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 to
The Publisher to the Reader THese Papers were sent me by a very Worthy Divine of the Church of England Upon the perusal of which I found with submission to better Judgments the late and present Proceedings so well vindicated and all Scruples arising from the alteration of Affairs so well answered that I judg it would be very injurious to the Publick tho the Author through his great Modesty hath mean thoughts of his own Performances if I should have returned them to be buried in a Desk I know indeed several Treatises have been published of late with great Judgment and Satisfaction on several Points here handled particularly about the Old and New Oaths but none as I know of have gathered together all the Parts of the great Revolutions in England and represented them in their true Colours as is performed in this Friendly Debate to the great satisfaction of all that are truly sensible and even to the Conviction of such among us who earnestly invited the Deliverer our present King William but now very ungratefully reject that Deliverance of which God hath made him a Glorious Instrument A Friendly Debate BETWEEN Dr. Kingsman a Dissatisfied Clergy-man AND Gratianus Trimmer a Neighbour Minister CONCERNING The late Thanksgiving-Day the Prince's Desent into England the Nobility and Gentries joining with him the Acts of the Honourable Convention the Nature of our English Government the Secret League with France the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy c. With some Considerations on Bishop Sanderson and Dr. Falkner about Monarchy Oaths c. Written for the Satisfaction of some of the Clergy and others that yet labour under Scruples By a Minister of the Church of England LONDON Printed for Ionathan Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXIX A FRIENDLY DEBATE BETWEEN Dr. KING'S-MAN AND GRATIANUS TRIMMER About the THANKS GIVING-DAY c. King's-Man GOod Morrow to you Sir I am come to see you this Monday Morning to Recreate my self with you hoping to find you to Day at leisure to discourse Trimmer Sir I am glad to see you here a Sign that the Times are come about or else I should not have thought of such a Favour from you And I am glad to hear you use the Word Recreate a good sign that you took Pains Yesterday that you desire Recreation to Day I pray Sir be pleased to take a Chair I was just now thinking what Text to preach upon next Thursday the Thanksgiving-Day K. Had you any Legal Notice of it or Orders from the Bishop T. No Sir but I hear there is a Book come to Mr. of and tho they care not for the Service I look'd for one from the Apparitor for the sake of the Shilling K. And did you give notice of it in the Church T. Yes K. And what Text have you thought on T. I have thought of those Words Judges 5.9 My Heart is toward the Governours of Israel that offered themselves willingly among the People Bless ye the Lord. But I may pitch upon another K. Is not that in the same Chapter with that Rebellious Text Curse ye Meroz T. Yea it is But I thought there had been never a Rebellious Text in Scripture K. No And therefore it will be hard for you to find one for a Thanksgiving on this Occasion T. Why so Do you think Rebellion to be the occasion of this Thanksgiving But if there were such a bad Text in the Word of God I would find a better for this Occasion K. I thought what the Whiggs and Trimmers would at last bring us to T. So you see indeed that the Trimmers the finest Nick-name that was ever given to honest Men that were for the settlement of Affairs on the truest bottom have brought the Boat to a sight of Land and I wish it well at Home in the Haven of Rest and Peace But do you know whither you were going in the Royal James hanging out the Flags of Loyalty and by an Arbitrary Power against all Law pressing all the Vessels in the River to carry the Pope and Cardinals to visit England with all their Stuff and Merchandize and to command all that would not go passively to lower and strike Flag to you or else to be sunk K. But you do not blame us for our Loyalty do ye The Church of England and her Friends have been ever Loyal And it is her Honour which she hath never prostituted yet whatever other Reformed Churches have done that Honour of Loyalty is peculiar to our Church T. No I do not blame you for Loyalty in the truest Notion of it which the Trimmer understands better than any of you His Notion of it is that Loyalty is Duty and Obedience according to Law. And as for the Glory of the Church of England as it is called and said to be peculiar to her I do think her Sisters beyond-Sea are as honest as she and whatever your Mother is some of you her Sons have got no Honour by making Court to the Mother of Harlots And they who can disparage their Aunts abroad or disown them as no Sister-Churches because they have not Lords for their Husbands and wear not the same Dresses do not consult the Honour of their own Mother And I doubt they will have but few Friends left 'em who abandon them as no Friends to the Church who have appeared in this Cause But because you are so civil as to give me a Visit I will not displease you by a rehersal of the famous Actions of Loyalty and Heats or ingenious Discourses of Government produced