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
time grow weary of the Theocracy God's Government over them and desire to be governed like other Nations yet that King that should govern them was to be bound to observe the Law in the Statute-Book of God Deut. 17. from the 15th to the 20th Verse No one Man since the Fall was Wise or Righteous or Powerful enough to have the absolute and Arbitrary Rule of any people And I suppose Tyranny is not an Ordinance of God but a Corruption of Government K. But consider what the learned judicious and Excellent Writer of our Church Bp. Saunderson considered Bishop Saunderson saith of this Preface before Arch-Bishop Usher's Treatise of Power communicated by God to the Prince Sect. 12. T. I have considered it and have wondred to read these words True it is that for more ease of Governours and better satisfaction of the People in securing their Properties preserving Peace among them and doing Justice the absolute and unlimited Soveraignty which Princes have by the Ordinance of God hath at all Times and in all Nations been diversly limitted and bounded in the ordinary Exercise thereof by such Laws and Customs as the Supreme Governours themselves have consented unto and allowed As with us in England c. Now Doctor with all due respect to you and that great Writer I offer you these Reflections 1. He affirms that the absolute and unlimited Soveraignty which Princes have by the Ordinance of God c. if they have an unlimited Soveraignty which I acknowledge they must needs have if it be absolute by the Ordinance of God how dare they consent to limit it which is to change the Ordinance of God Soveraignty of the King of England limited 2. As in England c. then I say the Soveraignty of the King of England is bounded by Laws and Customs and therefore not absolute and unlimited 3. Tho their Soveraignty be limited by their own Consent it is limited after their Consent is given 4. It is limited by their own Consent as all other Statute-Laws are made by their Consent and what they consent to is past by the Consent of the Lords and Commons in Parliament first Sir Orlando Bridgman afterwards Lord Keeper in his charge to the Grand-Jury of Middlesex at the Trial of the Regicides took pains to declare our Government pag. 10. He opens the Power of our Kings from the Titles that are given them in Law-Books and most upon the Title Imperial Crown subject to God and to no other Power What is an Imperial Crown it is that which as to the Coercive part is subject to no Man under God humane Tribunal or Judicature whatsoever pag. 11 12. God forbid I should intend any Absolute Government by this And pag. 68. Yet let me tell you there is that excellent ☜ temperament in our Laws that for all this the King cannot rule but by his Laws pag. 12. Tho this is an absolute Monarchy yet this is so far from infringing the Peoples Rights that the People as to their Properties Liberties and Lives have as great a Priviledge as the King. pag. 13. K. But read further and then you will see that when he saith We have as great Liberties as any People have in Christendom in the World he adds But let us own them where they are due We owe them to the Concessions of our Princes Our Princes have granted them and the King now He in them hath granted them likewise Therefore the King is the Fountain of all the Liberties of the People they are his Gracious Concessions T. That will not help you to infer that the Kings of England are absolute unlimited Soveraigns There are no People in the world give greater honour to their Kings than we of England as the learned Sir Thomas Smith Privy Councellor to Queen Elizabeth and Embassador in France when he wrote his Book De Repub. Anglorum pag. 47. Their way of asking any thing in Parliament tho they have right to the thing is by way of Petitition and as Subjects and do acknowledge all the good Acts to be the Gracious Acts of the King. But there are two sorts of Concessions and Grants 1. Such as are Concessions of meer Grace of such Benefits as the Commons have no right to Claim And 2. There are Concessions of Right and signify no more than the King doth Consent to such Bills as are presented by the Lords and Commons and so all our Rights and Properties secured by Law are Concessions And all those Concessions as Grants and Charters that are more Acts of Grace than some others are are for some publick Benefit and redound to the King's Honour Profit or Service And such Concessions as these flow from Prerogative which Prerogative as all Legal Prerogatives are the King by Law. There are mutual Acts of Kindness between a good King and his Subjects And the Commonwealth is happy when such mutual demonstrations of Love Grace and Duty pass between them But there are Concessions also made to the King by his Subjects in Parliament which the King cannot have but by the free Act of his Subjects as Subsides and Taxes And because the Subjects grant them to the King when they see it reasonable it is manifest I conceive Will you suffer me hence to infer the Parliament is Supreme above the King because they make these Concessions that the People have Rights and Properties and Liberties of their own And many of these they come to by Purchase and not Royal