the Crown as an Imperial Crown and the Kingdom as an Empire So Sir John Davis in the Case of Praemunire or Conviction of Solar 4 Jac. upon the Statute of the 16 R. 2. c. 5. published by Sir John Pettus Yet if we look into the Stories and Record of these two Imperial Kingdoms we shall find that if these Laws of Provision and Praemunire had not been made they had lost the name of Imperial and of Kingdoms too and had been long since made Tributary Provinces to the Bishop of Rome or rather part of St. Peter's Patrimony or Demesn c. pag. 6 7 c. And L. Ch. Justice Cook Rep. of the Ecclesiastical Laws printed with the former describes the Empire of the Kingdom of England in these words And therefore by the Ancient Laws of this Realm this Kingdom of England is an Absolute Empire and Monarchy Consisting of One Head which is the King and of a Body Politick compact and compounded of many and almost infinite several and yet well-agreeing Members c. pag. 46. Observe he makes not the King to be absolute Emperor over his Subjects giving them Edicts for Laws and ruling them in an Imperial way but the Kingdom of England whereof the King is Head with his Body is an Empire So I do with submission to my Teachers conclude that the Crown and Kingdom of England is Imperial that is Independent in respect of the Pope or any other foraign Superior but that the Crown and King is not Imperial in respect of the Subjects of England giving them Laws and Edicts according to his own Will for all our Laws are made with the Consent of Lords and Commons 3. The Kings of England are Supreme Governours next and immediately under God. But let us keep to the word Governour or Administrator There are two things in a Government Constitution There a difference between Governour and Legislator and Administration The Fundamental Constitution of this Government is by King Lords and Commons The King is not the sole Legislator Power and Supreme Power is lodged there onely where Legislation is The Legislative Power is in the Parliament the Parliament doth consist of King Lords and Commons jointly Hear what King Charles the First acknowledged in his Answer to the XIX Propositions pag. 18. of the first Edition In this Kingdom the Laws are jointly made by a King by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons chosen by the People all having free Votes and particular Priviledges The Government according to these Laws is trusted to the King. The most high and absolute Power of the Realm of England consisteth in the Parliament which representeth and hath the Power of the whole Realm both the Head and the Body Sir. Tho. Smith De Repub. Angl. B. 2. c. 1. And tho we acknowledg the King to be the only Supreme Governor the very word Governor doth limit the word Supreme For being a Governor according to Law not made by his own Will or Authority but by the Consent of the three Estates in Parliament he is limited as Governor to govern according to Law And so being a limited Governor his Supremacy is a limited Supremacy He is Supreme next under God that is there is no Governor over him or above him If there were any Governor over him he would not be Supreme He who is Governor only according to Law cannot of his own Will and should not follow such Counsellors as put him upon Courses destructive of the Laws by which he ought to govern 4. Our Supreme Governor is trusted with many Royal Prerogatives for the Good and Welfare of the Subjects So K. Ch. I. acknowledged in his Answer to the XIX Propositions For our Subjects sake these Rights are vested in us p. 17. The Prince may not make use of this high and perpetual Power to the hurt of those for whose Good he hath it p. 19. Therefore he cannot command what he will nor change the Government and Religion of the Kingdom established by Law as hath been design'd of late 5. Our Supreme Governor is such a Governor that is also bound to keep the Law and is subject himself to Law. There are many Cases wherein a Subject in maintainance of his Right may wage Law with the King c. saith Bishop Saunderson Sect. 12. And King James the 1st in his Speech in the Star-Chamber June 20. 1616. said I was sworn to maintain the Law of the Land and therefore I had been perjur'd if I had alter'd it p. 13. What then if the Laws and Government in the Essentials of it come to be chang'd K. But there are some Ancient Lawyers of greatest Authority who say Nemo presumat de faciis ejus Regis disquirere nedum contra factum ejus venire T. I remember I have read those words father'd upon Bracton by your late R. R. Bishop of Chester in his Speech at Magdalen Colledg The words of Bracton are these which either his Lordship had not read in the Author or had forgotten Nemo quidem de factis suis presumat disputare multà fortiùs contra factum suum venire l. 1. c. 8. But if he had considered what that venerable Author hath written in the same Chapter before those words he had rather dissuaded the King from that Action against the Colledg than have serv'd him in it Ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo c sub Lege Quia Lex facit Regem Attribuat igitur Rex Legi quod Lex attribuit Ei videlicet Dominationem potestatem Non enim Rex ubi Dominatur voluntas non Lex Et quidem sub Lege esse debeat cum sit Dei Vicarius c. The same Sentences misrepeated by that late Bishop of Chester are to be seen in Fleta who flourished in the same Age with Bracton and gives to Posterity the Face which the Law had in the Days of Edw. 1. As Mr. Selden saith in his Dissertatio ad Fletam immediately after those words nec contra factum suum venire these words follow Verum tamen in populo regendo superiores habet ut Legem per quam factus est Rex Et Curiam suam viz. Comites Barones Comites enim à Comitiva dicuntur qui cum viderint Regem sine fraeno fraenum sibi apponere tenentur c. Temperent igitur Reges potentiam suam per Legem quae fraenum est potentiae l. 1. c. 17. p. 17. And Sect. 2. of that Chapter derives Rex non à regnando â bene regendo nomen assumitur Rex verò dum benè regit Tyrannus verò dum populum suâ violatâ opprimitur dominatione Such a Supreme Governor we acknowledg the King of England to be And what can you infer from hence K. But the Reverend Bishop Saunderson speaks as plainly as can be That a mixt Monarchy is an errand Bull and Contradiction in adjecto And therefore the King hath
to the Pope This would be to swear against Him and not for Him. I look upon it as a Priviledg that I had no occasion to be called to take those Oaths in his time It was one of his best Acts of Indulgence to dispence with the taking of them though the Design was to open a Door for Popery to come in K. But though you took not the Oaths in the late King's Time you took them in the Time of Charles the 2d and were obliged to James the 2d as his Heir and Successor and so to the Heirs and Successors you owe Allegiance Subjection and Defence T. I do confess I do to Heirs and Successors that are Protestants by these Oaths and to no other Heirs or Successors but such as are Protestants or of the Reformed Religion in opposition to Popery The Oath of Supremacy was devised to put a Difference between Papists and them of our Profession so was this Oath of Allegiance to put a difference between the civilly Obedient Papists and the perverted Disciples of the Powder-Treason saith the Learned K. Jam. I. Apology for the Oath of Allegiance p. 46 47. By taking these Oaths I testified my self to be a Protestant and a Loyal Subject but it was to no other than a Protestant King in being and Protestant Heirs and Successors in time to come I say only to Protestant Successors and Heirs because else the main Supposition of those Oaths is laid aside For a Popish Successor and Heir doth not maintain his own Preheminence nor honour of his Imperial Crown for he becomes a Subject to the Papal Spiritual Jurisdiction if not Temporal also I can only declare He ought to be Supreme in his Realm But cannot testify and declare that He is for he hath made himself a Subject to Papal Jurisdiction The Supposition of the Oath of Allegiance is that the King of England is an Heretick and for Heresy Excommunicated and being Excommunicated he may be deposed and his Subjects discharged of their Allegiance and several other things dangerous to Him. But we cannot suppose the Pope will Excommunicate and Depose or do any other Papal Acts against a Son of his Church I know the Oaths are required by Law in many Cases and were taken by many worthy Men in the Reign of the late King but can be justified no further than as they contain and opposition against Popery as I conceive in my simple Opinion But letting this pass tho the taking of God's Name in vain in any part of an Oath is a great Sin and must be repented of The words are Heirs and Successors if there be an Heir of the Body of the King to succeed or a Successor in want of an Heir the Oath supposeth a Failure in the Line but not in the Succession No Man is called upon to take these Oaths till there be a Successor actually apparent and acknowledged My Oath to the King and his Heirs and Successors binds me then to no more than to actual Allegiance to the King in Being and to a preparation of mind to bear Faith and Allegiance to his Heirs and Successors when they ascend the Throne But yet let it be remembred that in the Ancient Oaths of Allegiance there is no mention of Heirs and Successors but only to the King in being See the Oath of Allegiance to K. Will. I. in Sir. H. Spelm. Glossary Ver. Legantia and to Hen. II. out of Nubrigenses And many Instances to this purpose are brought by the Learned Author of the Rights of the Kingdom p. 33. c. And tho Sir you will not be pleased to hear more of this If the Crown of England had been Hereditary there had been no need of swearing Subjects to the Heirs and Successors in the time of the King Regnant And one Reason as Rev. Mr. Lawson thinks why these words Heirs and Successors were put into the Oath was That seeing Election and Succession was usually in a Line it was intended to exclude Pretenders and all Power of the Pope or any other to dispose of the Crown when the former Possessor was removed or deceased Polit. sacra Civilis p. 215. And I pray Sir give me the meaning of those words in the Oath of Supremacy And to my Power shall Assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminencies and Authorities Granted or belonging to the King's Highness his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of the Realm By whom were these Jurisdictions Preheminences and Authorities granted and Annexed if not by Parliament the Representatives of the Community of England And if by Parliament then I leave you to infer K. Do you insinuate as tho you thought any Prerogatives were granted by Parliaments If so then you seem to derive the Authority of the Crown from the People originally which Opinion is to be abhorred and tends to dissolve the Government If so again you seem to make the Crown to sit upon the Severaign's Head by Compact and Election Whereas the Excellent Bishop Saunderson doth by a Chain of Arguments expose the vanity of such Imaginations to be hist or laught at Pref. Sect. 16. T. You put me upon searching into many hard things which I will enquire into as being desirous to know the truth that I may more chearfully perform Obedience And first I deny your Consequence that if Power be derived from the People then will it follow that the People may change the Government Because the Government being settled we are all obliged to preserve the Constitution as long as we possibly can and as long as all Degrees keep in their places and act according to the Laws of the Constitution we cannot changes it for a Better 1. As I do perceive the Crown and Soveraignty of the Kingdom of England is Hereditary by Election The Power and Authority is from God who hath distinguished Persons into Superiors Inferiors and Equals and hath tied them to mutual Duties in the fifth Commandment But the different forms of Government are made by the Wisdom and Consent of the Community in a Representative K. Ch. I. who was Learned and Judicious speaks in praise of the Government and of our Ancestors and acknowledgeth it The Wisdom and Experience of our Ancestors moulded this Government And so this Government as far as it was moulded by them is an Ordinance of Man or an Humane Creature It was the Wisdom of our Ancestors and their Wisdoms could not at first find out or make a perfect Mould but it seems tried and mended and in Time by Experience and Wisdom cast it into the present Mould Answ to the XIX Propos as before quoted 2. The Kings of England were Elected and chosen to the Office and Trust of Kingly Government This is clear enough from the British through the Saxon and Danish Kings to William the First called the Conqueror and we derive our Common Laws from the Saxons as I am informed I will shew you what the Ancient