by your Friends As you were very near to be destroyed with us by your over officiousness so I am abraid your ill tempered Loyalty will prove pernicious to some and that you will yet endanger all by that kind of Loyalty which some have called a principal Article of Religion Loyalty is one of the prime Duties of the Fifth Commandment and it relates to an object Duty placed and to a Rule plainly determined I will be Loyal to a Popish King but if I may not have the King but I must be in danger of being corrupted by Popery or suffering to extremity by it I think I have cause to adore the Providence which hath delivered me from both without Blood and Destruction upon Destruction If the King had kept his Religion to Himself tho he made the worst choice and not gone about to impose it and set it up upon the Ruine of the Government He might have governed the Kingdom in Peace and Honour But it being out of his own Power since he subjected himself to the Conduct of the most Pestilent Society in the World to have his Faith to Himself without forcing it upon his unwilling Subjects you can never preserve the Virgin Virtue of Loyalty from being guilty of commiting Folly in England And so being Loyal to the King as you call it you are Disloyal to Christ the Supream Head of the Church and treacherous to
there were Streams of penitent Tears ruuning from our Eyes and more fervant Prayers of the Righteous sent up to Heaven But notwithstanding the great Scarcity of both I think it a great Duty to give thanks to God for delivering us from the Hands of our Enemies K. You do not know but the King's Heart might be changed He did a great deal in a little time for the Satisfaction of the People in restoring Charters and declaring he would Call a Parliament and offered Pardons to his Enemies T. We know these Acts of Grace and when they were made publick Of these see the Sence of the Prince of Orange in his Declaration What if the Counsellors and Tools advised these Acts to Cast us into a sleep and to gain time for French Preparations You may see what the Nation did and what Methods of Proceedings were used What Methods were used for our Preservation 1. Many of our Peers and Gentlemen of Honour and Interest first represented the State of the Kingdom to the Heirs Expectant of the Crown and therein declared That their Hignesses if no Prince be born to the King have an unquestionable Right to defend the Legal Monarchy Rege etiam renitente That the People of England have an Unquestionable Right to seek Assistance from their Royal Highnesses Our Case stated on the Nations part That the Ancient Kings of England acknowledged the Peoples Right to save their Free Government c. See the Memorial p. 26 c. If the Prince and Princess have Right to defend Note this and the People of England a Right to seek that Defence wherein doth the Iniquity of both or of either appear especially considering the Nominal Prince of Wales being not an undoubted Heir Our Case stated on the Prince of Orange's part 2. The Prince and Princess timely dealt with the King in a most dutiful manner proposing Expedients to compose and settle the Nation as appears by Pensioner Fagel's Letter and Vindication But the Contrivers of our Ruine both in Soul and Body proceeding to obstruct all healing Methods His Highness put forth his pious and just Declaration of his Reasons and Intentions to come over into England The Reflections upon it are very wordy and weak See the Declaration 3. If the Prince of Orange had no Interest by proximity of Blood to seek the Preservation of the Church and Kingdom Why might not he come over to us as righteously to deliver us as Our former Kings and Queen Elizabeth have assisted forreign Protestant States and Sufferers by Money and Arms 4. The Miseries of the Protestants in France and Savoy and the Dangers which threatned all Protestant Kingdoms and Sates by the Power and Blood-thirstiness of France and the Popish Confederates awakened Protestant Kings and Princes to prevent the Desosolation of their Countries and Religion to enter into a League and to begin with England to rescue it from its growing Perils and to settle the State of it as knowing what an Influence its Preservation or Destruction would have upon Countries of the same Profession And his Highness the Prince being so deeply engaged in that League he must as a Christian prefer the Glory of Christ before all Obligations of Relation as a Son and a Nephew Yet still performing all the Duties of that Relation in which he hath not been wanting as far as is consistent with the Common Cause and Interest And respect to the Common Protestant Interest and Engagement prevail'd with his Highness the Prince of Denmark to go over to the Prince of Orange as he professeth in his Letter to the King. 5. The Prince in his Declaration invited All Degrees and Orders of Men in the Kingdom to come in and joyn with him to promote his Ends in getting a Free Parliament to which he refers Himself and the Settlement of Church and State. Should the Nobility and Gentry look on and see him ready to Fight in their Defence and give him no Assistance K. Yes certainly for they ought not to assist an Invader against their King. T. The Case stated resteth upon this as one chief Pillar If they