the Crown as an Imperial Crown and the Kingdom as an Empire So Sir John Davis in the Case of Praemunire or Conviction of Solar 4 Jac. upon the Statute of the 16 R. 2. c. 5. published by Sir John Pettus Yet if we look into the Stories and Record of these two Imperial Kingdoms we shall find that if these Laws of Provision and Praemunire had not been made they had lost the name of Imperial and of Kingdoms too and had been long since made Tributary Provinces to the Bishop of Rome or rather part of St. Peter's Patrimony or Demesn c. pag. 6 7 c. And L. Ch. Justice Cook Rep. of the Ecclesiastical Laws printed with the former describes the Empire of the Kingdom of England in these words And therefore by the Ancient Laws of this Realm this Kingdom of England is an Absolute Empire and Monarchy Consisting of One Head which is the King and of a Body Politick compact and compounded of many and almost infinite several and yet well-agreeing Members c. pag. 46. Observe he makes not the King to be absolute Emperor over his Subjects giving them Edicts for Laws and ruling them in an Imperial way but the Kingdom of England whereof the King is Head with his Body is an Empire So I do with submission to my Teachers conclude that the Crown and Kingdom of England is Imperial that is Independent in respect of the Pope or any other foraign Superior but that the Crown and King is not Imperial in respect of the Subjects of England giving them Laws and Edicts according to his own Will for all our Laws are made with the Consent of Lords and Commons 3. The Kings of England are Supreme Governours next and immediately under God. But let us keep to the word Governour or Administrator There are two things in a Government Constitution There a difference between Governour and Legislator and Administration The Fundamental Constitution of this Government is by King Lords and Commons The King is not the sole Legislator Power and Supreme Power is lodged there onely where Legislation is The Legislative Power is in the Parliament the Parliament doth consist of King Lords and Commons jointly Hear what King Charles the First acknowledged in his Answer to the XIX Propositions pag. 18. of the first Edition In this Kingdom the Laws are jointly made by a King by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons chosen by the People all having free Votes and particular Priviledges The Government according to these Laws is trusted to the King. The most high and absolute Power of the Realm of England consisteth in the Parliament which representeth and hath the Power of the whole Realm both the Head and the Body Sir. Tho. Smith De Repub. Angl. B. 2. c. 1. And tho we acknowledg the King to be the only Supreme Governor the very word Governor doth limit the word Supreme For being a Governor according to Law not made by his own Will or Authority but by the Consent of the three Estates in Parliament he is limited as Governor to govern according to Law And so being a limited Governor his Supremacy is a limited Supremacy He is Supreme next under God that is there is no Governor over him or above him If there were any Governor over him he would not be Supreme He who is Governor only according to Law cannot of his own Will and should not follow such Counsellors as put him upon Courses destructive of the Laws by which he ought to govern 4. Our Supreme Governor is trusted with many Royal Prerogatives for the Good and Welfare of the Subjects So K. Ch. I. acknowledged in his Answer to the XIX Propositions For our Subjects sake these Rights are vested in us p. 17. The Prince may not make use of this high and perpetual Power to the hurt of those for whose Good he hath it p. 19. Therefore he cannot command what he will nor change the Government and Religion of the Kingdom established by Law as hath been design'd of late 5. Our Supreme Governor is such a Governor that is also bound to keep the Law and is subject himself to Law. There are many Cases wherein a Subject in maintainance of his Right may wage Law with the King c. saith Bishop Saunderson Sect. 12. And King James the 1st in his Speech in the Star-Chamber June 20. 1616. said I was sworn to maintain the Law of the Land and therefore I had been perjur'd if I had alter'd it p. 13. What then if the Laws and Government in the Essentials of it come to be chang'd K. But there are some Ancient Lawyers of greatest Authority who say Nemo presumat de faciis ejus Regis disquirere nedum contra factum ejus venire T. I remember I have read those words father'd upon Bracton by your late R. R. Bishop of Chester in his Speech at Magdalen Colledg The words of Bracton are these which either his Lordship had not read in the Author or had forgotten Nemo quidem de factis suis presumat disputare multà fortiùs contra factum suum venire l. 1. c. 8. But if he had considered what that venerable Author hath written in the same Chapter before those words he had rather dissuaded the King from that Action against the Colledg than have serv'd him in it Ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo c sub Lege Quia Lex facit Regem Attribuat igitur Rex Legi quod Lex attribuit Ei videlicet Dominationem potestatem Non enim Rex ubi Dominatur voluntas non Lex Et quidem sub Lege esse debeat cum sit Dei Vicarius c. The same Sentences misrepeated by that late Bishop of Chester are to be seen in Fleta who flourished in the same Age with Bracton and gives to Posterity the Face which the Law had in the Days of Edw. 1. As Mr. Selden saith in his Dissertatio ad Fletam immediately after those words nec contra factum suum venire these words follow Verum tamen in populo regendo superiores habet ut Legem per quam factus est Rex Et Curiam suam viz. Comites Barones Comites enim à Comitiva dicuntur qui cum viderint Regem sine fraeno fraenum sibi apponere tenentur c. Temperent igitur Reges potentiam suam per Legem quae fraenum est potentiae l. 1. c. 17. p. 17. And Sect. 2. of that Chapter derives Rex non à regnando â bene regendo nomen assumitur Rex verò dum benè regit Tyrannus verò dum populum suâ violatâ opprimitur dominatione Such a Supreme Governor we acknowledg the King of England to be And what can you infer from hence K. But the Reverend Bishop Saunderson speaks as plainly as can be That a mixt Monarchy is an errand Bull and Contradiction in adjecto And therefore the King hath