the Souls of many that are liable to Temptation to yield to its Charms or be exposed to its Furies You must choose either Holy-Water or Blood. Had he been driven away by the Flaming Sword of Rebellious Subjects you might have some pretence for your Murmurings but not daring to trust his own great Force nor the Men of his own Religion and having no Confidence in God whose tremendous Providence hath conveyed him away I think you have no cause to wish for him again but to think that well done which God hath done K. But can you think the Nation innocent in this matter And if our Deliverance from some Mischiefs be considerable yet if the People have sinned we have small cause to be thankful And seeing I have no Legal Command from my Ordinary and that Ash-Wednesday is the Day before I will keep that and hope no notice will be taken for my not observing the other T. And why not both I am sure you have not been so nice about other Thanksgivings K. I have no Book T. Our Prayers for the Queen and Prince of Wales were commonly called Modest Prayers Then you want a Book of Prayers modestly penn'd Will you do nothing from your Heart no more than you will do without Order by the Apparitor on your own Head But will you read the Litany and Denunciations sicut olim as you are commanded to do on Ash-Wednesday or will you omit them K. I will do as the Law requires and according to my Declaration of Assent to all and every thing contained in c. T. Then you will still pray for the King tho he deserted the Kingdom not as much as leaving a Commission for Administrators in his Absence then you will pray that he may be kept and preserved in the true worshipping of God which he hath not done since he became a Papist then you will pray for the Queen and Prince of Wales still right or wrong and that God would give the King the victory over all his Enemies What without fighting And who are they Are they reputed his Enemies or his Friends who sign'd the Association at Guild-Hall and do you pray he may be in a condition to fight against them and overcome them too And who will you mean when you denounce him Cursed who removeth his Neighbours Landmark The King who turn'd out the President and Fellows of Magdalen-Colledg which is a little more than gaining a little Ground by removing the Land-marks or the Convention who labour to find out the ancient Bounds and Foundations remov'd by Arbitrary Goverment for my part I deal truly with you I cannot pray every Petition contained in the Book of Common-Prayer notwithstanding Assent declared for tho there be no Alterations made in the Book there is an Alteration made in Things and Persons that I look upon my self as so far discharged from the Obligation of the Act except I should offer that to God which I believe he will not accept K. Then you will presume to make publick Prayers of your own without Authority T. When this was written I had no Book but rather than loose a Shilling for a Book not worth Two Pence after the Rate of Paper and Print so basely Printed that it would even blind a pair of Specticles to read it I had one sent me the Evening before in which there was no Order for a Sermon nor Homily against Rebellion And therefore they who preached not that Day may plead their Excuse for none was required Why not pray without a Book as well as preach without One on such an Occasion as this especially If Superiors neglect their Duty I know no reason why I should neglect mine The Scripture is as full of matter for Prayer and Praise as for Preaching And altho God hath by his Providence as much as blotted out several parts of the Common-Prayer and transported the King yet that Command and Act of his Will continues still in force Let Prayers and Supplications and giving of Thanks be made for all men for Kings and such as are in Authority There are some still in Authority and therefore I am obliged to pray for them and to give Thanks And tho I cannot make Versicles for a Dialogue between the Minister and Clerk there are Psalms and Chapters as proper for this service as for other and I hope more proper than those for the Prince of Wales and the Queen's being with Child and I might name more than those And I hope to find matter enough for a large Thanksgiving K. But where will you find Precedents in Scripture for the Insurrections of Subjects against their Lawful Prince and Soveraign or for a Son and Nephew to invade the Kingdom of his Father and Uncle or for a Convention of Subjects to depose their natural Lord and King T. I might ask you as many Questions on the other side But not to tire my self with talk to Day I will come home to the Present Case and lay all these things together The Case openedt 1. The King being a Zealous Papist wishing all his Subjects were of his Religion in the Declaration of Indulgence and governed by the Jesuits it is impossible for him to keep his Word or Declarations made to his Protestant Subjects any further than shall serve their Designs and Interests 2. How the King kept his Promises to govern by Law to invade no Mans Property to maintain the Church of England ask the Judges enquire at Cambridge and Oxford and the late Chancellor and Ecclesiastical Commissioners 3. Popery was disseminated all over the Land Mass-Houses publick Papists put in Offices Schools opened and taught by Jesuits c. contrary to Law. 4. The King declared Himself absolute having an inherent power in Himself to dispence with Statutes Another Argument that there was no hold to be taken of his Word or Promises For if he do not keep the Statutes made by his Royal Assent and his Predecessors how can we expect firmness in verbal Promises and Declarations And if his Power be Arbitrary and absolute he may change and recede from his Word as often as he doth change his Mind and Councils King James II. chang'd the Government 5. He changed the form of Government and Constitution from an English Monarchy and Independent from an imperial Crown to a subjection to the Pope and See of Rome And whether He be any longer King of England than he is Supreme in his Dominions and that in Opposition to the Bishop of Rome by Name I dare refer it to your self He hath lost his legal claim to the Monarchy of the Kings of England by Subjection to the Roman Pontiff K. But tho he has yet the Order and Authority of Kings being of the Law of Nature He is Sovereign still tho he hath degraded Himself from the dignity and Supremacy of the King of England by the Law of England T. Sir You are mistaken in that Point for you
Chief Commander And have not our Peers and Commons as good right to preserve and settle the Government now as any of their Forefathers had How long shall the Nation stay for this King's Return He best knew the Reasons for his deserting the Government and if the Kingdom had delayed to settle it Self he would then have by the Counsellors of Evil had made us see a greater necessity of having him and wrought upon our wanting him for a Head to go besides our selves like a distracted People a foolish People of no understanding In our Case we had as good Reason to settle the Government as ever People had to put themselves into a Form and Order And it is an inestimable Mercy that God presented to us such Royal Persons so nearly related to the Inheritance of the Crown to fill up the Vacancy James the 2d was not deposed nor molested neither for his Religion as inconsistent as it was with the Religion Government and Happiness of the Kingdom The Accusation of Deposing the King is altogether untrue He made the Vacancy and when it was made it must be filled up Come Doctor now let us follow Dr. F. to the next Section K. There you will see what he saith of the general Declaration of Loyalty T. So I do p. 337 c. The more general Acknowledgment for the preservation of the King's Safety is that which is required by the Act of Uniformity and enjoined upon all Civil and Military Officers The first Clause of which is that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King c. p. 338. The sense of this is no more than what the Church of England and Eminent Members thereof hath constantly acknowledged Homil. of Obed. part 2. Can. of 1640. Judiciam Vniversitat is Oxoniensis The Doctor goes on to give some explication of the Oath N. 3. This Clause being framed and enjoin'd by an English Parliament not without respect to the disloyal and unchristian Proceedings in this Nation and tendred to English Subjects and relating particularly to the King not indefinitely to any King can bear no other rational Construction than to condemn the English Subjects taking Arms against their Natural Sovereign the King of England And therefore though the like Attempts against any other Kings who enjoy Soveraign Authority are equally blameless in their Subjects yet this Position doth not assert the utter unlawfulness of taking Arms amongst other Nations against him who hath the Title of King if he doth not therewith enjoy the Right of Supreme Government which our Kings have and exercise And therefore in such a Constitution as the Lacedemonian was and Tabrobana c. we are not concerned p. 339. The true Friends of the Church of England have been free from disloyal Actions and Assertions N. 4. He repeats several pretences for War but all unlawful c. Sir I am resolved to be brief with you Therefore shall make some short Remarks 1. I note He grants the position holds of the K. of England because he hath and exerciseth Soveraign Authority Why Dr. Falkner should be honoured who saith as much as Calvin did yet Calvin is commonly branded and Dr. F. admired and honoured see Calv. Instit cap. ultimo L. 4. Sect. 31. doth shew us the power of Prejudice 2. The reason why our Kings must not be resisted is because they have Soveraign Authority Which really is but a limited Soveraignty of Administration and not of Legislation The Law makes the King to be