have right to relate their Grievances and Pressures and to call him to their Rescue there being no other way left for them and if he have Right and Interest in England which he cannot give up for lost and if that which he desires is neither Crown nor Conquest but the Preservation of the Government in a lawful Parliamentary-way then the Invasion is not the Invasion of an Enemy but the coming in of a Saviour to deliver us That the People of England have right to defend their Government they prove in the Memorial quoted before K. But do not you know that Private Persons are not fit Judges whether their Present Case be such in which they may lawfully resist or no T. I remember something to that purpose in Dr. Falkner Christian Loyalty Book 2. p. 365. p. 373. and he quotes the more Corrected Judgment of Grotius differing from what he had written in his younger Time upon Mat. 26. But Are the wisest Noblemen Gentry and Lawyers of the Land unfit to Judg of this Case Doth their incapacity to judge rise from the Privacy of their Condition or what else A private Man well studied in the Laws and Constitution is as able to judge when that is Uiolated as more Publick Persons and a good Lawyer in his Study knows the Law as well as many a Judg upon the Bench. Besides I distinguish between a particular private Man The Nobles and Gentry who appeared in this Action not meer private Men. or more sustaining private Injuries or Oppressions or some lesser Bodies and Corporations and the Community of the whole Kingdom They who have appeared for the Prince of Orange are by far the Majority of the whole Kingdom and men of as great Understandings as any of those who drove them to this Course This Resistance was not in a private Cause but the Essentials of the Government and Concern of the Kingdom And therefore what the Doctor saith and quoteth out of Grotius is nothing to our Case And for a fuller understanding of our Case I pray Sir remember what the King did Our Case opened on the Kings â—… part The Prince and Majority of the Kingdom declare for a Free Parliament for the Protestant Religion and for the Laws and Government by Law. Can any King that is a King by Law sworn and obliged by Promises to govern by Law refuse to grant what the Kingdom desires But He on the Contrary 1. Prepares a Royal Navy increaseth his standing Army calling in many thousands of Popish Irish and of Scots tho not all Papists yet as he thought for his purpose 2. Tho he declared he would summon a free Parliament yet he sent out but few Writs which came to nothing 3. He prepares to defend his Cause and to oppose the Prince and Kingdom by the Sword Whereas if
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
But if they intended no more than the Safety of a Legal King acting Legally from ill Principles and Practices of bad Men then the Note of Universality whatsoever was never intended to subject the Kingdom to Arbitrary Dominion and then it will follow that they who took this Oath are no further bound than to an Universal Obedience to the lawful Commands of the King and are not guilty of Perjury by their late taking Arms for they did not design to break the Yoke of Government by Rebellion Not only the Author of the Enquiry into the Bounds of Obedience but also the most Reverend Arch-bishop Vsher in his Treatise of the Power of a Prince and Subjection and Obedience doth interpret the Note of Vniversality All Ephes 5.24 Col. 3.20 with a limitation p. 143 145. K. But those Commands are Affirmative and this Oath is Negative It is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever binds at all Times and to a total universal abstinence from taking Arms. And those Commands require Active Obedience with a limitation and if we cannot actually obey we must suffer and not rebel but bear even with a Tyrant for the Laws have prohibited the Subjects to take up Arms they have no Law that makes it lawful in any Case to take up Arms therefore they must be Passive The Law is against Arms therefore it is unlawful they have no right to the Sword therefore it is unlawful for them to take it T. As Subjects they may not but as a Party I ask you why they may not I cannot speak to every Branch of your Objection Besides what I have said I am in reason constrained to think and speak that the late King acting as he did did not act as King and that his Attempts were growing more intollerable and that as there is no Provision in any Laws for the Peoples taking of Arms so there is none which forbids them to defend the Government the Legislative Power and Religion established There is no Law nor Right to bear out the King in doing as he did He broke the Foundations first and in reason if the King may defend his Soveraignty from the Invasion of his Rebellious Subjects so the several Degrees and Ranks of the Kingdom may defend the Government from being changed and their Properties Liberties Religion and Lives from being destroyed If a King shall set himself against the Constitution and the Publick Good he is no longer that King to whom the Laws oblige us And is it not plain to every Man that seeing he could not have his way in Governing or rather Dissolving he will no longer abide in the Kingdom To suppose that the Laws would provide in what Cases a