5. p. 36. 38.  
Eldest Brother, W. Lord of all Brethren, by the Law of God, or Nature, D. 2. p. 65. to 89.  
Bracton, that passage in his Book interpreted. viz. Rex habet Superiorem Deum, & Legem, D. 10 p. 701.  
Burroughs, W. any of them send Members to Parliament by prescription, D. 6. p. 382, 383. D. 8. p. 580, 581.  
W. All Burroughs that sent Members anciently held in Capite of the King, D. 8. p. 557, 578.  
W. They sent such Members by an inherent Right. or at the Discretion of the Sheriffs, Ib. p. 593. 604.    


C  
Cain W. he forfeited his Birthright by the Murder of his Brother, D. 2. p. 67.  
W. His Eldest Son was a Prince over his Brethren, Ib.  
Canons of 1640. their validity discussed, D. 4. p. 284. to 286.  
King Charles' the Firsts pretended Commission to Sir Philim. O Neal, considered, D. 9 p. 636, 637.  
Great Charter of King Iohn● W. it was the sole Act of that King, or else made by the advice and consent of all the Freemen of England, D. 5. p. 324. D. 7. p. 455, 456.  
Great Charter of Hen. the Third, W. all the Copies we have now of it were his, or else Edward I. his Charters, Ib. 461.  
Children how far, and how long bound to be subject to their Parents, D. 1. p. 45. to 52.  
Christian's W. as much obliged to suffer for Religion now, as in the Primitive Times, D. 4● p. 230. to 234.  
Chester its County, W. the Earl thereof could charge all his Tenants in Parliament, without their consent, D. 7. p. 501.  
Church of England, W. Passive Obedience be its distinguishing Doctrine from other Churches, D. 4. p. 292, 293.  
Cities and Burroughs more numerous in the Saxon times than now, D. 6. p. 379. to 400.  
W. They had any Representatives in Parliament before the 49th of Henry the IIId. D. 5. p. 565, 572.  
Whether Cities and Burroughs had not always had Representatives in the Parliaments of Scotland, D. 7. p. 505.  
Clerici terras habentes quae ad Ecclesias non pertinent, who they were, D. 7. p. 450.451.  
Clergy a part of the Great Council of the Kingdom in the Saxon Times, and long after, D. 8. p. 544, to 550.  
W. None of the Clergy but such as held in Capite, appeared at such Councils, Ibid.  
W. The Inferior Clergy had their Representatives in Parliament, different from the Convocation, Ib. 546, to 558.  
Commandment Vth, in what sense Princes are comprehended under it, D. 2. p. 106. to 109, & 111.  
Communitas Regni, W. that Phrase in ancient Records, and Acts of Parliament, does not often signify the Commons as well before the 49th of Henry the Third, as afterwards, D. 7. p. 412, to 415.  
W. That Phrase does not also signify the whole body of the Kingdom, consisting of Peers, and Commons, D. 6. p. 416. The Drs. proofs to the contrary considered, 417, to 423. W. It does also often signify the Commons alone, D. 8. p. 572. to 574.  
Their Declaration to the Pope in the 48th of Edward the Third, D. 8. p. 581, to 582.  
Their Petition to Henry the Fifth. Their Protestation in Parliament in Richard the Seconds time, 584.  
Commons of Cities and great Towns had their Representatives in the Assemblies of Estates of all the Kingdoms in Europe, founded by the ancient Germans, and Goths, Ibid, 607, to 612.  
Commons their request, and consent, when first mentioned in Old Statutes, D. 5. p. 329.  
W. Ever summoned to Parliament, from the 49th of Hen. the Third, to the 18th of Edw. the First, D. 7. p. 522.  
Commons W. part of the Great Council before the Conquest, D. 5. p. 369, 372.  
The words Commune, de Commune, & les communes, do frequently signify the Commons, before the 49th of Henry the Third, D. 6. 423. D. 7. 423, to 484.  
Common-Council of the whole Kingdom, W. different from the Common-Council of Tenants in Capite, D. 7. p. 437. to 474.  
Communitas Scotiae, W. it always signified none but Tenants in Capite, Ibid. p. 505. to 508.  
Conquest alone W. it confers a right to a Crown, D. 2. p. 128, 129.  
W. It it gives a King a right to all the Lands and Estates of the Conquered Kingom, D. 3. 168. to 170.  
W. Any Conquest of this Kingdom was made by King William the First, D. 10. p. 715. to the end.  
Constitutions of Clarendon▪ their Title explained, D. 6. p. 430, 431.  
Contract Originel, W. there were ever any such thing, D. 10 p. 695, to 709. D. 12. p. 809, 8●3.  
Convention, W. its voting King James to have abdicated the Government be justifiable, D. 11. p. 809, to 834.  
W. Its Declaration of King James' violations of our fundamental Rights be well grounded, Ibid. p. 816, 832.  
W. It's voting the Throne vacant, can be justified from the ancient constitution of the Government, D. 12. p. 839, to 883.  
W. Whether its placing K. W. and Q. M. on the Throne may be also justified by the said Constitution, Ibid. p. 883, to 894.  
W. It's making an Act, excluding all Roman Catholic▪ Princes was legal, Ibid. p. 894, to the end.  
Convocation Book drawn up by Bishop Overal, its validity examined, D. 1. p. 6, & 8.  
Copy Holder's, why they to have no Votes at Elections to Parliament. D. 5. p. 513.  
Great Councils or Convention the only judges of Prince's Titles, upon any dispute about the succession or vacancy of the Throne, D. 12. p. 895. D. 13. p. 917. to 919 924.  
Council of the King in Parliament, what it was anciently, D. 5. p. 334.  
Great Council, or general Convention of the Estates of the Kingdom, W. legal without the King's Summons, D. 5. p. 353. D. 12. p. 894. to 898.  
Curia Regis, what i● anciently was, and W. it consisted of none but Tenants in Capite, Ibid. 368.  
Crown, W. it can by Law be ever forfeited, D. 12. p. 833, 834.    


D  
Defence of a Man's self, in what case justifiable, D. 3. p. 148, 149.  
Declaration of the Convention setting forth King James' violation of the fundamental rights of the Nation, W. justifiable, or not, D. 11. p. 816. to the end.  
Private Divines, their Opi●nions about Passive Obedience, and Resistance, of what Authority, D. 4. p. 291, 294.  
W. Many of them have not quitted the ancient Doctrine of the Church of England declaring the Pope to be Antichrist, vid. Append.  
Dispencing Power, W. justifiable by Law, D. 12. p. 119, to 828.  
Dissolution of all Government, W. it necessarily follows, from the Conventions declaration of the vacancy of the Throne, D. 12. p. 890, 891.  
Durham, W. its Bishop could lay Taxes in Parliament on the whole County Palatine, without their consents, D. 7. p. 501, 502.    