Donations or by an Equivalence of some Bencht to the King. Read if you please the learned Mr Lawson a good Civilian and Politician as well as Divine in his Answer to Hobs c. 8. That learned and ingenious Gentleman Sir Dudley Diggs spake to the Lords in a Conference Anno 1628. Be pleased to Know then that it is an undoubted fundamental point of this so ancient Common Law of which he said Caput inter Nubila condit of England that the Subject hath a true Property in his Goods and Possessions which doth preserve as sacred that Meum and Tuum that is the Nurse of Industry the Mother of Courage and without which there can be no Justice of which Meum and Tuum is the proper Object Ephemeris Parliamentaris pag. 95. The Petition so much debated in that Parliament was the Petition of Right The King in his Answer to the whole Parliament spake this Golden Sentence And I assure you my Maxim is That the Peoples Liberties strengthen the King's Prerogative and the Kings Prerogative is to defend the Peoples Liberties pag. 204. Here 's enough of this K. The People have Rights But Government being before Property Property doth proceed from the Soveraign who grants and determins it For as Bishop Saunderson asserts Sect. 18. of the Preface It is certain that as soon as Adam was created God gave him to be an Universal Monarch and the Government also of all the inferior World and of all the Men that after
the Crown as an Imperial Crown and the Kingdom as an Empire So Sir John Davis in the Case of Praemunire or Conviction of Solar 4 Jac. upon the Statute of the 16 R. 2. c. 5. published by Sir John Pettus Yet if we look into the Stories and Record of these two Imperial Kingdoms we shall find that if these Laws of Provision and Praemunire had not been made they had lost the name of Imperial and of Kingdoms too and had been long since made Tributary Provinces to the Bishop of Rome or rather part of St. Peter's Patrimony or Demesn c. pag. 6 7 c. And L. Ch. Justice Cook Rep. of the Ecclesiastical Laws printed with the former describes the Empire of the Kingdom of England in these words And therefore by the Ancient Laws of this Realm this Kingdom of England is an Absolute Empire and Monarchy Consisting of One Head which is the King and of a Body Politick compact and compounded of many and almost infinite several and yet well-agreeing Members c. pag. 46. Observe he makes not the King to be absolute Emperor over his Subjects giving them Edicts for Laws and ruling them in an Imperial way but the Kingdom of England whereof the King is Head with his Body is an Empire So I do with submission to my Teachers conclude that the Crown and Kingdom of England is Imperial that is Independent in respect of the Pope or any other foraign Superior but that the Crown and King is not Imperial in respect of the Subjects of England giving them Laws and Edicts according to his own Will for all our Laws are made with the Consent of Lords and Commons 3. The Kings of England are Supreme Governours next and immediately under God. But let us keep to the word Governour or Administrator There are two things in a Government Constitution There a difference between Governour and Legislator and Administration The Fundamental Constitution of this Government is by King Lords and Commons The King is not the sole Legislator Power and Supreme Power is lodged there onely where Legislation is The Legislative Power is in the Parliament the Parliament doth consist of King Lords and Commons jointly Hear what King Charles the First acknowledged in his Answer to the XIX Propositions pag. 18. of the first Edition In this Kingdom the Laws are jointly made by a King by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons chosen by the People all having free Votes and particular Priviledges The Government according to these Laws is trusted to the King. The most high and absolute Power of the Realm of England consisteth in the Parliament which representeth and hath the Power of the whole Realm both the Head and the Body Sir. Tho. Smith De Repub. Angl. B. 2. c. 1. And tho we acknowledg the King to be the only Supreme Governor the very word Governor doth limit the word Supreme For being a Governor according to Law not made by his own Will or Authority but by the Consent of the three Estates in Parliament he is limited as Governor to govern according to Law And so being a limited Governor his Supremacy is a limited Supremacy He is Supreme next under God that is there is no Governor over him or above him If there were any Governor over him he would not be Supreme He who is Governor only according to Law cannot of his own Will and should not follow such Counsellors as put him upon Courses destructive of the Laws by which he ought to govern 4. Our Supreme Governor is trusted with many Royal Prerogatives for the Good and Welfare of the Subjects So K. Ch. I. acknowledged in his Answer to the XIX Propositions For our Subjects sake these Rights are vested in us p. 17. The Prince may not make use of this high and perpetual Power to the hurt of those for whose Good he hath it p. 19. Therefore he cannot command what he will nor change the Government and Religion of the Kingdom established by Law as hath been design'd of late 5. Our Supreme Governor is such a Governor that is also bound to keep the Law and is subject himself to Law. There are many Cases wherein a Subject in maintainance of his Right may wage Law with the King c. saith Bishop Saunderson Sect. 12. And King James the 1st in his Speech in the Star-Chamber June 20. 