King may turn Tyrant and allow him to turn the Militia against the Kingdom and in what Cases the Kingdom may take the Sword against the King is to suppose such a Law as would be inconsistent with the Constitution For as the King would never pass an Act that should make it lawful for Subjects to rise in Arms against him so it is not to be thought that the Lords and Commons should consent to such a Law as would enable the King to destroy the Government Religion and Laws The Consent of King and Parliament in not to be supposed to make such a Law for one against the other and without the consent of both Parties there could be no Law. And such a Law would not prove safe to the Government which is preserved by Union As the Subjects run the hazard of Life and Estate if they rebel so the King doth run the hazard of his Crown if he usurp and make himself to be what the Law hath not made him but directly contrary To conclude this Head. How many Violations had we been guilty of even of all the Bonds of Nature and Religion if the Papists and their Loyal Friends had not been opposed at this Time. And though in this Case it is lawful for a People a free People by the Constitution to preserve Themselves and Posterity from Slavery and Idolatry yet it is unlawful for Subjects as far as they are Subjects to rebel against their King and it had been happy that Oath had never been enjoined if any took it ignorantly and rashly or brake it in their Hearts intentionally or were actually the occasion of promoting Arbitrary Power and Popery by it or had any Design against the King's Dignity out of Revenge or for private Eâ—ds the Lord grant unto them Repentance for the forgiveness of their Sin and cleanse the Land from the guilt of multitudes of Oaths not well understood nor kept K. But we know the Scripture is plain against Resistance and we have many Examples against Resistance and for Passive Obedience And our Homilies condemn it and the Friends of the Church of England have always been Guiltless T. Shew me if you can any thing in Scripture Precept or Example that condemns such an Action as this was in the Circumstances of Persons and Causes The Homilies do insist much upon the Example of David David's Example I allow what they teach But I will make the Case worse than David's was Had Saul brought in Foreign Forces and turn'd his Strength against the Kingdom and done all after the manner of the King 1 Sam. 8. it had been utterly unlawful for David and all the People of Israel to take Arms against Saul or depose Him for there was a Law of God binding them to make him King whom the Lord should choose as he chose Saul See the 17th of Deut. 14 15. The Case of David and ours differ as much as the Case of a private Subject and a free People as we were when the King set Himself to do as he did David though appointed to be King was but a private and particular Subject under Saul and Saul was nominated and appointed King by God himself and it was God's express Law Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose Deut. 17.15 And when David gave this Reason why he would not do what his Party would have had him do he said God forbid I should do this thing unto my Master the Lord 's Annointed to stretch forth mine Hand against Him seeing he is the Annointed of the Lord 1 Sam. 24.6 His autem Verbis David tantùm spectabat Institutum Dei. David regarded the Appointment of God. Ergo injussu Dei non debeo eum dejicere Therefore without God's Command I ought not depose him Pet. Martyr on the words And that Learned and Reverend Man answering the Reasons of some who thought David might lawfully have killed Saul gives the Reasons why he could not They say David was King. Esto be it so saith P. Martyr but he was not publickly inaugurated Vim vi repellere licet say they Fateor I confess it is lawful to repel Force with Force saith P. Martyr Sed inculpatâ tutelâ with an innocent or blamless
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
he had pleased in convenient time to call a free Parliament he had satisfied his Subjects 4. When the Prince advanced the King went out in Person to his Army declaring an intention to fight 5. But when the Armies were not far asunder and an Engagement expected by the Prince Behold the Soveraign Power of the Lord of Hosts upon the Spirit of the King He deserted his Army upon which he laid the whole of his Cause And so far he quitted his Cause which was to be maintained by Force and not by a Legal Parliament 6. And lastly as you very well know he gave up his Army and Navy to the Prince of Orange and went off without Force or Threatning for what Reasons or upon whose Advice is not altogether Unknown Upon the whole of what I have very briefly exercised your Patience with I conclude Our Case is Extraordinary Our Case in all Circumstances extraordinary It is Extraordinary 1. That our King should be a Papist and subject to the Abhorred Bishop of Rome 2. That he should overthrow the Foundations tho not pull down all the Superstructions of the Government and begin with his own Soveraign Dignity own a Superior the Pope to whom he sent an Ambassadour and from whom he entertained a Nuncio 3. That he should go about to force and pack a Parliament and therein destroy the Liberties of the