E  
Earls of Counties, their ancient Office and Institution, D. 5 p. 363, to 370.  
King Edward the Second being deposed, W. any vacancy of the Throne followed thereupon, D. 12. p. 158, to 861.  
Queen Elizabeth, W. she had any Title to the Crown but by Act of Parliament, Ibid. p 872, 873.  
England, when first so called, D. 5. p. 362.  
English-Men, W. they lost all their Liberties and Estates by the Norman Conquest, D. 10. p. 753. to the end.  
English Bishops, Earls, and Barons, W. then all deprived of their Honours, and Estates, Ib. 756, to 762.  
English Saxon Laws, W. confirmed, or abrogated by K. William, D. 10. p. 760.  
Estates of the Kingdom the only judges of all Disputes about the Succession of the Crown, D. 2. p. 891, to 892. D. 12. p. 893. D. 13. p. 917, to 919, 921.  
Eve, W. by being subject to Adam, all her Posterity became so likewise, D. 1. p. 14. to 25.    


F  
Fathers, W. by right of generation, or of education, Lords over their Children in the state of Nature, D. 1 p. 13, 14.  
W. Any such power was given by Divine Grant to Adam, and in him to all other Fathers, Ib. p. 26, 30, to 36.  
W. Fathers of Families have power of life and death over their Children by the Law of Nature, Ib. 19 to 26.  
W. They may sell their Children, Ib. 26. to 31.  
W. They may be resisted by their Children in case of any violent assaults upon their lives, Ib. p. 41.  
W. Perpetual Masters over their Children as long as they live, Ib p. 45. to 51.  
Fideles, the signification of the word before the Conquest, D. 6. p. 390, 391. D. 7. p. 448. to 451.  
Sir R. filmer's Principles, W. they do not rather encourage Tyranny, than Fatherly affection in Princes towards their Subjects, D. 2. p. 118.  
W. They do not also favour Usurpers, Ib. 125. to 128.    


G  
Common Good of Mankind the main design of all Government, D. 1. p. 55. to 61.  
Civil Government the end of its Institution, D. 1. p. 11. 19 21.  
W. There had been any necessity of it, if Man had never sinned, Ib. p. 11.  
What it is, and its Prerogative, D. 3. p. 173.  
W. it can be settled without liberty, and property in Estates, Ib. 174.  
Government of Families and Kingdoms, its Original, and Necessity, D. 1. p. 10. to 12.  
Supreme Governors, in what cases they cease to be God's Ordinance, D. 1. p. 41.  
Government among the ancient Germans and Saxons always by Common Councils, D. 5. p. 365. to 369.  
Grands, or Grants in Parliaments, what those words signify in ancient Statutes, and Records.  
W. The Lords alone, or the Commons also, D. 6. p. 369. vid. Append.  
Guards of the King, when when first set up, D. 9 p. 639.    


H  
K. Harold, W. William of Normandy had a just cause of making War upon him, D. 10 p. 718.  
What Title he had to the Crown, Ib. p. 720.  
Haereditamentum, its derivation, Ib. p. 721.  
Hengist, and all the rest of the Kings who founded the Saxon Heptarchy, W. so by Election, or Conquest, D. 5. p. 357. to 362.  
King Henry the IVth, W. his Title to the Crown were by right of blood, or Election of the Estates in Parliament, D. 12. p. 861. to 863.  
King Henry the VI W. his Son were not unjustly disinherited by the Duke of York, and himself unjustly deposed by Edward the IVth, Ib. p. 863. to 867.  
King Henry the VIIth, W. he had any Title to the Crown by right of Inheritance, Ib. p. 868. to 870.  
King Henry the VIIIth, W. the several alterations he made as to the the Succession, were legal, D. 12. p. 871, 872.  
Homage, W. it rendered the Prince, or Lord irresistible, D. 10. p. 727.728.  
Homines Liberi, its signification in English Histories, D. 6. p. 428. to 430.  
Homilies of our Church, the the chief passages therein, against all manner of Resistance of Governors considered, D. 4. p. 287.288.  
W. It be Heresy or Schism to deny their Authority in any point there laid down, Ib. 289.290. vid. Append.  
Mr. hooker's Opinion concerning the Original of Civil Government, D. 12. p. 129.130.  
W. The two Houses of Parliament, or the whole People of England have any coercive Power ove the King, D. 9 p. 634.  
W. The Two Houses have on the behalf of the whole People, renounced all right of self-defence in any case whatsoever, Ib. p. 636. to 658.    


I  
King James the Firsts Speech in Parliament, against Tyranny, D. 3. p. 148.  
The Act of Recognition of K. James' Hereditary Right, how far it obliges Posterity, D. 12. p. 871, to 874.  
King James II. W. he violatid the fundamental constitution of the Government before his desertion, D. 9 p. 673. to 685.  
Or W. he had amended all those violations before his departure, p. 685. to 689.  
W. His setting up a standing Army, and putting in Popish Officers, and Soldiers, were an actual making War upon the Nation, Ib. p. 683.687.  
W. He abdicated the Government by his breach of the Original contract, or else by his deserting it, D. 11. p. 790. to 799.  
W. He might have been again safely restored to the Government upon reasonable terms, Ib. p. 801. to 807.  
W. He really intended to redress all the violations he had made upon it, p. 805. to 807.  
W. He resumed the Government upon his return to London, from Feversham, Ib. 802. to 806.  
jesus Christ did not alter Civil Government, neither by taking away the Prerogative of Princes, nor yet by abridging the Civil Liberties of Subjects, D. 4. p. 216. to 220.  
Jews often rebelled, and sometimes killed their Kings, D. 3. p. 203, to 205.  
Their resistance of Antiochus considered, Ibid. p. 208. to the end.  
Jewish Government before Saul, W. Aristocratical, or Monarchical, D. p. 93. to 101.  
Judah, and Thamar, the History considered, D. 1. p. 33.  
judges over Israel, their Power W. Monarchical, D. 2. p. 95, 96.  
W. Some of them were not judges of some particular Tribes, p. 96, 97.  
judgements Divine, W. they may be removed by humane means, or force, D. 4. p. 259, 260.    


