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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1. In taking away Counsel and Power from the One and 2. raising a mighty Spirit of Courage and Conduct in the often despised Prince of Orange and that State and turning the Spirits of this great People like one Man to oppose Popery and Slavery K. But Providence is dark and an uncertain Guide look to the Rule the Law of God and Man. T. Such apparent Providences are to be adored as Supreme Decisions of Cases reserved in the Divine Power Is not writing against the King's Will Resistance 2. I ask by what Law did so many Learned Men oppose Popery and the King's Will with their Learned Pens Had they Law for it shew it Was not that a Ressistance and a provoking one too For ought I know by the same Reason a Souldier may take his Sword who cannot dispute and write in this Cause as justly as a Scholar or a Divine may take his Pen and oppose I grant a Disparity in the Instrument and way of Resistance but the Reason or Motives of the one and the other the same But as the one doth it to maintain the Truth of God to confute Idolatry and Errors and to save Souls so doth the other and more than the Scholar doth for he labours to save Life and Estate Liberty and Property and the Protestant Religion abroad from being persecuted out of the World whereas the Scholar by his Disputes doth irritate and defends the Cause but not the Persons that are in danger And why may not a Peer of England and a Gentleman use all his Power Wisdom and Interest in such a Case as well as a Scholar use his Reason and his Books The Disputant is not passive but doth resist in his way and is it not then unlawful to contradict as well in its kind as to contra-act Is it lawful for me to defend my Inheritance by Law from the King's Incroachment You 'l say it is And why is it not lawful for a Kingdom to defend their Inheritance in Religion and Laws by the Sword when there is no other way left There 's a Treason against a Government as well as against a Governor Every free-Man of England hath a share in the benefit of the Fundamental Constitution and ought to be aiding and assisting in his place to defend it from pernicious Changes K. But is it fit the people should judg T. That kind of Passive-Obedience ill stated and ill timed also is blind Obedience The Wise and Great and Good Men of the Kingdom are competent Judges of Fact and Law also And a share is due to them in the Legislative also and a share is due to them in the Judicial and Executive Power And if they clearly see through right Mediums that they are in danger of being denied their Right I ask you What Law doth forbid them to vindicate their Right and defend the Government There is no Law of England that doth forbid the Kingdom to preserve its Legislative Power and Hereditary Right to a great share in the Government And their lying still in such a Case as ours had been to suffer the ruin of the Ancient Establishment and the erection of a New after a Jesuital Model There is no positive Law that forbids all Endeavours even by Force against Force in Extremity when Right cannot be had without it and if the King be but one of the three Estates of the Kingdom as K. Charles the First seems to me clearly to assert Answ to the XIX Propos p. 12 13 18 19 21. of the first Edit making himself One and the Houses of Lords and Commons the other Two and not as some others who make the Temporal Lords one the Spiritual the other and the Commons the third Then the Lords and Commons have two parts in the Legislation and Government and if they have not a supposed Right which they never gave up nor was ever taken from them nor parted with to preserve and vindicate their Rights and Liberties and that by Force or forcible Attempts when other ways have been used to no purpose and when Arbitrary Power strikes at the Root of the Constitution then if they have no inherent Right to maintain their Right to their Liberties and Religion they have no right to the things themselves but owe them altogether to the meer Grace and hold them at the meer Will of the King if so then he is an Absolute Soveraign and may at pleasure make us absolute passive Slaves But the Monarchy of England is a regulated limited Monarchy we have a legal Right to our Liberties Properties and Religion and the Lords and Commons never parted with their Fundamental Rights therefore they may vindicate them by their Power and Force in Extremity and apparent Danger K. But the Primitive Christians did not resist Tyrants and Persecutors though they had Force and Armies as Tertullian and others declare T. The Case of the Primitive Christians in nothing to Ours Christians as Christians have no Weapons but Christian no more than Subjects as Subjects have a right to Arms and to make Resistance And they were then in the state of meer Christianity Had they a right of Election to be Senators Had they a legal establishment of their Religion Was their Consent demanded by Heralds to have such a Man for their Emperor Did the Emperor swear at his Inauguration to govern by Laws in the making of which they had a share Dr. Falkener arguing against Subjects taking Arms against the King shews we need not fear to be driven to it for we have the security of good and wholsom Laws fixed with us by general accord of King Lords and Commons And it is a great Priviledg in this Realm that both Civil Rights and Matters of Religion are established by our Laws and that no Law can be made or repealed nor publick Monies raised but by the Consent of the Commons c. B. 2. p. 378. Had the Condition of the Primitive Christians been like ours we have no reason to think but they would have vindicated their own Right as had our Condition been the same with theirs I hope through Grace we should have put on the Crown of ☜ Martyrdom as they did The Question is not Whether it be lawful for Subjects to take Arms against their King when they have their Rights and Religion established by Laws and those preserved but whether a Kingdom the Peers Gentry and Body of it may not vindicate their Legal Rights both Sacred and Civil by open Force in conjunction with a free Protestant Prince who hath a Right in the Kingdom to preserve when there is an apparent Necessity either so to do or suffer and intollerable kind of Government to come upon them Our Case put home And that at such a time when their Passive Stupidity Dulness Compliance or Cowardise would ruin their Posterity and extreamly hazard every Protestant State and Kingdom to a speedy ruin and desolation whom we ought to our power to preserve
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