Subject which are as legal as his Prerogatives 4. That when a Parliament is desired He chose rather to put his Cause upon the Swords Point and really into the Hands and upon the Determination of God who is the Lord of Hosts tho he did not refer it to the Judgment of God formally and in words than into a legal peaceable way 5. And having deserted his Army without Battel I desire your Information of me whether it was not a giving up of his Cause 6. It was altogether extraordinary too that Subjects might not have encouragement to Petition for their just Rights when they saw Ruine drawing on by the encrease of Popery and Combinations of Papists to root out the Protestant Religion according to the Doctrine of their Church And being debarred of any Legal Means the most Eminent of the Kingdom not the Plebs and Vulgus the private Men that are judged unfit to judg of their Rights and Dangers call for Assistance from the Heirs Expectant that the Illustrious Prince should enter the Kingdom with an Army that almost all the Kingdom were ready to assist according to their Abilities that he should march so many Miles without a Skirmish and instead of finding a Royal Army in a posture to fight he found it discharg'd from fighting by the King Himself And in fine found an open and uninterrupted Passage to Royal Palaces and the whole Force of the King delivered up to him If this be not rare and extraordinary By a Letter from the King to him never was the Finger of God seen in any wonderful Work and Turn This is the mighty Work of God! whom wonderful in working And extraordinary Providences being either in Mercy or in Judgment I see a great deal of Mercy a Mercy as great and extraordinary as the appearance of the Hand that gave it to us And I make no question but the Night that was coming upon us would have been as dismal and dreadful as the Day of our Deliverance is glorious and memorable K. I own the Providence is extraordinary and the Action without example But still how can you publickly rejoice at the Success of a Rebellion against our Soveraign Is it not against established Laws and against our Oaths T. Sir I will be as brief with you as may be 1. Can sinful Men do any thing without Sin And is it not one of the Perfections of God to carry on his own Purposes by those very Actions of Men that are sinful Gen. 50.20 and many Instances hereof might be given 2. There were many and great Sins committed before the Kingdom was provoked to this extraordinary Course Arbitrary Power is subversive of the Constitution and Laws of this Kingdom and the Advancement of Popery the introducing of all manner of Sins and Miseries No ordinary Rules for extraordinary Cases 3. In extraordinary Cases we are carried beyond ordinary Rules As there is no written Law to warrant the Subjects taking up Arms against the King but forbidding them so there is no Law of God or Man that warrants the King 's turning his Power and Sword against his Subjects The one is as unlawful as the other There is not an Oath given by the Subjects to the King but the King is in Conscience bound to answer by his goodness to them 4. Our Constitution and Laws do suppose an intire Union of Affection Interest yea and Religion too between the King and his People And as express Laws and formal Oaths do forbid Subjects taking Arms and other Acts of Disobedience so the very Being and Relation of a King and Rules of Government bind him as fast not to oppress them or invade their Rights They have Rights and are a People as free from Tyranny as any people in the World. 5. Then strictest Obligations in Religion and Conscience mutual between King and People must always suppose God's Soveraign Right to dispose of Kingdoms to put down one and set up another And it is suitable to think that when God doth appear by great providences great Changes follow Hitherto we see extraordinary Mercies And I beseech you shew me wherein have the Subjects of England sinned against the Person Crown or Dignity of the King to necessitate him to prepare Armies against them who were constrained to take Arms or be destroyed by Papists K. But tho God doth act according to his absolute Dominion yet he acts according to his infinite Wisdom Righteousness or Mercy and tho His infinite Majesty doth whatsoever pleaseth him yet we must walk according to Rules and keep our Places Now the King of England being a Soveraign Prince Supreme over All Persons and we being bound by so many Oaths to maintain his Crown and Dignity and not to take Arms against his Person or those who are Comissioned by him on any Pretence whatsoever this Action must needs be unlawful in it self and not the less sinful because successful T. Sir I will take your Reasons in Order And because I cannot carry Books in Memory and shall have recourse to some few I pray let us go to my Study if you can stay there so long without a Fire K. Come let 's then I can endure the Cold as well as your self T. Absolute Kings no Ordinance of God. 1. Then I cannot believe that God or Nature ever gave an absolute Power to Kings An Absolute King is so called because he is non Legibus solutus not bound by Laws One that gives Laws to Others but is above all Laws and not tied to any Himself When God did foresee that his People Israel would in