K  
Kings, W. to be reputed Fathers of their People, as the Heirs or Representatives of those who were once so, D. 2. p. 65.  
W. They derive their Power from God, or from the People and Laws, D. 11. p. 773. to 780. D. 12. p. 936, to 938.  
Saxon Kings of England, W. absolute, or limited Princes, D. 5. p. 349.  
W. They were endued with the sole Legislative Power, Ib. p. 338, to 345.  
Kings of the English Saxons, Elected, and often deposed by the Great Council, Ibid. p. 365.  
The same done also in other Kingdoms of the Gothic Model, Ib. p. 365.  
Kings of England ever since King William I. W. they derive their Title to the Crown from Conquest, or some other Title, D. 10. p. 713.  
Their Concessions to Subjects do no ways derogate from Royal Prerogative, D. 10. p. 715.716.  
Kings of the Roman Catholic Religion, W. many of them have not observed Magna Charta, and their Coronation Oath, D. 12.882.888.  
King by Sir R. Filmer's Principles above all Laws, and alone makes them, D. 2. p. 123.124.  
In what sense he is head of the Politic Body of the Commonwealth, D. 11. p. 803. to 805.  
W. He could have anciently by his Prerogative Taxed all the Tenants in Capite at his discretion, D. 7. p. 495. to 499.  
W. He could call, or omit to summon to Parliament what Earls, Lords, and Tenants he pleased, Ibid. p. 505, to 511.523.  
W. He could also summon those Knights of Shires who served before, without any new Election, Ib. 537.  
W. He could by his Prerogative discharge what Knights of Shires he pleased, after they were chosen, Ibid. p. 539.540.  
King, how far God's Lieutenant, D. 9 p. 663.  
W. His Authority is different from his Personal Will and Commands, Ib. p. 645. to 648.  
His Person how far Sacred, and Inviolable, Ibid. p. 638.651. to 657.  
King's Commission, how far, and in what cases resistible, notwithstanding the Declarations of of the two first Parliaments of King Charles the Second, Ib. p. 636. to 655.  
W. He hath any Authority to act against Law, Ib. p. 644, to 649.  
King's Commissions, how far good in Law, Ib. p. 640.  
Kings since the Conquest W. endued with the sole Legislative Power, D. 5. p. 338, to 345. D. 9 p. 650, 651. hath no Peer or Equal in the Kingdom, D. 5. p. 354.  
His presence, W. it will authorise all illegal actions, so as to render them irresistible, D. 9 p. 653, 654.  
His Officers in what, case resistible, Ib.  
The Kings being irresistible, how far different from being unaccountable, D. 9 p. 644, 645.  
Kings of England, W. absolute, and unaccountable, or W. limited by Law, D. 10. p. 693, to 698.  
Most High in their State-Royal when they appear in their Great Councils, or Parliament, D. 9 p. 643.  
The first Eight Kings after the Conquest never were so styled till after their Coronations, D. 12. p. 840. to 858.895.  
King, though he have no Peer, yet he had anciently Comites, or Companions, D. 5. p. 364, 365.  
W. He can at this day abdicate or forfeit his Crown by the wilful violation of our fundamental Laws, D. 10. p. 694, to 709. D. 11. p. 832, 833.  
Kingly Power, the end of its Institution in this Kingdom, D. 5. p. 349.  
King de facto, or for the time being, W. within the Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third, and whether Allegiance be due to him by the Statute of the Eleventh of Henry the Seventh, D. 13. p. 905. to 940.  
What constitutes a legal King in England, D. 12. p. 889, 890.  
Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, W. when given by God's appointment, it gave the issue of that King a like Divine Right to succeed, D. 2. p. 99, 100  
Kingdoms Patrimonial, and Hereditary, their difference, Ib. 84, 85.  
Knights of Shires frequently styled Magnates, and Grantz in Ancient Records, D. 6. p. 424. vid. Append.  
W. They were anciently chosen out of the Tenants in Capite, and none others, p. 425.  
Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, W. the first Writs of Summons of them that can be found, is the 49th of Henry the Third, D. 7. p. 519.  
W. This was the first time that they were summoned, Ibid. p. 525, to 530.  
W. They were summoned no more till the Eighteenth of Edward the First, Ibid. p. 522. to the end. D. 8. p. 559. to 563. p. 571, to 576.    


L  
Lancaster, W. that Family's pretended Title to the Crown, claimed by Inheritance, D. 12. p. 861, 862.  
Laws, how far they oblige Princes, according to Sir R. F's Principles, D. 2. p. 120, 121.  
Laws Imperial of all Go●vernments, W. they require a Passive Obedience, or Nonresistance in all cases whatsoever, D. 3. p. 149.154.  
Law of Nations, W. it differs from the Law of Nature, D. 1. p. 26, to 31.  
Laws of English Saxon Councils, the Titles to most of them, D. 5. p. 314. to 319.  
Laws of Normandy, W. the same in most things with those of England, D. 10. p. 752.753.  
Laws fundamental of the Kingdom, W. there are any such things, and where to be found, D. 9 p. 666. to 669. D. 10. p. 704. D. 11. p. 810. to 814.  
Law of Edward the Confessor, concerning the Kings ceasing to be so, if he prove a Tyrant, and W. it be genuine or not, D. 10. p. 705. to 712.  
Private League with France, what Reasons there are for and against its reality, D. 11. p. 800. to 802.  
Liberi Homines, and Liberi Tenentes mentioned in Ancient Statutes and Records, who they were anciently, D. 6. p. 419.426. to 431.  
W. They were only Tenants in Capite, or chose by Military service to them, D. 7. p. 449. to 453.514.    


M  
Magna Charta, W. obtained by Rebellion, D. 3. p. 186.  
Magnates, W. the Commons were not sometimes comprehended under that Title, D. 6. p. 372.396, 397.  
Queen Marry, W. she had any Title, save by the Statute of Henry the Eighth, D. 12. p. 872.  
Our present Queen Mary, W. she hath a right to succeed upon her Father's abdication, Ib. p. 853. 884.  
Maud the Empress, why she never styled herself Queen of England, notwithstanding fealty had been sworn to her, D. 12. p. 846.  
Several Maxims in the Civil Law considered, and explained, D. 1. p. 17, 18, 21.30.  
The ancient Members of the Germane Diets or Great Councils, D. 6. p. 375.  
The Milites mentioned in ancient Statutes and Records, who they were, D. 6. p. 431, 432.  
W. They were only Tenants in Capite, or any other Tenants by Military or Socage service, D. 7. p. 481.489, 490.  
Mischiefs that may befall a People from their resistance of the Supreme Power considered, D. 3. p. 184. to 189.  
Monarchy, W. of Divine Right from any Precepts, or Examples in the Old or New Testament, D. 2. p. 130, 131.  
Or from Adam's Patriarchical Power, D. 1. p. 19 to 26.  
Monarchies or Commonwealths which are most Tyrannical, D. 2. p. 110.111.  
Mixed Monarchy, W. it be a Contradiction, D. 5. p. 345. to 348.  
Sim. Montfort. W. he first called the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses to Parliament, in the 49th of Henry the Third, D. 8. p. 596.597.  
Moses and Joshua, W. Monarches over the Children of Israel, and Successors to the Patriarchical Power, D. 2. p. 92. to 100  
Multitudo Cleri. & Populi, the signification of those words in our ancient Histories, D. 8. p. 569. to 571.    