Supreme Governor and not sole Legislator and it hath been debated Whether the King can refuse to sign such Bills as have past both Houses according to the Order of the Houses His Power of Calling and Dissolving Parliaments at his own Pleasure hath been deemed an Usurpation upon the Rights and Liberties of the Kingdom K. Ch. I. in his Answer to the xix Prop. confesseth In this Kingdom the Laws are jointly made by a King by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons chosen by the People all having free Votes and particular Priviledges The Government according to these Laws is trusted to the King. You see then what a Soveraign Prince our King is only in some respect 3. Another Reason against taking Arms and for the Soveraign Power of Kings is because the jus Gladii is in the Hand of the King determined by the Word of God as Bp Saunderson affirms Pref. Sec. 15. and is determined to belong to the Kings of England as Dr. Falkner pleads p. 347. Be it so yet this is far also from the present Case truly stated The late Invasion and Insurrection was not to take the Power of the Sword from the King nor to deprive him of that Authority which he had from God and the Laws The Power of the Sword and Militia is not intrusted in the King's Hand for the Destruction but Protection of his Subjects The Office of the King and the use of the Sword is declared to be for the punishment of Evil-Doers Rom. 13.4 But what when the Sword of the Magistrate is abused against a Kingdom 's Right and Safety The Militia which the Apostle speaks of in that place is a Power to Punish and to take Vengeance upon Evil-doers according to their Crimes And the Sword being the Instrument of the sorest and highest degree of Punishment which is Capital Punishment comprehends under it all degrees of Punishments And this Power of the Sword which is chiefly placed in the Hand of the Supreme Magistrate is distributed in the Hands of all inferior Magistrates and Officers that administer Justice and punish Offenders What is this to the raising of Armies maintaining standing Armies Disposing in order to have them made Parliament-Men by false Returns disposing Military Officers into places of Civil Government and to debauch all places whereever they come and to oppress the Nation And here 's another Consideration worthy your Notice That a King that maintains Arbitrary Power by the Sword against Law and standing Force in Times of Peace turns the Civil Government into a military and that is not the Government of England That which some speak that the King of England hath Merum Imperium Merum Imperium What will do us no Hurt if rightly understod Gladius indicat illos ut Jurisperiti loqui solent imperium habere merum What 's that Vlpianus ait illud esse merum imperium quod habet potestatem Gladii ad animadvertendum in Homines facinerosos Peter Martyr on Rom. ch 13. If this right use of the Sword or avenging and punishing Power were duly observed what Work would it make among them who wear the Sword The Contests that have been in this Kingdom about the Power of the Militia and the use that hath been made of it is a matter of doleful remembrance The Declaration of the Lords and Commons July 1.42 A Second Remonstrance Jan. 16.42 The King's Letter to the Sheriff of Leicester
Defence as Civilians speak that is to say if they cannot fly nor defend themselves any other way But David saw he might defend himself another way David ergo non potuit ullo jure Saulem occidere David could not kill Saul by any Law or Right especially when he saw that would tend to the Overthrow of the Common-wealth If it was lawful for David to take Arms and head a Party for his own Defence why not for England as one Man And then how can this Oath be continued which forbids that in your sense of it which the Scripture allows and no Man I think denies Indeed the Case of David and ours agree not in any one Circumstance If David's Example be imitable by us then as all Men I think will confess that it was lawful for him to take Arms to Head a Party to defend himself Then is it not lawful by this Example for the Kingdom of England to take Arms and if so then how can any Man be bound not to take Arms against the King upon any Pretence whatsoever by virtue of a Law when it is lawful by the Example of David to take up Arms But you will say That David fled and shifted for Himself Yea true But whither can the Kingdom of England I mean the Protestant Subjects which being the Majority of the Kingdom may be called the Kingdom flee Where could we have Caves or Garisons to shift our Wives and Children into Yea more Our King fled and was not pursued by the Sword he was in the Power of the Prince of Orange and was neither deposed nor killed nor as much as the Lap of his Garment cut off nor threatned if he would not go Who of all the great Men in Arms did as much as suggest as the followers of David did 1 Sam. 24.4 Had the King pleased to return to his place of Governing by Law and sufficient Caution and Security given so to do he might have staid at White-hall in Peace and Honour but that would not be and God hath done above all we would ask or think K. But here was a Resistance and that is determined to be sinful and damnable by the Apostle Rom. 13.2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God. T. I conceive the Apostle doth not by God's appointment institute any Form of Government in that place neither Imperial nor Monarchical much less doth he speak of Absolute unlimited Kings And the Nero was an Alsolute Twaâ—t the Aposile speaks only of Authority or lawful limited Power But there is an admirable perfect Draught of Government and Magistracy The Magistrate is a Person clothed with Authority armed with the Sword with Power and just Force to defend the Good to punish the Evil-doers And so he is the Minister of God to thee for Good. There is a distinction between Good and Evil under him that which is Good is prescribed by good Laws that which is Evil is forbidden by Law. A good Magistrate that is the Minister of God doth govern by Law and looks to the righteous administration of Government according to just Laws The Sword is the Sword of Peace and Justiâ—e as well as of War in a just Cause the End of this Ordinance of God is publick Good. I ask you Doctor is Popery an Ordinance of God I the introduction of Popery and holding correspondence with the Pope by an Embassador and a Nuncio an Ordinance of God Is Arbitrary Power an Ordinance of God When you prove these to be Divine Ordinances then lift up your Voice like a Trumpet and declame against Rebellion for these were some of the Things opposed and resisted by our Nobility and Gentry with their Forces Could the King lawfully become the Minister of the Pope and Jesuits for Evil to the Nation Had he Law and Right upon his side to do what he did and what he was carrying on almost to a Conclusion Was he not bound to govern by Law and to keep his Word K. What or all these Questions What do you mean T. You shall have more Questions yet What Authority had the late King to change the Government in the Essential parts of it Had he the Legislative Power in Himself Surely no. Then where the Legislative is there the Supreme Authority is The Supreme Power is in the Legislative And the Supreme Governour hath his Authority to rule according to those Laws enacted by the Legislators by way of trust The Prerogative and Power of the King is often acknowledged by K. Charles the First to be in him by way of Trust in his Answ to the xix Propos p. 1. p. 5. lin ult p. 18. The Government according to these Laws is trusted to the King p. 23. A trust by God Nature and the Laws true in several respects He who acted without beside and contrary to the Law not only touching private particular Person and Causes but Root and Branch of the Government was the King that was resisted in England and no other K. But he is trusted by God and Nature as well as by the Laws suppose he broke his Trust according to Laws he is not deprived of his Trust according to God and Nature T. The Power of the King is a Trust I answer The trust received from God and Nature is to govern righteously and no otherwise is it not if it be then he is trusted by God and Nature to govern according to the righteous Laws of the Kingdom K. But we ought to have suffered to the uttermost and not have resisted our lawful King the Lord 's Anointed T. 1. We deny that we resisted a Lawful King of England 2. They who preach'd up Passive Obedience seemed to preach altogether in design upon others Had we seen them lead more mortified Lives had they denied themselves more we might have believed they were in earnest But who drank Claret more freely lived more delicately or were more covetous if not ravenous for Preferment after and upon Preferment for themselves and their Friends than the most of them 3. I have not seen the Ceremonies of the Coronation I heard and believe he was Crown'd but heard not he was annointed but if he was Annointed there is an Ordinatio Permissionis Ordinatio Commissionis as the Reverend Bishop Morton distinguisheth in his Sermon on Rom. 13. Before K. Charles I. at York May 15. 1639. apply it And it is observable that God who permitted a Popish King to rule a while he did not permit him long but when it was to be determined whether he should go on in his Ways God took away his Spirit that he could not command the Sword in which he trusted There was no more done against him than what David did nor so much and God most graciously interposed and suffered no more to be done And so the Great God the Fountain and Giver of Authority hath determined the Case And there are two Notifications of his Will made known