1616. said I was sworn to maintain the Law of the Land and therefore I had been perjur'd if I had alter'd it p. 13. What then if the Laws and Government in the Essentials of it come to be chang'd K. But there are some Ancient Lawyers of greatest Authority who say Nemo presumat de faciis ejus Regis disquirere nedum contra factum ejus venire T. I remember I have read those words father'd upon Bracton by your late R. R. Bishop of Chester in his Speech at Magdalen Colledg The words of Bracton are these which either his Lordship had not read in the Author or had forgotten Nemo quidem de factis suis presumat disputare multà fortiùs contra factum suum venire l. 1. c. 8. But if he had considered what that venerable Author hath written in the same Chapter before those words he had rather dissuaded the King from that Action against the Colledg than have serv'd him in it Ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo c sub Lege Quia Lex facit Regem Attribuat igitur Rex Legi quod Lex attribuit Ei videlicet Dominationem potestatem Non enim Rex ubi Dominatur voluntas non Lex Et quidem sub Lege esse debeat cum sit Dei Vicarius c. The same Sentences misrepeated by that late Bishop of Chester are to be seen in Fleta who flourished in the same Age with Bracton and gives to Posterity the Face which the Law had in the Days of Edw. 1. As Mr. Selden saith in his Dissertatio ad Fletam immediately after those words nec contra factum suum venire these words follow Verum tamen in populo regendo superiores habet ut Legem per quam factus est Rex Et Curiam suam viz. Comites Barones Comites enim à Comitiva dicuntur qui cum viderint Regem sine fraeno fraenum sibi apponere tenentur c. Temperent igitur Reges potentiam suam per Legem quae fraenum est potentiae l. 1. c. 17. p. 17. And Sect. 2. of that Chapter derives Rex non à regnando â bene regendo nomen assumitur Rex verò dum benè regit Tyrannus verò dum populum suâ violatâ opprimitur dominatione Such a Supreme Governor we acknowledg the King of England to be And what can you infer from hence K. But the Reverend Bishop Saunderson speaks as plainly as can be That a mixt Monarchy is an errand Bull and Contradiction in adjecto And therefore the King hath
and Renowned Fleta hath left as his Judgment and Law l. 1. c. 17. S. 2 3. Nec à Regnando dicitur sed a benè regendo nomen assumitur Rex verò dum benè regit Tyrannus dum populum suâ violatâ apprimitur dominatione Ad hoc namque electus est ut justitiam pariter Vniversis sibi subditis faciat exhibere c. And Sect. 14. Ad haec enim Creatus est Rex Electus ut justiciam faciat Vniversis c. Florentius Wigorniensis that old Historian relates That Edgar the First who united England into one Kingdom was Electus ab omni Anglorum Populo of all the People of England Edit 4º p. 355. as he was before chosen of the Mercians and Northumbrians who deserted King Edwin because he acted foolishly in the Government committed to him p. 354. After the decease of Edgar there arose a great Dissention among the chief Men of the Kingdom about the Election of a King for some Elected Edward his Son and others Elected his Brother Ethelred p. 361. And to save the labour of looking further you may see how the Succession went see in a brief History of the Succession printed the other Day 3. Government grew by degrees into Kingdoms and began in Families encreased into Vicinities Towns Cities Common-Wealths and Kingdoms And that Form of Government was best which best agreed with the People and was most conducive to the Publick Benefit Hear what the Admired and Learned Mr. Hooker thought Book I. of Eccles Policy p. 27 29. The Case of Man's Nature standing as it doth some kind of Regiment the Law of Nature doth require yet the Kinds thereof being many Nature tieth not to any One but leaveth the Choice as a thing Arbitrary This is contrary to them that set up Monarchy and Absolute too upon the Foundation of the Law of Nature 4. As to the derided Contract and Consent of the People where and by whom and abundance of Questions about it I conceive the words of the same Learned Hooker may ballance those of Bishop Saunderson That which we spake before concerning the Power of Government must be here applied to the Power of making Laws to command whole politick Societies of Men belongeth so properly unto the same intire Societies of Men that for any Prince or Potentate of what kind soever upon Earth to exercise the same of himself and not either by express Commission immediately and personally received from God or else by Authority derived at first from their Consent upon whose Persons they impose Laws it is no better than meer Tyranny Laws they are not therefore which publick Approbation hath not made so But Approbation not only they give who personally declare their Consent by Voice Sign or Act but also when others do it in their Names by Right at least originally derived from them As in Parliaments Councils and the like Assemblies B. 1. p. 