N  
W. A whole Nation may resist the Supreme Power in some Cases of extremity, but not particular Persons, D. 3. p. 146. to 150.161, 162. D. 4. p. 236. to 239.272. to 275.  
Negative voice, W. the two Houses of Parliament have it not in some Cases as well as the King, D. 5. p. 341.  
Noah, W. he was sole Proprietor of the Earth, or else was Tenant in common with his own Children, D. 1. p. 74, 75.  
W. His Grandsons were all alike Princes over their several Families, Ib. p. 75. to 81.  
W. from Noah's Seven Precepts may be deduced the Law of Nature, D. 1. p. 36, 37.  
Nobilis, & Nobilitas, the several significations of those Titles, D. 6. p. 374, 388.410.  
W. Mere Commoners were not often comprehended under the Title of Nobiles, Ib. 396, 397.  
Non Obstantes, the Clause when first inserted in our King's Charters, D. 11. p. 820.  
Non Resistance, W. the Doctrine tend to make Princes better, or else more Tyrannical to their Subjects, D. 2. p. 116, 117.  
Normandy, W. its Dukes were absolute, or limited Princes, D. 10. p. 727.    


O  
Oath of the King at his Coronation, how far obliged according to Sir F's. Principles, D. 2. p. 122.123.  
It's ancient form, according to the mirror, D. 5.364.  
W. The taking the Coronation Oath renders the Crown forfeitable, if it be not observed, D. 10. p. 699.  
The form of the Oath since the Conquest, Ib. p. 711.  
Oath of Allegiance its interpretation, D. 5. p. 350.  
Oaths in the Acts for the Militia, of the 13th, and 14th of King Charles the Second, their true intent and meaning considered, D. 9 p. 631. to 635.659.  
New Oath of Allegiance, W. it may be taken to their present Majesties as King and Queen de facto, without acknowledgement of their right, D. 13. p. 903. to 909.  
How far it obliges the takers, Ibid. p. 907.908.  
W. Due to the King in Possession by reason of his protection, Ib. p. 949. to 954.  
Promissory Oaths, W. lawful, or not, Ib. 954. to 956.  
W. Any other stricter Oath be necessary, Ib. p. 957. to 963.  
Obedience Passive. W. it be not a Bull, D. 1. p. 41.  
The necessary consequences of that Doctrine, Ib. p. 4. to 9  
Officers and Soldiers who deserted King James W., justifiable in so doing, D. 11. p. 785, to 787.  
Omnes de Regno, mentioned in Magna Charta, W. only Tenants in Capite, D. 7. p. 490, to 494.  
W. The Oppressions of Princes, or the Ambition & Rebellion of Subjects, have caused the greater disturbances, D. 3. p. 182, 183.  
Optimates, its ancient signification in Histories discussed, D. 6. p. 372, to 376.  
W. It ever signifies mere Commoners, 397.  
Orange, W. that Princes making War upon King James was justifiable, D. 11. p. 781. to 789.  
W. All his other carriage towards the said King were as it ought to be, Ib. p. 789. to 798.  
Original Contract, W. there were ever any such thing, and where to be ●ound, D. 10. p. 704, 705. D. 11. p. 813.814.  
W. Broken by King James, Ib. 809, 810.813.814.    


P  
Pares Baronum, or Alii Magnates, who they anciently were, D. 7. p. 509.511.  
Parliaments or Great Councils, W. they are as ancient as the Government, or owe their Original to some King's favour, D. 5. p. 358, to 365.  
How often anciently held, D. 9 p. 668, D. 5.363.  
It's power when met, Ib. 364.  
No Laws to be made, or Taxes to be raised without it, D. 9 p 668.  
To have freedom of speech, and not to be bribed, or awed, Ibid.  
Paternal Power not to be acquired by Conquest, etc. D. 2. p. 105, 106.  
Patriarches before the flood, W. Lords of all Mankind, or or Masters of their own Families, D. 2. p. 70. to 72.  
St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, when written, D. 4. p. 248, to 250.  
Peers, their Power in Parliament, W. derived from he King, or the institution of the Government, D. 5. p. 366. to the end.  
Persons of Princes, W. they may be resisted without resisting their Authority, D. 4. p. 240. to 244.  
Whether so in England, D. 10.653. to 657.  
People, W. the Original of Civil Power asserted by Fortescue. D. 11. p. 779.  
Power R●gal, W. Paternal, D. 2. p. 101. to 104.  
People, W. they can judge when their fundamental Rights are invaded, D. 9 p. 669 670.  
W. If they may judge, they may also resist, D. 11. p. 780, 781.  
What numbers required to justify this resistance, D. 9 p. 669. to 671.  
Power Oeconomical, W. of the same kind with Civil, Ibid. p. 59.62.64.  
Power over men's lives whence derived, D. 1. p. 35. to 39.61.  
Power Civil, whence derived, W. immediately from God, or from the People, D. 11. p. 773. to 780.  
Power Legislative, W. in the King, and Parliament, D. 5. p. 312, 313.  
Power of dispencing with Penal Laws, W. it be an inherent Prerogative of the Kings, D. 11. p. 816. to 830.  
Supreme Powers, W. irresistible, because ordained by God, D. 4. p. 452. to 460.  
Plebs and Populus, what those words anciently signified, D. 6. p. 386. to 391. D. 8. p. 359. to 364.  
Primitive Christians, W. Men are now obliged to the same strict Rules of Nonresistance, as they were in the Primitive Times, D. 4. p. 272, to 277.  
Divers of their resistances of the Roman and Greek Emperors instanced, 280 to 282.  
Primogeniture as a Power over Brethren, W. of Divine Right, D. 2. p. 81. to 83.  
Princes, W. bound to treat their Subjects like their Children, D. 2. p. 105. to 110.  
Princepes Regni, its signification anciently, D. 6. p. 372.377.395.396.  
W. All the Privileges and Liberties English Subjects now enjoy, were owing to the favour of our former Kings, D. 2. p. 112. D. 5. p. 320, to 322.356.361, 362.  
Prelates and Peers claim their places in Parliaments by Prescription, D. 8. p. 559, to 564.  
Prescription beyond time of memory, how high it goes, Ibid. 583, to 593.  
Proceres Regni, its ancient signification, D. 6. p. 376.  
W. the Commons were not often comprehended under that Title, Ib. 395, 396. D. 8. p. 572.  
Protection of the Government, how far it may require Allegiance to it, D. 13. p. 946, to 952.  
Civil Property, W. derived from Adam, or Noah, D. 2. p. 133. to 136.  
Provincia, its ancient signification, W. a Province, or a County, Ibid. 565, to 569.  
Punishments for Offences, W. altered, and new ones ordained by King William the First, D. 10. p. 759.    


Q  
Queens often present in English Saxon Councils, D. 6. p. 393.    