moderate temperate more or less by the arbitrament of the Nobles or People The Roman Emperor was Arbitrary and Absolute had Power of Life and Death Wherefore the Christians could with no Pretence or Colour restrain the Violence of those Times or prohibit those Injuries by which they were vexed But the Princes of those Nations which thou Bellarmine dost mention have certain Bounds set them which when they exceed the Nobles think it is lawful for them to repel unjust Force and shake off the Yoke by which they are opprest contrary to Right and Law. And then defends the Cause of the Protestants in Holland and France And in this there is a difference between these Churches and the Primitive which was subject to the meer pleasure of the Emperor without the least Title to any Law of their own But when they were armed with publick Right under Constantine they were not only kill'd as before but did kill and having overcome Licinius and the Tyrants they eased their Necks of the Yoke of Persecution And in such a way or for a like reason hath our Church done c. p. 152. I know there is another sort of Friends to the Church of England but I think these now named as worthy of the Name as they and more to the Honour of it And these shall suffice I do forbear to turn to Foreign Divines that have been in reputation in the Church of England because I will not be further troublesome to you As for the Judicium Vniversitatis Oxoniensis It goes upon those Suppositions and handles those Matters which are alien to our present Case and therefore I forbear looking into it K. But that which sticks with me is my Oath of Allegiance T. Why did you not assist the Person of the King to the utmost of your Power to drive out the Invader and to ruin your Church and Kingdom Why did you oppose him in his Declaration of Indulgence But I spare you Only a few Questions more and adone It is plain the King did voluntarily put himself out of the Exercise of his Authority and Possession of his Kingdoms Is it to be thought that the Kingdom would be without a King during his pleasure or did he not really think that in the Vacancy the Kingdom would choose another If he thought they would fill the Vacancy then why did he give way to it If you say there was a Necessity for him to depart in point of Honour and Safety I know not what his Reasons were but be they never so many or great in his Opinion I go upon Matter of Fact. The Throne being voided by his own Act must it not be filled and did he not think and foresee it would then why did he not prevent it why did he give way to it If he made way for a Successor Allegiance is not enjoined during the King's natural Life he made himself a Dead King in his natural Life-time and Allegiance is due to him no longer than he is King. Suppose he should put himself into a Monastery or Colledge of Jesuites or go to Rome or in Pilgrimage and put Himself out of capacity to govern the Kingdom doth the Bond of a my Allegiance hold and continue in force upon me He is a uncapable of ruling us in France as in any of those places therefore I see no reason but to conclude my Bond of Allegiance is cancell'd and dissolved K. But two Kings at a time in being What! two Suns in One Firmament T. Sir I know but one King and one Queen both joined in the same Regality Your Sun is set he put out his own Light. Be not so fond of your late King as if you had lost your Mistress and were resolved never to have another for you must have another King and Queen too as it happens we have by the wonderful Providence and Gift of God to these Kingdoms since you and I began our discourse Come Sir let me play a little upon you I will not hurt you Were you so truly and perfectly Loyal to K. Charles the 2d as not to wish for James while you look'd upon Him as the Rising Sun that was to Crown your Ambition with Preferments and Happy Days K. Charles went out with little Mourning and James came up with greatest Admiration You were like Persian Idolaters at his Ascent Do not mourn too much at his Ecclipse It was his own Free-will and we had no reason to resist his Will in going away and thereby making room for such a Succession as is to the hearty Joy of the serious part of the Nation and the universal Joy of all Protestants in Europe Four Years ago a gloomy Look was by innuendo a sign of a disloyal Heart there was a great deal of dissembled cheerfulnes I hope Doctor you will never be presented nor troubled for a discontented Look nor indicted for a little fit of Sulleness Come Doctor satisfy your self with St. Paul's wholesome Doctrine The Powers that be are ordained of God I believe more than those you hanker after and hear what a Great Friend of the Church of England and Advocate for her Ceremonies I mean the truly worthy Admirer of Free-Grace and Calvin's Friend the old Bishop Morton of Duresm speaks Are they then Once established then whatsoever the Government be they are of God God owneth them they may not be disturbed For as Silver whilst it is meer Plate if it be tendred for Exchange may be either taken or not by the Party to whom it is offered but if it once receive the King's Stamp and be coined it is Currant Mony and may not be refused Or as Acts of Parliament whilst they are but voted are but only Consents but after they have the King 's Royal Assent they become Statutes which may not be transgressed So it is in Governments as soon as it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Created by Man as St. Peter calleth it becometh thus St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God's Ordinance Ser◠at York before the King 1639 and may not be resisted Now Sir Our Chosen King and Queen are Created by Man a Convention that had greater Power and Trust committed to them than any Parliament before them since this Government was first moulded The late Convention of greater Authority than any ordinary Parliament and are the Ordinance of God therefore scatter the clouds and look up Receive them as from God and be subject for the Lord's sake and their own And to move you from a weighty motive the present World Had your King been let alone a while and you so honest as to refuse to read his Declaration you had been a Doctor without Preferment and therefore come the worst that can come by a Comprehension you may have at least one Living and if you must preach twice you will have I hope peace to study to make two Sermons or otherwise to edify the Souls of Men in the Afternoon as well as the
cannot say that the Superiority of the Pope over Kings is of the Law of Nature if not then that King that is Superior above all in his Dominions by the Law of Nature and yet doth subject himself to the Pope doth give up his Natural Right to one that hath no Natural Right and doth thereby violate and change the Constitution of Nature and therefore hath lost His Claim to a Soveraignty by Nature K. But the Scripture doth establish the Order and Superiority of Kings and therefore he holds his Crown and Scepter by Scripture-Patent and Divine Right Can. 1640. T. I ask you again Doctor Is the Supremacy of the Pope over Kings by Divine Right if over Kings by Divine Right then much more over you and me if you grant it so will not I But he hath no Divine right to a Supremacy over Kings and yet the King hath Submitted to it therefore hath he not lost and forfeited his Pretence to Soveraignty by Scripture and Divine Right and by consequence hath he any Right to Soveraign Dominion I put it to you Beside the Scripture doth constitute a perpetual form of Government K. But your supposed Wrong is a wrong to Himself And our Relation of Subjects to him is unalterable and perpetual T. You are out again by your favour as I conceive with respect to your dignity For the Wrong is a Publick and General Wrong to all his Protestants Subjects and not a private Injury to Himself onely The Relation of Subjects to the King. Our relation as Subjects is to a King and we are Subjects no longer than he is King as we are no longer Children than we have Parents if he cease to be a King by Subjection to the Pope I am discharged from being a Subject for I am a Subject to the King and not to him who is no King or hath made Himself none My relation to the King is to a Royal Person vested with Royal Authority and the Law of the Land is the Measure and Bond of that Relation If the Person to whom I am related have disrobed Himself of his Royalty tho the Natural Person be in Being yet the King is gone as Sir Thomas More said the Lord Chancellor is gone when his Person was there present but out of his Office. K. But how then came the Peers and People of England to acknowledge him at his Coronation and in Parliament if his Religion and Submission to the Pope made him none T. Sir I did not at first intend to speak of these tender points but you began it and I hope you will not make an ill use of it I give you my answer clearly 1. The Peers and People own'd him as King at his Coronation for then he swore or was thought to swear to govern by Laws 2. In Parliament if that may be called a Parliament who had a great Number that were not Elected by the Commons but returned by Arbitrary Sheriffs and Mayors he appear'd in his Legal Capacity acting according to Law. 3. The Peers and People suffered quietly and dutifully till their Consciences could bear no more or their Heads Families and Posterity were near Destruction There was all Dutifulness and Loyalty Tribute and Customs paid him by all Ranks and Degrees of Men as long as there was any Hopes 6. As he altered the Government in his own personal Dignity so he manifestly destroy'd the other part of the Constitution the Right and Liberty of the People in free Elections and frequent Parliaments and so no part of the Government was safe 7. And to entail our Miseries there was an Infant set up for Inheriter of the Crown of whose Natural Descent no legal Proof was made or can be as is rationally presum'd And by the way the King could not be safe but during the pleasure of the Jesuits who having an Infant King and who could raise a Succession as fast as one died could domineer the more and send the King to the other World. The Nation passive as long as there was any hope of Redress 8. There was no hope left of Redress of present Grievances or prevention of utter ruine to the Protestant Interest of the Kingdom And consider that these things were not personal Infirmities and Defects or Male-Administrations or private Injuries and Oppression But the greatest Violation of Trust and Breach of the Constitution that was ever avowedly made growing hard upon a down-right overthrow and utter Ruine 9. Lastly There was a Destructive Conjunction of Interest and Design with a Foraign Tyrant to bring us and our dearest Relations into like Condition with France and Savoy Were not the French Assistances expected to turn beautiful England to an Aceldama What made the Priest in the Lady Cary's House conclude the Dutch Fleet to be their Friends the French for whose Entertainment great Provisions were made and to go to the Chappel to Sing Te Deum Sir We have as great Cause to keep every day of November as a Thanksgiving as we have to keep the 5th now challenging our Thanksgiving to all Generations for our Deliverance from the Powder Plot and League with France by the most Happy Seasonable and Successful Arrival of his Highness the Prince of Orange now our Elected King. Whom God long Preserve With his Royal Consort now our Gracious Queen And now Sir Be pleas'd to speak what would you have us do K. The Christian Course is well known Petitions Prayers Patience Tears T. As for Petitions you know the King sent the Bishops to the Tower for an Answer and thence brought them to the Bar. A warning to Petitioners Prayers were used by such as you know rather to harden than soften the King's Heart Was he not commended to God still as his chosen Servant Was he not pray'd for as if he had worshipped God in the best and only way and several other Prayers little better As for Patience it was exercised to the last Day of Safety And as for Tears we durst not shed them for the King nor for our selves under him for by Innuendo's they had been Seditious What! keep an Anniversary of Joy for his coming to the Throne and weep too We had cause more than we knew of a long time to weep and howl too for the Miseries that were coming upon us Had not God most seasonably and powerfully turn'd the Stream of the Proceedings of our Adversarics all England that would not bow the Knee to Baal had been a Bochim a Vale of Tears How useful and divine soever this Persuasion to Prayers and Tears may be yet when I consider for whose Service these Exhortations were so openly made even for theirs tho not so intended who have the sharpest Bryars and Thorns to whip Slaves into Tears and then put an end to their Praying by cutting their Throats much of that Preaching might have been spared There are many Evangelical Doctrines necessary to Salvation rarely touch't upon by such Preachers I do much wish