28. The many of Bishop Saunderson's Questions may easily be answered by destroying his Supposition That there was a great number of People as big suppose as a Kingdom without Government and that these all must in all respects be equal or else they may be injured by some who contract and all present to chuse their Governor and give him Power to rule according to contract * See the same Supposition handsomly flourish'd by Dr. Fern. Consc satisfied p. 9. It is no Matter by whom or when the first Contract was made we are sure it was by the Light of Nature or Reason in the most convenient way Let us see how it is now and hath been of a long time Whereas we read in our Histories that sometimes the Nobles sometimes Nobles and Prelats sometimes the Heads of the Commons agreed with their King upon Conditions to govern But that is the most perfect way which is by the three Estates met in Parliament or Convention 5. That there were and are Contracts between the Kings of England and the People or the Community made by their Representatives is not void of sufficient Proof Take a few The People of England are called the King's Liege People because they are obliged to him And the King is also called the Liege King for the same Reason because he is bound by Contract or Covenant to them Dicuntin utrique ligii Princeps nempe ligius Dominus subdits verb Populus ligius homines ligii Ligia foedus Eigii igitus liges idem sunt quod ligati Spelm. Gloss Many Instances might be produced of Contracts between our Ancient Kings and the People of England Two shall suffice When Suanus tyrannized over the Land he exacted a huge Tribute of St. Edmunds-Bury threatned to burn it if he had it not paid him and giving out opprobious Language against that St. Edmund at Gainsburrough where he held a General Plea died there in great Agony and Fear upon the appearance of St. Edmund coming against him The Danish Fleet chose his Son Canutus to be King. At majores Natu totius Angliae The Elders or Eldermen of all England sent Messengers with one consent to Ethelred King of England then in Normandy saying That they loved and would love none more than Him their natural Lord If he would more rightly govern or more mildly handle them than he had before Which when he heard he directed his Son Edward with Embassadors to them and he in most friendly manner saluted the Greater and the Lesser of his Nation Promising That he would be to them a mild and devoted Lord that he would consent to their Will in all Things acquiesce in their Counsels that he would pardon what soever was reproachfully and disgracefully said of him or his or done contrary to him and his s◠omnes unanimiter c. if all would unanimously and without treachery agree to receive him into the Kingdom All of them did answer Courteously or freely to these things Afterwards a full Accord or Friendship is confirmed on both sides Verbis Pacto both by Words and Contract Florentius Wigerniensis p. 381. The other Instance I give out of the same Historian is omni Exceptione major it is of William the first commonly called the Conqueror William came to London with his whole Army ut ibi in Regem sublimaretur that he might be advanced to be King and was Consecrated in an honourable manner Promising first as Aldred the Archbishop of York required or exacted of him before the Altar of St. Peter by Oath before the Clergy and People That he would defend the Holy Churches of God and their Rectors and govern all the People subject to Him justly and with Regal Care and Providence Appoint or ordain and hold Right Law and forbid Rapines and unjust Judgments utterly or altogether p. 431. But that which goes beyond all particular Instances is the Coronation Oath K. But concerning the Coronation Oath I am of the Opinion of Rev. Dr. Falkner Christian Loyalty B. 2. c. 2. p. 423. Let us
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
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
second Letter to Le Cheese We have here a mighty Work upon our Hands no less than the Conversion of the three Kingdoms and by that perhaps the subduing of a Pestilent Heresy which has domineer'd over a great part of the Northern World a long time there were never such hopes of Success since the Death of Queen Mary as now in our days when God hath given us a Prince who is become may I say a Miracle zealous of being the Author and Instrument of so glorious a Work Collect. of Letters p. 118. Now ordinary Reason will hence advance the probability of all kind of mutual Engagements between these two Princes to promote the Catholick Interest by Dragooning us either to turn Papists or turn out of the Land. Pray Sir can you disprove the Story as you call it of the French League either by detecting the Imposture or by demonstrating the unreasonableness of the thing Or is it sufficient that their being both entirely devoted to the innocent and harmless Society of the Jesuits to unite them in the same Heavenly and Spiritual Interest and Designs as would make such a League incredible and unsupposable 3. Thè Story of the Prince of Wales whose Right to the Crown is so clear to some of your Seminaries that it is as certain as an Article of Faith is not laid asleep nor past away in silence We have