R  
Rebels, W. bound to make their lawful Prince amends by restoring him to the Throne, D. 13. p. 939. to 944.  
Records in the Tower, and elsewhere, cited in these Dialogues.  
Rot. cart. 5 johan. D. 6. p. 386. Rot. clause 17. Edw. II. ibid. 396. Rot. Parl. 7 Rich. II. ibid. 397. Rot. claus. 24, & 26 of Hen. III. ib. 432. Rot. claus. 19 Hen. III. D. 7. p. 445. Inter Com. brevia, Mich. 42. Hen. III. ib. 446. Rot. Pat. 15. H. III. Rot. claus. 4. H. III. ib. 447. Rot. Pat. 15. johan. ibid. 449. Rot. cl. 42. H. III. ibid. 449. Rot. cl. 28. H. III. ibid. 454. Rot. cl. 26. H. III. ibid. 461. Rot. Pat. 42. H. III. p. 472. Rot. Pat. 48. H. III. Rot. cl. 49. H. III. Rot. Pat. 51. H. III. ibid. 475. Rot. cl. 28. Edw. I. ibid. 477. Rot. Par. 12. Edw. 2. p. 478 Rot. Par. 1. Edw. III. Rot. Parl. 12. Rich. II. ib. 478 Rot. Pat. 30th Edw. 1. Rot. Fin. 20. Edw. III. ib. p. 420. Rot. cl. 34. Edw. 1. ib. p. 483. Rot. cl. 19 H. III. Rot. Pat. 48. H. 3. ibid. p. 491. Rot. Pat. 48. H. III. ibid. p. 493. Rot. cl. 16. H. III. ib. p. 494. Rot. cl. 19 H. III. 495. Rot. cl. 11. H. III. Rot. cl. 33. H. III. Rot. cl. 52. H. III. ib. p. 496. Rot. Pat. 3 Edw. I. Rot. Pat. 20. E. 1. ib. p. 501. Rot. Pat. 17, 18. Ed. I. ib. p. 50●. Rot. cl. 6. johan. 26. H. III. 38. H. III. ib. p. 516. Rot. Pat. 48. H. III. Rot cl. 49. H. III. ib. 519. Rot. cl. 24. Edw. I. ib. p. 526. Rot. cl. 3. Ed. III. Rot. cl. 49. H. III. ibid. p. 527. Bundle: Brev. 18 Edw. I. p. 530, 531. Rot. cl. 23. E. 1. ib. 53. Rot. cl. 28. E. I. Rot. cl. 45. Ed. III. ib. 537. Rot. Stat. 25. E. 1. D. 8. p. 552. Rot. cl. 23. E. I. ib. p. 554. Rot. cl. 31. Ed. III. ib. p. 555. Rot. Pat. 54 H. III. ib. 573. Rot. Wal. 11. Ed. I. ib. 574.575. Rot. cl. 28. E. I. Rot. Pat. 8. Ed. II. ib. 576. Rot. Pat. 52. H. III. ib. p. 578. Bundle Brev. 5. Ed. II. Rot. Pat. 40. Ed. III. ib. p. 581. Rot. Pat. 2. H. V. ib. p. 582. Placit. Parl. 18. E. I. Rot. Parl. 18. Ed. III. ib. p. 584. inter Com. brev. in Scac. 34. Ed. I. Prins. Par Reg. p. 26.28.30. Ed. I. ib. p. 586. Parl. Reg. 8. Ed. II. 887. Rot. cl. 15. E. II. Rot. cl. 2. E. III. Rot. cl. 50. E. III. p. 588. Rot. Pat. 42. E. III. p. 599. Rot. Pat. 17. Ed. III. Rot. Parl. 51. E. III. p. 605.  
A Regency, W. legal, or practicable in England▪ upon King James' departure, D. 12. p. 877.  
Religion, in what Cases we are bound to suffer for it, without any resistance, D. 4. p. 222. to 235.  
The Remedies against Tyranny, the People of England can have without Resistance, considered, D. 4. p. 262. to 664.  
Resistance of Fathers, Husbands, and Masters, by their Wives, Children, and Servants, W. ever lawful, D. 1. p. 41. to 44. to 52.60.  
Resistance of the Supreme Powers, in what cases absolutely lawful, D. 3. p. 146. to 149▪ D. 4. p. 270.  
In what cases absolutely unlawful, D. 3. p. 176, 177.  
All the evil Consequences of such Resistance considered, D. 4. p. 261. to 264. D. 9 p. 649, 659 to 666.  
W. All resistance be forbidden by God in the Old Testament, D. 3. p. 190. to the end.  
W. Forbidden by the word of God in the New Testament, D. 4. p. 220. to 264.  
W. Contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England, Ib. p. 283.  
Resistance of the King, and those in Commission by him, W. absolutely ●orbid by the Statute of the seventh of Edward the First, against bearing of Arms, D. 8. p. 612.  
W. Contrary to the 25th of Edward the Third, concerning Treasons, Ib. to the end.  
Resistance of Arbitrary Power in our Kings, W. lawful both before, and since the Conquest, D. 9 p. 615, to 637.  
Such Resistance granted to be lawful by some of our Kings themselves, D. 9 p. 617.620.622.  
Rights and Liberties of the Subject, what they are. D. 9 p. 666, to 669.  
Rolls Clause, how many wanting in the Reigns of King John, and Henry the Third, D. 7. p. 517, 518.    


S  
Sapientes, its signification in Ancient Histories, D. 6. p. 377.  
Late Schism upon the Deprivation of the Bishops, W. justifiable, D. 13. p. 963, to 966.  
Scotland, W. it's ancient constitution were the same with England, D. 7. p. 503. to 505. D. 8. p. 559.  
W. None but Tenants in Capite ever appeared at the Great Councils of the Kingdom, Ib. to 510.  
Scutage Service, W. different from a Scutage Tax, D. 7. p. 439. to 440.479. to 481.  
Sermons for the King's Absolute Power, censured in Parliament, D. 1. p. 5.  
Servants, and Sons, W. all one in the State of Nature, D. 1. p. 54.  
Sheriffs Pardoned by Act of Parliament, for holding above one year, D. 12. p. 821.  
State's General of the United Provinces, W. their making War upon King James the Second were justifiable, D. 11. p. 781, 782.  
Ancient Statutes, W. the three Estates have not always given their Assent to them, as well as the King, D. 5. p. 330. to 348.  
Notwithstanding the different forms of Penning them, Ibid. D. 7. p. 484, 485.525.528, 529.  
Statue of the Eleventh of Henry the Seventh, Cap. 1. W. still in force, D. 13. p. 909. to 933.  
Statute of the Thirteenth of Elizabeth, Chap. 1. W. still in force, D. 12. p. 894. to 898.  
All Statutes though made by Usurpers, W. they hold good till repealed, D. 12. p. 909, 911, 912.  
Doctor Story's Case, D. 13. p. 950.  
Subjects, how different from Slaves, D. 4. p. 251. to 261.  
W. Particular Subjects may resist the Supreme Powers for satisfaction of their own private injuries, D. 4. p. 252.  
Succession to Crowns, no certain procepts to be found about it in Scripture, or the Law of Nature, D. 2. p. 89. to 90.  
Succession to the Crown of England, W. always Hereditary since the Conquest, without any vacancy of the Throne, D. 12. p. 839, to 875.  
Sufferings of Christ, how far an Example to us, D. 4. p. 227. to 233.  
Suffering for Religion without Resistance, when necessary, Ib. p. 231.    