should be born so long as he lived so as whatsoever Property any other person had or could have in any part of the World they held it all of Him. So after the Flood whatsoever Property or Share in the Government over any part of the World any of his Sons had they had it by his sole Allotment and Authority without waiting for Election or Consent or entring into any Articles or Capitulations with the People that were to be governed by them c. T. Is the Argument Good from Adam before the Fall to the Government after the Fall Is the Argument good from Adam the Common Father or Noah a Common Father to the State of the World distinguished and divided in the several Kingdoms and Territories Was Adam's Monarchy Hereditary to his eldest Son next in succession Did Cain succeed him in the Universal Monarchy Or did Cain forfeit Did Adam allot him the land of Nod and so it descended to the next Brother To be brief with you 1. When Soveraign Princes are Nature Fathers and give Portions to their Subject as to their Children then let them be as Great in their Dominions as Adam or as Noah was provided they be kind and righteous as they were 2. The Law then in Being and Force was the Law of Nature which established Property in the 8th Commandment And Judgment which is a Branch of Government or of Civil Power doth suppose Property as its Object or Matter about which it is conversant And there could be no actual Exercise of the judicial Port of Power and Government but there was a Property to be judged of K. How far the King of England is supreme But you cannot but say that the King of England is the onely supreme Governour and Monarch and if a Monarch the Supremacy is in Him alone for a Co-ordination of Power and a mixt Monarchy are absurd contradictory Notions As you may see in the Reverend Bishop Sanderson Sect 14. Preface We are bound by our Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King and his Heirs and Successors and to assist and defend all Jurisdictions c. Granted or belonging to him c. I pray read the Oaths And then we are bound by the Oath of the 14. of Charles the second not to take Arms against the King c. upon any pretence whatsoever c. And therefore surely such Actions and Alterations as we know and see of late are utterly unlawful and therefore I cannot joyn in the Thanksgiving for our Deliverance c. T. Sir You put me upon a necessity of speaking what otherwise I should be as unwilling to discourse of as any other Man. But conceiving my self obliged in Conscience and Religion to acknowledge our wonderful Deliverance I shall lay before you what I have learnt in these great matters I know Sir. O. Bridgman did urge the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy upon the Regicides and all that took Arms against the King in the Trial of Mr. Scroop pag. 67 68. What is the Oath of Allegiance is it not that you will defend the King his Crown c. against all Persons whatsoever It was not onely against the Pope Vnder favour that word Or otherwise doth there signify some other way or means not named by which the Pope might act against the King. as some would have it but the word is or Otherwise They broke the Oath of Supremacy which was that the King was the supreme Governour c. There is saith he a difference between some Crowns and Imperial Crowns An Imperial Crown is that which was not to be touched by any person We do not speak of the Absolute Power of the King pag. 68. The Reverend Bishop Sanderson builds his strong Tower for defence of the King's Soveraignty upon the words of the Oath of Supremacy That the King's Highness is the onely Supreme Governour of this Realm Sect. 14. The quickest way to bring our discourse to an issue is to lay down what I think very considerable in this matter 1. We acknowledge the King or Queen of England to be the onely supreme Governour within his Dominions But the Kings and Queens of England had no more Power given or attributed to them by these Oaths or the Statutes enjoyning them than they had before these Declarations So Queen Elizabeth declared in her Injunction 1559. Note this An Admonition to simple men deceived by the malitious in the Collection of Doctor Sparrow pag. 81. The Queens Majesty c. would that all her loving Subjects though understand that nothing was is or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath to have any other Duty Allegiance or Bond required by the same Oath than was acknowledged to be due to the most Noble Kings of famous Memory King Henry the 8th or Edward the 6. For certainly her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any Authority than what was challenedg and lately used by the said Noble Kings of famous Memory King Henry the 8th or Edward the 6th which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm That is under God to have the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countreys of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other forreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them 2. You heard what Sir Orlando Bridgman understood by that Great Title of Imperial Crown Now take notice of another Interpretation of it from Queen Elizabeth in that Admonition now quoted Imperial Crown That under God and not under the Pope or any foreign Prince or Potentate so as no other foreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them And it is rational to conceive that such as the King or Monarch is So saith Lord Keeper Bridgman in the Book quoted such is his Crown The King of England is not an Absolute King but in contradistinction to all foreign Princes and Powers none of whom hath any power over him he is subject to none therefore the Title of Imperial Crown adds nothing of Real power to the King but a glorious Epithet signifying that he holds not his Crown of any other forreign Prince or Power So is the Monarchy of England described by that famous Counsellour Sir Thomas Smith At the last the Realm of England grew into one Monarchy Neither were any one of those Kings neither he who first had all took any Investiture at the hand of the Emperor of Rome or of any other superior or foreign Prince but held of God to Himself and by his Sword his People and Crown acknowledging no Prince on Earth his superior and so it is kept and holden at this day De Repub. Anglorum c. 9 Sect. I. And when our Writers speak of the Independency of the Kings of England in opposition to the Pope and his Usurpation they speak of
the sole Soveraignty of Power in himself and can't be controll'd or contradicted much less opposed by Force T. I do as freely acknowledg the Supremacy of the King of England according to Law and settled upon him by Law as you do and that Subjects should keep in the Bounds of Subjection and obey their Superiors for Conscience-sake I acknowledg that a mixt Monarchy is as absurd as a Compound Simple But yet I find our Monarchy to be a Regulated and not an Absolute Monarchy And if it be compounded of the three Forms of Government Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy then it is no such Bull as to be an Errand One. That it is such a Monarchy I prove by a greater Author than that Learned Writer Look then to the Answer of King Charles I. to the XIX Propositions sent to him from the two Houses to York July 1642. The Wisdom of your Ancestors hath moulded this Government out of a Mixture of all three p. 18. And let me note to you to what the King did attribute this Constitution the saith The Wisdom and Experience of your Ancestors hath moulded this K. But when did the Wisdom of our Ancestors meet and where to mould and fashion this Government T. That I may not confound our Discourse I must first speak to the Particulars of the former Objection or Query and then come to new Matter 6. We are bound to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King his Heirs and Successors and to defend him and them to the utmost of our Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever that shall be made against their Persons their Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any such Sentence c. I pray Sir let me explain my self to you concerning these things 1. We may I conceive lay down this that the Soveraignty of Power lies in the King and three Estates Of our Allegiance or in the Parliament consisting of all these jointly That the Superiority of Government is vested in the King who as he is King by Law so he is obliged to govern according to it Therefore the Power of the King is not Absolute in respect of his Subjects nor unlimited but tho the Limits of Prerogative are not set down because extraordinary Emergencies cannot be foreseen nor determined yet it is limited by Law or else it would be in some sense infinite That it is not unlimited is no new Divinity as it is no new Law. See also Dr. Ferm Conse satisfied Non largimur Regibus potestatem illimitatam infinitam ut quamlibet Religionem possint subditis pro arbitrio praescribere sed potestatem à Deo delegatam ac proinde Regulis Legis Divinae circumscriptam Nam ut in Causis Civilibus quamvis sint suprema potestate armati non possunt tamen Leges condere contra aequitatem naturam c. Rev. Dr. Ward Determin Regis in Regno suo suprema est sub Deo potestas p. 105. 3. And if the Power of Soveraigns be limited so the Obedience of Subjects is limited also for Power of Commanding and Duty of Obeying are of the same Extent 2. Allegiance is the Duty of a Subject to which he is bound by Law and Allegiance is reciprocal between the King and his Subjects Ligantia significat inde Ligantia Allegiantia Vinculum arctius inter subditum Regem utrosque invicem connectens hunc ad Protectionem justum Regimen illos ad Tributa debitam subjectionem c. Sir H. Spellman Gloss 3. The King is the formal and express Object of Allegiance as Supreme Governor but the Kingdom is the compleat Object of it yea and the ultimate Object of it under God and its Welfare and Good. And so I find in that great Author Sir Hen. Spelman v. Fidelitas a Law of St. Edward That all People ought once a Year to confederate and consolidate like sworn Brethren to defend the Kingdom against Foreigners and Enemies together with the King. By which I see the true Interest of the King and Kingdom is one and the very same but it was our unhappiness of late to find the true and united Interest divided and an Interest promoted as contrary to the Kingdom as Darkness to Light and Superstition and Idolatry to the Gospel of Christ In the Condition we are in What was to be done but what was done No Man in Conscience could adhere to the King against Religion and the Kingdom for our Obligation and Subjection is first due to God and to the King in him and for him and no otherwise as it is in the Prayer in the Communion Service If the King doth persist to act contrary to God Who can in Duty folly him or assist him Next to my Fidelity to my Heavenly Lord I owe my Fidelity to the Community of England by the Law of God and of Nature whereof I am a Member because the Community must be governed by righteous and good Laws and these Laws executed I am next obliged to that form of Government constituted and agreed unto And then lastly I am obliged to the personal Soveraign the King. My Fidelity to the Community or Kingdom under a King is due by God's Law in Nature My Fidelity to the Person of the King is by a voluntary Obligation required by a positive Law as King of England governing by Law. And my natural Allegiance to the King is to him as a King by Law and governing by Law. Judicious Mr. Lawson delivers himself thus concifely and rationally Fidelity to the Community is first due Fidelity to it under some form of Government was the second Fidelity to it under that form by King Peers and Commons was the third Fidelity unto the Person of the King is the last and presupposeth the former Whosoever understands and takes them that is the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance otherwise perverts the true meaning of them and makes them unlawful Politica Sacra Civilis c. 15. p. 125. An Answer to the Learned Author of the Rights of the Kingdom Hobs p. 17. gives us several Ancient Laws obliging the Subject to Allegiance to the Kingdom with the King in the Days of Old. 7. The Oaths of Allegiance were made to the King as a Protestant in a direct opposition to the Pope and his usurped Jurisdiction and Power And though Fidelity and Obedience is due to Kings of the Romish Faith yet how these Oaths can be taken under such a King I do not understand Except I declare what the King ought to be viz. the only Supreme Governour in his Kingdoms and Dominions and that the Pope ought not to have any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical or Spiritual when I am sure enough the King doth own such a Jurisdiction by professing that Religion How can I swear to maintain the Prehemencies and Authorites granted or annexed to the Imperial Crown when he hath parted with the Preheminence and Authority of being supreme Governour in all Causes