read the Observations made upon him in the Memorial and upon the Queen's Progress with him We give credit to the Letter of Father Petre to La Chese As to the Queen's being with Child that Great Concern goes on as well as we could with c. you will agree with me most Reverend Father that we have done a great thing by introducing Mrs. Cellier to the Queen this Woman is totally devoted to our Society A rare Midwife of a Plot to dig a Baby out of a Meal-Tub The zealous Catholicks lay already two to one that it will be a Prince he must be a Prince or as good never be with Child But that which is pretty indeed in the Reverend Father is That the King 's Secret Council think good to wait for the Queen's Delivery that they may see a Successor who may have need of the whole Protection of the most Christian King to support him maintain his Rights Now what was to become of the King of England Whither was he to be sent after the Birth of this young Successor the Question may be asked of the Friends of that little Prince for was King James to live or not If he was to live notwithstanding the having of a Prince to succeed him then why was not he able to support and protect his Successor and his Rights Or was the King of England to be disabled from supporting his Successor The Princes of Wales were never wont to have Guardians and Protectors out of the English Dominions But this Unfortunate Prince would need Protection from a Foreign Monarch and his whole Protection A skirt of his Protection was not large enough he must have the whole Campaign Cloke of his Protection to Cover him and to support Him and maintain his Rights Why so Well it seems Father Petre was a Fortuneteller of the young friendless injured Prince that he must be carried to France when young and tender and stand in need of the whole Protection of a Great King. 4. You say That which they call the Original Contract was designed for no more than a Popular Flourish Now Doctor how doth this appear that it was no more than a Popular Flourish what a kindness was the King's withdrawing to the Gentlemen of the Convention and Men of their Sentiments had it not been for that they would have had no stress for their opinion of the Vacancy For the French League was but a Story the Prince of Wales was but a Story which they cared not how soon was laid asleep or put to silence And what they call an Original Contract was but a popular Flourish Now Doctor because your Author is a Man that leads because he writes and against a whole Convention also I will make some further discovery of this Contract which others of the same Genius make so light of And here I will shew what some of Eminency of the Church of England have written of it These Men will not allow the Kingdom of England to be as much as a Contracted Matron but a Prostitute to Absolute Arbitrary Power Of the Original Contract between the King and People of England I have noted before how Bishop Saunderson doth labour to manifest the Absurdity if not Impossibility of any Contract between King and People But if the People had at any time any Power of Electing their King it is rational enough to conceive that they made Conditions and Terms and would never have consented to their Hurt and Injury There are several ways of acquiring Soveraign Power Dr. Fern whose appearance was eminent against Defensive Arms doth yet acknowledg It is probable indeed that Kings at first were by choice Here as Elsewhere The Resolving of Conscience p. 19. This I speak not as if the Kings of this Land might rule as Conquerors God forbid The King is bound unto all those Laws Grants and Priviledges and that by Oath Whereas Our King is King before he comes to the Coronation which is sooner or later at his pleasure Then it seems Security must be given to the People but always to be in due time in regard of the security his People receive by his taking the Oath and he again mutually from them in which performance there is something like a Covenant all but Forfeiture The King there promises and binds himself by Oath to performance Could they shew us in this Covenant such an Agreement between the King and his People that in case he will not discharge his Trust that it shall be lawful for the States of the Kingdom by Arms to resist and provide for the Safety thereof it were something p. 21. Here is a Covenant and Contract confirmed by Oath which is enough to qualify the Spirits of them who deride or expose it And though there be no Forfeiture mentioned it doth not follow none can be incurred There is a mutual Benevolence Hope and Confidence in the Marriage of the sponsus Regni to the Kingdom it doth not therefore follow the Marriage-Bond cannot be violated Suppose all that swear Fealty to the King do break Faith with him do they not forfeit their Priviledges and Honours yet where is it exprest in the Contract or Capitulation A Government founded upon Contract and Agreement is not so strange a thing in it self as some Men make it to be when there are many Learned Writers that affirm there can be no just and righteous Government but by Election and Consent and that without it Government could not subsist And others hold though Election and Consent be not absolutely necessary to a just Government they