T  
Tenants in Capite, W. they were all Barons, D. 6. p. 399.400.  
W. They could anciently Tax, the whole Kingdom at their pleasure, as well the Lands held of them, as what was not, D. 7. 440.479. to 483.500.  
W. They, or else Tenants by Knight's service, were anciently the only Persons who served upon juries, D. 10. p. 741. to 746.  
W. They represented all their under Tenants in Parliament, D. 7. p. 512.  
Tenants in S●●age, W. they were bound by the Acts of those of whom they held their Estates, D. 6. p. 420.  
Tenants in Demesne claimed to be discharged from the Knight's Wages by prescription, D. 8. p. 588, 589.  
Tenure by Knight's service, W. in use before King Wil I. D. 10. p. 750, 751.  
A new Test Oath opposed by a great party of the Poe●s in the Reign of King Charles the Second, D. 9 p. 659.  
Testaments, W. valid in the mere State of Nature, D. 2. p. 86, 87, 91.  
The several Texts of Scripture made use of for, or against absolute Nonresistance, examined; viz. in the Old Testament, D. 3. p. 190. to the end.  
Texts of Scripture out of the New Testament, urged for the like purpose, D. 4. p. 220. to 279.  
Thanes, the ancient signification of that Title discussed, D. 6. p. 374. to 379.  
The divers sorts of them amongst the English Saxons, D. 5. p. 370.  
Treason against the Kingdom, anciently as well as against the King, D. 5. p. 344.  
Trials by Combat, W. in use before the Conquest, D. 10. p. 758.  
Trust committed by the People to the Supreme Powers, W. unaccountable, and irrevocable, D. 3. p. 152.154.  
Insupportable Tyranny, W. worse than the State of Nature, Ib. 155.  
Tyrants, W. Ordained of God, D. 4. 245, 246.    


U  
Vavasors, or mesne Tenants, W. anciently reckoned as part of the Baronage of the Kingdom, D. 6. p. 405, 406.  
Universitas Baronagii Angliae, & Regni, what it signified, and W. the Commons were comprehended under that Title, D. 6. p. 408, 409, 415, 416.  
Universitas Communis, the meaning of that Phrase in Matthew Paris, D. 7. p. 470.  
W. It comprehended no more than the less Tenants in Capite, Ib. 471.  
Primate Ushers Opinion in his Treatise of the Power of the Prince, and Obedience of the Subject considered. D. 4. p. 271, 272.  
Usurpers by Sir R. filmer's Principles, to be obeyed before the Lawful Prince, and his Heirs, D. 2. p. 126, 127.  
When Usurpers may be obeyed before the Lawful Prince, and his Heirs, D. 4. p. 246.  
Usurpation, W. it gives a rightful Title after three Generations, D. 2. p. 128.  
Vulgus, what that word signified in the Latin Translation of the Old Coronation-Oath, D. 8. p. 560. to 563.    


W  
Wales, W. it's Titular Prince be really Son to King James the Second, and Queen Marry, D. 11. p. 784 to 789.  
W. He ought to have been received as the true Son and Heir of the said King, D. 12. p. 875. to 877. and that, let the consequences be what they will, Ib. p. 879. to 881.  
Wardship, Marriage, and Relief, W. wholly derived from the Normans, D. 10. p. 750.751.  
Its advantages and inconveniencies considered, Ib.  
A Wife, W. she can ever be discharged from the Power her Husband hath over her in the state of Nature, by any means, but by his express consent, D. 1. p. 43.  
King William the First, why styled the Conqueror, D. 5. p. 325.  
W. He claimed to be King of England by Donation of King Edward the Confessor, or by Conquest, D. 10. p. 715.718, 719.  
W. He was ever Elected, and took the same Coronation-Oath, as the English Saxon Kings had done before, D. 10. p. 716.722. to 737.  
W. He might justly have seized all the Lands in England to his own use, D. 2. p. 171.  
W. He gave most of the Lands of England to his followers, Ibid. p. 721, to 729. and to 747.  
W. He altered any thing in the fundamental constitution of the Government, D. 5. p. 320. to 322.  
W. He altered all the Old Laws of England, or confirmed those of King Edward, D. 10. p. 737. to 760.  
His Second Oath upon the Relics of St. Alban, Ib. 761, 762.  
His Laws concerning all Freemens exemption from Taxes upon their finding Arms, D. 6. p. 426, 427.  
W. He and his Son William Rufus made Laws, and imposed Taxes, without the consent of the Great Council, D 10. p. 744, 755.  
King William the Third, W. he hath any Title by Conquest over King James, or else from his Marriage with the Princess, and the Act of the Convention, D. 12. p. 883. to 899.  
His Religion, and Principles vindicated, Ib. 886, 887.  
Wites, or Wisemen in the English Saxon Councils, the true signification of that term, D. 6. p. 373. to 378.  
Wittena à Gemots, or Great Councils among the English Saxons, W. they consisted of more than the higher Nobility, Ib. p. 381.  
Wives, how far obliged to be obedient to the Commands of their Husbands, D. 1. p. 40.  
Writ of Summons to the commons, of the 49th of Henry the Third, W, it was the first of that kind, D. 7. p. 519. to 521.  
W. Any Writs of Summons of Bishops or Lords, to Parliament, are to be found before that time, Ib. p. 516.  
Writ of the 19th of Henry the Third to the Sheriff's, to levy two Marks Scutage upon Tenants by Knight's Service, holding of Tenants in Capite, Ib. 445▪  
Writ of the 24th of Henry the Third, commanding all Men holding a whole Knight's Fee of whatsoever Tenure to be Knighted, D. 6. p. 432.  
Writs of Summons to Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, to Parliament at Shrewsbury, in the 11th of Edward the First, D. 8. p. 574.  
Writ of Summons to Knights of Shires (cited by Dr. B.) in the 18th of Edward the First, W. it was to a Parliament, D. 7. p. 530. to 536.  
Writ of the 22d of Edward the First, W. a Summons to Parliament. D. 7. p. 533, 534.  
Writ of the 30th of Edward the First, commanding the Levying of Forty Shillings upon each Knight's Fee, which had been granted ever since the Eighteenth, Ibid. p. 479.  
W. The Commons Granted that Tax, Ibid.  
Writs of the 28th of Edward the First, and 45th of Edward the Third, W. of Summons to Parliaments, Ib. 537.  
Writs for Expenses to Knights of Shires, how ancient, D. 8. p. 589. to 591.    