turn to the place The Solemnity of Coronation when the People acknowledg their King and the King again gives the People assurance that he will preserve their Religion Rights and Laws is far from intending to express the King's Authority to be derived from the People by a Contract as some have weakly argued for the King is actually King by his Right of Inheritance c. T. I distinguish between the solemnity of Coronation the Prince appearing in Splendor doth excite the People to make Acknowledgments and expression of Affection with Acclamations c. as the Doctor goes on and the Questions proposed to the King and the Coronation-Oath The Argument for Consent and Contract is built upon the Demands made to the King and his Oath and the Fealty sworn to the King. The Forms of the Coronation Oath have been divers as you may see in the most laborious Mr. Pryn Epist to the Reader before his Hist of K. John Hen. 3. Edw. the I. out of the Records of the Tower from p. 30 c. The King is obliged as Fleta tells you C. praedict Nec potest quis judicare in temporalibus nisi solus Rex vel sub delegatus Ipse namque ex virtute Sacramenti ad hoc specialiter Obligatur ideò Coronâ insignitur ut per judicia populum rogat sibi subjectum I follow the directions of that Learned laborious Writer and find his Quotation out of Bracton true l. 3. de Actionibus c. 9. p. 107. S. 1 2 3. The King ought in his Coronation to swear and promise to his People subject to him 1. That he will Command and to his Power help that Peace be observed all his Time to the Church of God and all Christian People 2. That he will interdict Rapines and all Iniquities to all degrees 3. That in all his Judgments he will command Equity and Mercy that the Gracious and Merciful God may grant him Mercy and that all may through his Righteousness enjoy a firm Peace Ad hoc autem Creatus Electus est To this End or Office he is Created and Chosen And our Righteous Kings have look'd upon themselves as bound to do what they promised and swore to at their Coronation See the Quotations in that Epist p. 31. And K. James the First Even Dr. Fern doth acknowledg It is probable indeed that Things at first were by choice here as elsewhere The Resolving of Conse S. 4. p. 19. said He should be perjur'd if he did not observe the Laws Secondly I distinguish between Sole Election Consent and Hereditary Right by Common Law. Our Kings and Queens succeed by Hereditary Right presupposing an Election of the Royal Progenitors or voluntary Consent in the Acts of Settlement and still demanded and declared at every Coronation As every King or Queen is not Elected as by a People in absolute Liberty to chuse whom they please so it is not conceived to be Hereditary by Common Law but by Settlement implying the Consent of the People And if you would know how it was of Old observe how it is now in the most happy Agreement between our now most Gracious King William and Queen Mary and the Collective Wisdom and Power of the Kingdom Now our High Court of Parliament in the for-ever to be celebrated Convention Our former wise Kings have thought an Act of Parliament the best Deed of Settlement of the Crown And how the Succession hath been changed is to be seen in that Excellent short History of the Succession come to my Hands t'other day * Sold by J. Robinson in St. Pauls Ch. yard K. Let things be as they were in former Times Let us if we be Men of Conscience remember our Declaration and the Oath sworn by all Officers of the Unlawfulness of taking Arms against the King or those commissionated by him upon any Pretence whatsoever Remember your Declaration and the words Pretence whatsoever What-ever Limitation the Author of the Inquiry hath put upon it by limiting the words in all things in the Duty of Children to their Parents And look upon what that Good and Learned Man Dr. Falkener hath written at large upon that Oath in vindication of it in the 2d Book of Christian Loyalty T. Content Sir let us look to the Book there it is K. In the first Section he tells you Dr. Falkener considered There is a two-fold Declaration of Loyalty in detestation of such Positions as undermine the Security of Kings and Kingdoms required in this Realm the one more particular in the Oath of Allegiance against deposing Excommunicated Heretical Kings and the other more General Of which he speaks § 2. T. We detest the Doctrine and Practices of the Pope and Papists as much as you do And all that the Doctor hath learnedly discoursed of it in that Section doth not at all concern us not only because that is Popish Doctrine and because it is unlawful for the Pope to excommunicate and depose a Protestant King but because we are not guilty of Deposing our late King Jam. II. our Case hath been more briefly than it might be declared before to prevent the Accusation of deposing him 1. The King did really depose himself from being an Independent King of England K. Jam. 2. deposed himself and was not deposed by submitting to the Pope 2. He dispens'd with our taking the Oath of Allegiance which I think I should not have taken had I been required without a plain declaration of my Mind for it implied a contradiction to take it to a Popish King. 3. After he deserted his puissant great Army and durst not put his Cause upon a Battel he gave one Branch of his Soveraignty to the Prince of Orange viz. the Command of his Army and Navy and then attempted to go beyond Sea and at last went leaving his Kingdom without Force or Compulsion or Menace The Illustrious Prince of Orange and the Kingdom desired nothing but what was their Right as much their Right as the Crown was his 4. In this Case what shall the Kingdom do You may be satisfied by the Debates about Abdication and Vacancy Must the Kingdom lie open to the Enemies of it Must there be a Justicium a silence of the Laws and stop to Justice and Righteousness and all things fall into unsettlement and confusions to wait upon his Return Yea must the Affairs of the Protestant Confederates be under distractions through our irresolutions Must the Illustrious Prince of Orange go back again losing the Opportunities of finishing his Work which God gave him in so wonderful a manner And must the Nation give time to Papists for new Plots and gathering strength to do us their designed Mischiefs What will become of Trade What Foreign Princes will treat with us when we have none to treat with them and give them Security Who shall govern or pay our Armies or preserve the People from their Rudeness or Violence and Factions if they have no
which was disputable before and undetermin'd was declared to be in the King the Edg of the Sword was turned against a Protestant State to swallow it up if they could is not forgotten And how we were opprest with Royal Aids and vast Paiments to maintain that Sword is felt to this day If the King alone hath the Power of the Sword the Commons of England in Parliament have the Power of the Purse the Sinews of War and Peace as King Ch. I. acknowledged VVhitlock's Memorials Anno 1642. And at the Treaty at Uxbridg 1644 p. 124. Answ to the xix Propos And as long as our Kings advise with their Parliaments about War and Peace as they were wont to do as that Learned Sir Robert Cotton proves in his Treatise on that Argument Anno. 1621. it must be our Fault and God's Judgment upon us if the Sword do hurt us But how God hath vouchsafed us that Mercy in disposing of the Crown and Sword that we shall not fear the Sword nor grudg to pray Tribute to them that are the Ministers of God for Good. 4. All that the worthy Doctor speaks of Fanatick Notions and Assertions and of the War between the King and Parliament belongs not to this present Case any further than the Common Reason of both is concerned in them 5. Those Cases in which both Grotius and Barclay affirm that a King may be resisted are with the Doctor but imaginary Cases which for the ill Consequences of Misunderstanding them are not to be supposed 6. He at large shews what security the People of England have for their Liberties and Religion so that they need not fear any Extremities to drive them to take up Arms. 7. There is something that comes near our Case in p. 517. First That the Agreement of the whole Body of the People or the chief and greater part thereof can give no sufficient Authority for such an enterprise as taking Arms against the Soveraign when oppressed by him because saith he the whole Community are Subjects as well as the particular Persons thereof And with especial respect to this Kingdom I have observed that the Laws declare it unlawful for the two Houses of Parliament though jointly to take Arms against the King. Here are some Mistakes delivered by the worthy Doctor What a Community is 1. He saith that the Community are Subjects A Community as such is the Subject of a Common-Wealth in a state of Freedom not formed into a Government The Majestas Realis is in the Community and the Community is one Person in Fiction of Law and is Persona conjuncta as the Civilians speak So Reverend Mr. Lawson Answer to Hobs p. 21. Polit. Sacra Civilis A Community is the Matter of a Common-Wealth c. 15 206. A Community contains in it virtually all the Forms and Degrees of Government and Governours that arise out of it A Community as such is no Subject But if the Doctor mean by a Community all the Common People subjected by their own Consent to a Soveraign or Governor then they are Subjects indeed as contradistinguished from Superiors But if all or the greater part of the People by which I do not understand the Vulgar Peers and Commons perceive the Constitution to be in apparent hazard of being destroyed what they act in the necessary defence of the Government and Fundamental Laws and for their preservation they do not act as meer Subjects but as one Party in Covenant and Contract with him who threatneth to bring them