Y  
Duke of York, Richard his Title declared in Parliament, D. 12. p. 863.  
Edward Duke of York, Recognized by Parliament, to be lawful King, from the Death of his Father, Richard Duke of York, Ib. p. 865.  
Duke of York James, W. he was not entirely in the French Interest, and Designs, before he came to the Crown, D. 11. p. 802.     

AN APPENDIX, Containing some Authorities sit to be added, for farther confirmation of some things laid down in the foregoing Dialogues.  
TO be added to Dialogue the Fourth, p. 290. at the end of F— s Speech, [after these words] no particular Church can, read thus,  
And that divers of the most Eminent Divines of our Church have used the same freedom with several other Doctrines contained in these Homilies, may appear from Dr. Hammonds, Dr. heylin's, and Dr. Tailors, with several other Eminent Writers, expressly denying, that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry, or, that the Pope is Antichrist; tho' both these Doctrines are as plainly laid down in the 
Vide 2d Vol. of Homil. 1st, 2d, and 3d part of the Sermons against Idolatry, especially the last, p. 156.162, 163.  Homilies, as the Doctrine of Nonresistance. And yet none of these Men are ever taxed by those of the Church of England, for quitting her Ancient Orthodox Doctrines; and I desire you to give me a good Reason (if you can) why it is more lawful and excusable to part with the former of these Doctrines, than the latter?  
The like I may say also for the Doctrine of Predestination; which though expressly asserted in the 36 Articles of the Church of England, as interpreted by all the Bishops, and Writers, in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, and King james, as also the Bishops and Divines sent as Delegates from our Church, to the Synod of Dort, who joined in the interpretation of that Article, in the strict Calvinistical sense; you find in all the determinations of that Synod against the Doctrines of the Arminians, which then began to prevail; yet since the time that Archbishop Laud had the nominating of what Persons he thought fit to be made Bishops, Deans, etc. not one in ten of them but have been Arminians in all those Points, wherein they wholly differ from the Doctrine of Calvin, which is but the same with that of our 36 Articles so interpreted; yet none of the Divines of our present Church, who hold these Opinions, are branded with Apostasy from its Ancient Doctrine; but if any well meaning Divine, out of love to his Country, and to prevent Popery and Slavery from breaking in upon us, have but Preached or Published any thing in derogation to these Darling Doctrines of Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance, he is strait branded with Apostasy from the Church, in quitting its main distinguishing Character; and we have lately seen Degrading, nay, the most cruel Whipping, and Imprisonment thought too little for such a Man; but one may say of some Men with truth enough, 
Dat veniam Corvis, vexat censura Columbis.   
So Dialogue the Sixth, p. 397. at the bottom, [after these words] in those times, read this,  
But that the House of Commons were anciently often comprehended under the stile of Grantz (which is the same with Magnates in Latin) pray consult the Parliament Rolls of Edward the Third, 
N. 6.  where you will find in the 4 th' of that King, this passage; & est assentu, & accord per nostre & Seigneur le Roy, & tous les Grantz in plain Parliament; (that is, in full Parliament, where both Lords and Commons were present) that the Proceedings of the Lords against those that were no Peers should not be drawn into Example, etc. Now pray see the Commentaries of the most Learned and Reverend Author of the Grand Question, 
P. 115.  upon these words in this Record; This hath all the formality of an Act of Parliament, and therefore all the Estates were present, so likewise in the same year; in the next Roll but one; 
N. 8.  Accord est per nostre Seigneur le Roy, & son Counsel in Plain Parliament; which was an Act of Parliament, concerning those that had followed the Earl of Lancaster. 
N. 10.  So in the 5th of this King, we have the particular mention of the Bishops, as some of those who make a full Parliament; Accord est per nostre Seigneur le Roy, Prelates, Counts, Barons, & autres Grands de Roia●me in plain Parliament. 
N. 5.  So in the 6 th' of Edward the Ill d, the Archbishop of Canterbury made his Oration in plain Parliament, which is thus explained, en le presence nostre Seigneur le Roy, & tous les Prelates, & autres Grantz. And in another Roll, si est accord & assentu per tous in plain Parliament; 
N. 9  and who these were, we are told in the same Roll; viz. les Prelates, Counts, Barons, & tous les autres Summons à misme Parliament.  
Now this is the clearest explication of these words in full Parliament, viz. in the presence of all those who were Summoned; so that if the Commons were then Summoned to this Parliament, (as certainly they were) they must have given their Assents under the Title of Grantz; since the Prelates, Earls, and Barons were particularly mentioned before.  
To Dialogue the 10 th', p. 706. after these words, be Reform by them, or not, read thus,  
And that King james the First, himself was satisfied of this Original Contract, may appear by his own words, in a Speech to both Houses of Parliament, 1609. where he expressly tells them, that the King binds himself by a double Oath to the observation of the fundamental Laws of his Kingdom, Tacitly, as being a King, and so bound to Protect, as well the People, as the Laws of his Kingdom; and expressly by his Oath at his Coronation; so as every King in a settled Kingdom, is bound to observe that paction made to his People by his Laws, in framing the Government as agreeable thereunto, according to that paction which God made with Noah after the Deluge, etc.  
To Dialogue 12. p. 874. after their Successors, add this.  
So that all the Modern Acts of Parliament for intailing the Crown, being made and ordained by the Counsel and Assent of the Lords, and Commons, are so many plain declarations, and evident Recognitions, what the Fundamental Constitution of the English Government was in that grand Point.  
To Dialogue the 12 th', p. 898. after the words of the said Parish, read thus; and that not only all the Private Acts of that Parliament, but some Public ones also, tho' never confirmed in the following Parliament of the 13th of Charles the Second, are yet held good in Law, appears by these that follow, viz. 
12. Car. 2. c. 3.   
1. An Act for Continuance of Process, and judicial Proceedings, Continued.  
By which, all Writs, Pleas, Indictments, etc. then depending, were ordered to stand, and proceeded on, notwithstanding want of Authority in the late Usurpers; and therein it was farther ordained, that Process and Proceedings in Courts of Justice, should be in the English Tongue, and the general Issue be Pleaded, till August 1. 1660. as if the Acts made during the Usurpation, for that purpose, had been good and effectual Laws.  
And upon this foot only, stand many Fines, Recoveries, Judgements, and other Proceedings at Law had and passed between April 25, 1660, and August 1. 1660. 
12. Car. 2. c. 17.   
2. An Act for Conforming and Restoring of Ministers.  
This Act is usually to this day, set forth and pleaded in Quare impedits, tho' it was said to be refused upon debate to be confirmed in the House of Commons, 13th of Car. II. when divers other Acts of the same time were confirmed; 
13. Car. 2. c. 17. etc.  yet both these Acts having no other Authority but from that Convention (as you call it) have been Judged and Constantly allowed to be good Laws, for above these 30 years.  
To Dialogue the 13 th', p. 966. after these words, were still alive, read this,  
And to show you that the King and Parliament have deprived even Bishops of their own Communion, and that such deprivations have been held good, and that the King hath nominated new Bishops upon the vacancy, 
148. P. 123.  you may see in Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation, and in the Appendix to it, where you will find a memorable Act of Parliament of the 25 th' of Henry the VIII, (before his departure from his obedience to the See of Rome) whereby Cardinal Campegio, and Hieronimo de Ghinicci were deprived of the Bishoprics of Salisbury, and Worcester, which they had held for near 20 years, and Campegio had without doubt been installed in it when he was in England.  
The Act itself being so remarkable, I shall give you some passages out of it verbatim; first the Preamble sets forth, that whereas before this time the Church of England by the Kings most Noble Progenitors, and the Nobles of the same, hath been founded, ordained, and established in the Estate and degree of Prelacy, Dignities, and other Promotions Spiritual, etc. (which sufficiently confirms what I but now asserted, that all the Bishoprics were founded by our Kings, with the consent of their Grand Councils, or Parliaments) and then it proceeds to recite, that whereas all Persons promoted to Ecclesiastical Benefices, aught to reside within the Realm, for Preaching the Laws of Almighty God, and keeping hospitality; and since these Prelates had not observed these things, but lived at Rome, and carried the Revenues of their Bishoprics out of the Kingdom, contrary to the intention of the Founders, and to the great prejudice of the Realm, etc. in consideration whereof, it is Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament, that the said two Sees, and Bishoprics of Salisbury, and Worcester, and either of them, henceforth shall be taken, reputed, and accounted in the Law to be void, vacant, and utterly destitute of any Incumbent, or Prelate, and then follows a Clause enabling the King, his Heirs, and Successors, to nominate and appoint Successors (being the Natives of this Realm) to the said Sees, and the King did nominate Successors according to the said Act.   