to Confusion by destroying their Government 2. It doth not follow that because both Houses cannot take Arms against the Soveraign therefore the whole People or the greatest part of the People among whom we include the wisest and the best Part and the Nobility of all Degrees cannot in such a Case as ours lately was take Arms For tho a Parliament be entrusted to act for the People in those Affairs to which they are called and summoned yet not with all the Rights and Liberties of the People But now here is an extraordinary Convention and the Representatives of the Commons in it have an extraordinary Trust even that of forming us again and settling us upon the best Foundation And for this Reason though this Convention wanted the usual Call by the King 's Writ it is one of the greatest Conventions that ever was and its Acts of greater Authority in the extent of it than any ordinary Parliament and therefore the People of England are concluded by them in what they do The Nation was generally sensible of approaching Ruin they knew the King had left his Government and willingly and freely elected their Representatives to do the best in their Wisdom for the Kingdom 's good And the Constitution and Government is not changed only the Persons of our Supreme Governors 3. Parliaments and their Powers have been much decried and debased especially of late Years But though every Individual be a Subject and the whole Body stile themselves the King's Subjects yet as a Parliament they have a part in the Legislation and therefore an essential part of Dominion in them and as making Laws they are above themselves as obeying Laws 8. The Doctor instanceth in one Case p. 542. Whether if a Supreme Governor should according to his own Pleasure and contrary to the established Laws and his Subjects Property actually engage upon the destroying and ruining a considerable part of his People they might not defend themselves by Arms yet this is packt up among Notions and not to be supposed But p. 544. If ever any such strange Case as is proposed should happen in the World I confess it would have its great Difficulties and quotes Grotius that in this ultimo necessitatis praesidio as the last Refuge Defence is not to be condemned provided the Care of the Common Good be preserved And if this be true it must be upon this Ground that such attempts of ruining do ipso facto exclude a disclaiming the governing those Persons as Subjects and consequently of being their Prince or King. And then the Expressions of our Publick Declaration and Acknowledgment would still be secured that it is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King. That is at last the Doctor confesseth such a King to be no King. Whether this be not the Case or much like to that we were in I refer it to all that know the Motions of the late King. Did he not act to the destruction of Property He might as justly have filled all our Churches with Popish Priests yea and our Houses with Inhabitants as some Colledges in the Universities Did he not go as far and as fast as he could to destroy our Religion which is our dearest Property And what would have become of our Liberties if a pack'd Parliament could have been made and the Popish Lords have sate in the House of Lords And what of our Persons and Lives if we had not
been delivered by an extraordinary Providence And I will add but this under this Head That all the Gentlemen that I have discoursed with who took up Arms profess they would never have taken Arms against the King ruling by Law as he was bound to do but look'd upon him as no King i. e. no Legal King of England in the exercise of his Power and that there was no other way left for them to preserve themselves our Laws and Religion K. But this doth still stick with me that we declared or swore That it was unlawful to take up Arms upon any Pretence whatsoever therefore not upon this Pretence or for this Cause or any other real or Imaginary either this or any that can be imagined possible T. The evil Design of framing that Oath to bring the Nation tamely under Arbitrary Power and Popery I must say less upon this Head than I have to say I am extreamly deceived 1. If Popery was not design'd to be either made the topping Profession of the Nation or so far countenanced and upheld that it would be in a fair way to be restored as the Religion of the Court and Country when that Act was made 2. This could never be but by the Arbitrary Power of the King. 3. To set up and maintain that the sole Power of the Militia is put into the Hand of the King. 4. The War of the Parliament against the King is made Rebellion by Law. 5. All those things had been insufficient to serve the Design of introducing Popery which could not come in but by Arbitrary Power unless an Oath be devised and imposed to tie the Hearts and Hands of the Subject from thinking to act or acting against the Armed Force of Arbitrary Power And lastly no word was large enough to comprehend all possible Causes or Reasons of Opposition but whatsoever Do the Pope's Creatures what they they will we are tied up by upon any Pretence whatsoever to look upon our Miseries coming on and passively to lie down at the Feet of Popish Majesty i. e. cruel Tyranny and thereby become Vassals to the Triple Crown The Sense of the Declaration of Non-resistance Sir I have subscribed the Declaration of my Consent to that which was required as a formal Oath of all Officers Civil and Military thinking it was but Reason and Duty to give the King as a lawful Governor security in his Throne But the sense I had of it was to this purpose I do believe it is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever or from any Cause or Reason pretended for Subjects to take Arms against the King my lawful Soveraign for to such a King we are subjected and that I do abhor that traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are legally commissioned by him See if you please an Enquiry into the Oath required of all the Non-Con by an Act made at Oxford by that wise and worthy Man Mr John Corbet all other Commissions that are not legal being really none of the Commissions of the King of England who is bound to govern according to Law in the legal pursuance of legal Commissions and that I will not at any time endeavour any alteration of Government either in Church or State by any unlawful ways And more than this no King that means the good of his Subjects can desire and this a peaceable Subject may conscientiously give if the King require it for his Satisfaction But now if a King act contrary to the Laws not by a particular Act or Acts only by which many private Subjects are injured or opprest but to the changing the Fundamental Government and overturning it then when the Cause is not a pretended Cause framed by Jealousy or uncharitable Suspitions of the King and his Ministers whether the Body and Majority of the Kingdom may not in an Extremity appeal to the supreme determination of God by the Sword and vindicate the Right which they have to their Religion and Liberties is a Case wherein it appears even by Dr. Falkener that the King is no King and by Consequence the People which before were Subjects to the King while he acted as King in a legal manner are no further subject and so the Oath is not violated but stands good The word Whatsoever is intended in the largest sense and is so used in the Canons of 1640. and the Writings of several Men When a King goes about to set up a new Form of Government contrary to the Rights of the People the People as a Party in Contract and Covenant and still willing to perform their part take Arms as a Party to maintain their Rights which are invaded and do not rebel as Subjects So that the People of England are considerable as a Party in a legal Contract with the King as Subjects as well as Dr. Ealkener But then I ask Whether the King of England may act and do beyond and contrary to the Laws of his Government not in some particular Instances to the particular Injury of some private Persons but against the Foundations of the Government and Interest Peace Welfare Property Liberty and Safety of the whole Protestant and greatest part of his Subjects be to be deemed the lawful King of England as he was or would be held and reputed to be if he ruled as a sworn King of England And then Whether the People of England are by the Laws subjected to an Arbitrary Jesuited King or to a Regular and Regulated King Whether the Subjects of England are bound to whatsoever a King pleaseth to do set up and command or to those things only which are commanded them by Law If the Laws be the Rule and Measure of their Obedience and those Laws no other than what were made by their own implied Consents then the Subjects of England have not in this Extraordinary Action broken the Bonds of their Subjection but acted for their own Preservation as a People that were never bound to an Arbitrary Absolute King. If the Parliament that enacted that Law that prescribes this Oath did intend to bind all those Persons enjoined to take it to an unlimited Obedience to all manner of Arbitrary Commissions and Commands whatsoever of the King then they allowed to the King scope enough to run out into all Excess of Arbitrariness and did by that betray the Kingdom to the Will of a King be he Papist or Tyrant Did they intend to bind themselves and their Posterity from taking Arms even when a King shall go about to change the Legal Religion and change the Government If they did not then in this Case the Oath bindeth not That they did not seems plain by the Oath which was for the preservation of the Government and against the alteration of it But this we cannot think to be in their Minds though there was a great number in Favour and Pension to serve the secret Designs of the Court