A Table of ERRATA.  
THE Author's Occasions not permitting 〈…〉 Town whilst most of these Dialogue▪ were in the Press, begs pardon for the many Erratas in some of them, and desires you to Correct such gross ones, that alter or disturb the sense, viz.  
Dial. 1. p. ●0. l, 24. for Author, r. Authority. p. 52. l. 37. for 4th, r. 5th. p. 36. l. 38. for Rights, r. Rites. Dial. 2. p. 80. l. 25. del. hundred, r thousand, p. 80, l. 22. d. Greek. p. 84. l. 1●, 14. d. Trogus Pampilus, r. justin, p. 85. l. 19 after to be, r. Heir. p. 90. d. thought, r. got. p. 92. l. 6. for Durate. l. ●6. after exercised, r. not. p. 101. l. 43. after no, r. other. p. 124. l. ●1. for Valentino, r. Valentiniano. p. 134. l. 4. this whole Paragraph is misplaced, as no where said, and which should be inserted. p. 130. l. 46. after the words absolute Monarchy. ● 112. l. 32. d. Paul, r. Peter. p. 134. l. 12 d. but as for the other. p. ●●●. l. 10 after us that, ●. in the time of p. 136. l. 28. d. I would readily do it. D. 3. in Advertizement works, r. words. p. 1●1. l. 1. d. but, ●. by. D. 4. p. 224. l. 13. d. ends, r. hands. D. 5. p. 364. at l. 18. d. M. r. F. D. 6. p. 179. l. 1●. d. is plain by, r. is may be. p. 100L. l. 18. part of c●●●erunt, r. percu●●erunt. p. 418, l. 35. for soli, r. solido●. p. 429. l. 35. d. which I now cited, p. 43●, l. 1. which, r. of which. D. 7. p. p. 600. d. M. r. ●. p. 527. after equivocal, r. words p. ●●2. l. 40. d. other matters, r. of Summons. D. 9 p. 66●. l. ●0. d. Government, r. Go●t. ●. ●7●, for the Judges, ●. some of the Judges. D. 10. in the Preface. p. 2. l. i●. d. pretended. ●. late. p. 601. ●. 17. for Monarcho●, r. Monarchomachos. p. 6●3. l. 43. for volu●tas, r. voluntar p. 906 l. ●ule ●. so Kings. 9 709. l. 10. d. as r. for which. l. 11. after our r. Norman Kings. p. 7●●. l. 10. ● r. that ib. l. 39 after English, r. Saxon. ib. their r. the ib. after An●●●fter. r. of our Kings, 712. l. 14. indefensible, ●. indefeasibleness. p. 714. l. 11. d. power. p. 712. Gemminicen●●s, r. Gemeticensts. p. 721. l. 16. after hereditary, r. right. p. 7●●. l. 26. after these. d. of p. 7●7. l. 19 d. not. lr. r. resistible. p. 731. l. 11. d. not only gone through, but. p. 712. l. 2. there, r. who there. p. 733, l. 36. d. but that a residue of the English. ib. l. 37 after signified, r. something. p. 734. Chalow●, r. Chalices. l. ulr. hiberasque r. liberas●▪ p. 735. Albi●●, r. Albint. p. 736, l. 18. Dreugari●, r. Drungarii. Dreuch●●, r. Drenches, l. 19 r. Drenges. p. 737. l. 14. after leaf, r. observes. p. 739. l. 92. ordinal, r. 〈◊〉. p. 740. l. 8. d. that. r. it so. p. 743. l. 15. Tests, r. Teste●. l. 41. d. by virtue of p. 746. ● a that, r. then that. l. 4. were, r. who were. p. 750. l. 10. ●. not. p. 7●1● l. ●. d. that we may in ●. of l. 41. d. so as, r. these. p. 42. d. provided, r. reserved. p. 7●●. l. ●. d. as well as, r. thus. lb. the work, r. this work. p. 755. l. 31. d. Peptilo, r. weregild, ib. after A●●●sta●, 〈◊〉, ●. thus, after that time, instead of Fines. Corporeal Punishments came in use. p. 7●9. l. 13. d. either. p. 760. l. 26. d. that, r. falfity. D. 11. p. 782. l. 21. after you, r. affirm, p. 807. d. decrees, r. duresse. p. 821. l. 34. d. Act, r. first. D. 12. p. 886. l. ●5. d, VI, r. IU. p. 888. l. to after a●, r. as well as D. 13. Preface, p. 5. l. 23. for, r. 〈◊〉 p 913. l. 8. d. their, r. his.