First One Answer to this Demand may be That Queen Elizabeth's wise Council did foresee that this was an effectual if not the only way to prevent greater Mischiefs and Effusion of Blood which in all probability had followed if this Course had not been taken And in an Extraordinary Case some Extraordinary Thing tending to the Publick Good may lawfully be done Lawson Pol. S. Civil p. 87. Our Convention will merit an honourable Memorial of all Generations for what they have done in our extraordinary Danger and Confusion We are in a way to Happiness if Unthankfulness and Murmuring doth not cast us back And such Papers as these will not at all help us towards Peace and Quietness I have no mind to deal any further with him I am sorry for him that he hath given such just Provocation to Authority as he hath by many Passages in it Sir I thank you for any thing you communicate to me Now let me put into your Hand a Rational Moderate and Convincing Paper The lawfulness of taking the New Oaths asserted K. I should be glad to be satisfied in the Point of Allegiance to King James the 2d My Conscience is not at ease and I am afraid I shall offend one way or other T. I am glad Our King Queen and Parliament are so moderate and patient with Our new Dissenters and Seminaries There are two sorts we would wish at ease in their own Minds and for their own Sakes Allegiance not due to the late King. and of many that are jealous of some strange Mutations among us But can we expect so great a Deliverance without any signs of Danger Man is a sullen morose Creature if he be not pleased But now God with a holy Reverence be it acknowledged is pleasing Himself whether you be pleased or not How long shall it be before he have your good-will to advance his own Glory He hath patiently been gratifying you many Years even to the giving you the King you preferr'd before all things You have tried him grew afraid of him talk'd boldly of him and acted too to displease him and towards his removal also And now what 's the matter what would you have Can you neither be well with him nor well without him How many of you acted as if you believ'd him to be no King that the Obligation was dissolved between you and Him This ingenuous moderate Gentleman presseth that handsomely and home enough May I be so bold to say something upon this tender Argument of Allegiance What though many of you knew what Designs were laid and conceal'd them from the King did neither argue against them nor estrange your selves from the Conspirators preach'd not one piece of a Sermon against them but went with them or sent to them assisted countenanced wellcom'd them Home subscribed the Association voted for Members of the Convention or joined being chosen And yet now recoile All this and Conscience stand in a Man's way and put him not only to a stand but make him retreat in disorder and fear And tenderness of Conscience is to be kindly used and for Oaths in particular in an Age wherein they have been common to a Sin and slighted to a high provocation of the Holy God. I cannot stay long upon this But in short 1. I grant that Allegiance is due to the Person of a King and not only to his Crown and Dignity but then that Person that possesseth that Crown and Dignity is not considered absolutely in his Natural Capacity but in his Political as vested with the Crown and Dignities of a King. 2. The Person of a King as King in the lawful possession of the Crown is intrusted with the Administration of the Government according to the Laws of the Kingdom which he is bound to God and the Kingdom by Promise and Oath to observe And he ought to give himself to the actual exercise of that Trust and Authority which he hath 3. The Soveraign of England is only Soveraign for Administration according to the Laws made by the joint Powen of the two Houses of Parliament with him 4. The natural Person to whom we are Subjects and are obliged to be true and faithful to as true Subjects How can he watch for our Good if he be not secure from Danger from us and of our Subjection and Obedience as ready to serve him who is the Minister of God for good to us The Person I say to whom we owe Allegiance is that Person endowed with Authority and Majesty for the Ends of his Office. 5. If He assume a greater Power than he hath by the Laws and Constitution or endeavour by Arts and Force to change the Government into another form or deprive the Subjects of their Fundamental Rights then though he be the same Natural Person to whom we promised Allegiance he is not the same Moral or Political Person He is not that King to whom we are Subjects but another quite contrary to that Majesty intended by us 6. Allegiance is during the Life of the King if while he lives he continueth to be King. He may forfeit to God And if God disable him or remove him Subjects are discharged for their Allegiance while God hath deposed him He may forfeit to his People if the Kingdom be Regnum pactionatum non absolutum Great Failures come short of Forfeitures And if a King not only cease to rule and defend according to his place but be so far perverted as to set up his Will and strive to carry all before it against the Religion and wellfare of his People they should be slow to Wrath and Revenge or to recover their own Rights by Wars and not at all by Injustice Many Miseries are rather to be endured than the Miseries of War. 7. It conduceth much to satisfy Conscience to understand what Allegiance is Ligantia inde ligiantia Allegiantia vinculum arctius inter subditum Regem invicem connectens The Bond Covenant or Compact by which a King and his Subjects are mutually bound to one another Hunc ad Protectionem justum Regimen illos ad Tributa debitam subjectionem The King is bound to Protection and just Rule and Government the People to pay Tribute and due Subjection The learned Spellman Gloss Dr. Robert Austin who hath taken pains to state it according to the Resolution of the Judges in Calvin's Case gives this description of Allegiance Ligeance is a Quality of Soul whereby were are disposed to bear all Truth and Faith to the Person of the King his Crown and Dignity ready to yield him all true Obedience according to the Laws of Nature of God and the Realm wherein we live Tract of Allegiance not impeach'd by the Parliaments taking Arms. c. 2. 8. Let us revive the Oaths wherein the promise of Fidelity is made and thence also gather something for our direction in this Case And here I will begin 1. The Case is hardest upon them who took
the Oaths since the late King did manifestly act contrary to the Duty of his Place But yet the words of the Oath are expresly made to him believing him to be the Lawful and Rightful King of this Realm Now he is Lawful King who hath a Lawful Right and is no Pretender or Usurper or he is Lawful King who is no Tyrant in Exercise nor Usurper of Power above or contrary to Law. How any Man could understandingly swear his belief of his being Lawful King without such a distinction I cannot conceive And then it is to be considered that he is the lawful King who governs according to Law or at least not contrary to Law in the main and then he being the King recognized by the Subject who swears Allegiance to him if he prove quite contrary How can he who own'd him under a true Notion of him be bound to him when he is corrupted from what he was taken to be He took him for his King who is King by Law and doth not bend himself to overthrow it but when he ceaseth to govern his Subjects as Subjects he disclaims the governing them as Subjects and his own being their King saith Dr. Falkner Chr. Loyalty l. 2. c. 5. p. 544 c. The Relation of an English Subject is to an English not an Absolute King. If one term of the Relation be chang'd or ceased the Obligation of the other Relate and Correlate ceaseth Cessante personâ relata naturali cessat obligatio personalis Cessante relatione vel personâ Civili cessat obligatio talis quâ talis The natural Father dying the relation to him is at an end and the Obligation to Duty is dissolved The moral and political Relation and political Person ceasing to be what he ought to be the Relation and Obligation dies A King is not bound to govern or protect Traitors Nor are Subjects bound to Allegiance and Obedience to him that is not their King. See the Christian Directory Cases Obligation of Vows and Promises p. 703. And Mr. Lawson is short and positive The personal Majesty of a King with us requires subjection whilst he lives and governeth according to Law but upon his Death or Tyranny in Exercise or acting to the Dissolution of the Fundamental Constitution he ceaseth to be a Soveraign and the obligation as to Him ceaseth p. 214. Polit. Sacra Civilis In a word so many ways as Majesty and Soveraignty may be lost so many ways this Obligation may be lost Ibid. 2. All that concerns the Papal pretended Powers of doing Evil in the Oath remains true for ever The only Clause in the Oath in which any can think himself concerned is the Promise I will bear faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors and Him and them will defend to the uttermost of my Power against all Conspiracies and attempts whatsoever The resolution of this Doubt depends upon the former Plots and treacherous Conspiracies are practices unworthy of Christians against the worst of Tyrants The ways of defence must be lawful But who was that King which you promised to defend and to bear Faith to Was it not to your Lawful King in the lawful Exercise of his Authority If you were a Servant to his Arbitrary Will if you had defended him and served him to persecute the true Religion or to remove and corrupt it or to set up Arbitrary Power you were a Traitor against God and your Country Your Oath was a Bond of Iniquity and ought now to be repented of Had you fought for him when he was gone to the Camp to fight against the Kingdom you had been a Traitor to England for whose good only Kings are ordained 3. If you are ensnared with the Opinion of the pretended Prince of Wales's being the next Heir you are to be pitied if you are sincere in your Opinion The great Convention the highest Judges in the Kingdom saw the Depositions in favour of his Royal Birth and Natural Descent and what swaying Presumptions and Reasons are produced and publish'd against him and have rejected him and judged him no lawful Heir And if you had much more to confirm your Opinion of his Birth you ought to acquiesce in their Highest Judgment and Determination And if you believe never so honourably of the late King that he would not impose upon us yet he might be imposed upon But when we consider how Popish Principles corrupt Nature you have no reason to be confident And if you are not forestall'd and partial you have much more reason to believe that our Gracious King and Queen who express uprightness in all that they speak or do that they would abhor to deprive a Right Heir of the Priviledg of his Birth to gain a Kingdom too soon when they were no further distant from it and stood in so little need of it 4. But then if you insist upon it Why did not the undoubted Heir succeed in Order This is one of our marvelous Blessings and we have cause to acknowledg the Wisdom and Goodness of our Queen that she consented to and approved of the Method and Order of the Settlement of the Crown by a wise Act of the Convention to cut off Debates and to shorten the way to a happy Settlement If her Majesty be well pleased and her Royal Highness in a better state than she was in before what Cause have you to be dissatisfied There is no such exactness and niceness to be found in most of our Successions in the Throne Peter Martyr was a very wise and learned good Man and his words are worth our following Nihil anxiè disputandum est quo jure quarè injuriâ Principes adepti sunt suam potestatem Illud potiùs agendum est ut Magistratus praesentes revereamur in Rom. c. 13. v. 1. Let us not anxiously dispute Princes Titles let us rather mind this that we honour and fear the present Magistrates I do not speak this as if I doubted the lawfulness of the present happy happy Settlement but for your sake King James the First spake it I am since come to that Knowledg that an Act of Parliament can do greater Wonders than unite Scotland to England by the Name of Great Britain And that old wise Man Treasurer Burleigh was wont to say He knew not what an Act of Parliament can do in England Speech in Star-Chamber And some great Lawyers in a Parliament of Queen Elizabeth Mr. Yelverton afterwards Speaker and Judg said That to say the Parliament had no Power to determine of the Crown was High Treason And Mr. Mounson said It were horrible to say that the Parliament had no Authority to determine of the Crown Sir S. Dew's Journal p. 164 176. And what cannot a Convention a Representative of the Community do and what Parliament will not confirm what they have done And what good Man will be so cloudy and sullen as not to rejoice for what is done to the unspeakable Comfort of