to the Pope This would be to swear against Him and not for Him. I look upon it as a Priviledg that I had no occasion to be called to take those Oaths in his time It was one of his best Acts of Indulgence to dispence with the taking of them though the Design was to open a Door for Popery to come in K. But though you took not the Oaths in the late King's Time you took them in the Time of Charles the 2d and were obliged to James the 2d as his Heir and Successor and so to the Heirs and Successors you owe Allegiance Subjection and Defence T. I do confess I do to Heirs and Successors that are Protestants by these Oaths and to no other Heirs or Successors but such as are Protestants or of the Reformed Religion in opposition to Popery The Oath of Supremacy was devised to put a Difference between Papists and them of our Profession so was this Oath of Allegiance to put a difference between the civilly Obedient Papists and the perverted Disciples of the Powder-Treason saith the Learned K. Jam. I. Apology for the Oath of Allegiance p. 46 47. By taking these Oaths I testified my self to be a Protestant and a Loyal Subject but it was to no other than a Protestant King in being and Protestant Heirs and Successors in time to come I say only to Protestant Successors and Heirs because else the main Supposition of those Oaths is laid aside For a Popish Successor and Heir doth not maintain his own Preheminence nor honour of his Imperial Crown for he becomes a Subject to the Papal Spiritual Jurisdiction if not Temporal also I can only declare He ought to be Supreme in his Realm But cannot testify and declare that He is for he hath made himself a Subject to Papal Jurisdiction The Supposition of the Oath of Allegiance is that the King of England is an Heretick and for Heresy Excommunicated and being Excommunicated he may be deposed and his Subjects discharged of their Allegiance and several other things dangerous to Him. But we cannot suppose the Pope will Excommunicate and Depose or do any other Papal Acts against a Son of his Church I know the Oaths are required by Law in many Cases and were taken by many worthy Men in the Reign of the late King but can be justified no further than as they contain and opposition against Popery as I conceive in my simple Opinion But letting this pass tho the taking of God's Name in vain in any part of an Oath is a great Sin and must be repented of The words are Heirs and Successors if there be an Heir of the Body of the King to succeed or a Successor in want of an Heir the Oath supposeth a Failure in the Line but not in the Succession No Man is called upon to take these Oaths till there be a Successor actually apparent and acknowledged My Oath to the King and his Heirs and Successors binds me then to no more than to actual Allegiance to the King in Being and to a preparation of mind to bear Faith and Allegiance to his Heirs and Successors when they ascend the Throne But yet let it be remembred that in the Ancient Oaths of Allegiance there is no mention of Heirs and Successors but only to the King in being See the Oath of Allegiance to K. Will. I. in Sir. H. Spelm. Glossary Ver. Legantia and to Hen. II. out of Nubrigenses And many Instances to this purpose are brought by the Learned Author of the Rights of the Kingdom p. 33. c. And tho Sir you will not be pleased to hear more of this If the Crown of England had been Hereditary there had been no need of swearing Subjects to the Heirs and Successors in the time of the King Regnant And one Reason as Rev. Mr. Lawson thinks why these words Heirs and Successors were put into the Oath was That seeing Election and Succession was usually in a Line it was intended to exclude Pretenders and all Power of the Pope or any other to dispose of the Crown when the former Possessor was removed or deceased Polit. sacra Civilis p. 215. And I pray Sir give me the meaning of those words in the Oath of Supremacy And to my Power shall Assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminencies and Authorities Granted or belonging to the King's Highness his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of the Realm By whom were these Jurisdictions Preheminences and Authorities granted and Annexed if not by Parliament the Representatives of the Community of England And if by Parliament then I leave you to infer K. Do you insinuate as tho you thought any Prerogatives were granted by Parliaments If so then you seem to derive the Authority of the Crown from the People originally which Opinion is to be abhorred and tends to dissolve the Government If so again you seem to make the Crown to sit upon the Severaign's Head by Compact and Election Whereas the Excellent Bishop Saunderson doth by a Chain of Arguments expose the vanity of such Imaginations to be hist or laught at Pref. Sect. 16. T. You put me upon searching into many hard things which I will enquire into as being desirous to know the truth that I may more chearfully perform Obedience And first I deny your Consequence that if Power be derived from the People then will it follow that the People may change the Government Because the Government being settled we are all obliged to preserve the Constitution as long as we possibly can and as long as all Degrees keep in their places and act according to the Laws of the Constitution we cannot changes it for a Better 1. As I do perceive the Crown and Soveraignty of the Kingdom of England is Hereditary by Election The Power and Authority is from God who hath distinguished Persons into Superiors Inferiors and Equals and hath tied them to mutual Duties in the fifth Commandment But the different forms of Government are made by the Wisdom and Consent of the Community in a Representative K. Ch. I. who was Learned and Judicious speaks in praise of the Government and of our Ancestors and acknowledgeth it The Wisdom and Experience of our Ancestors moulded this Government And so this Government as far as it was moulded by them is an Ordinance of Man or an Humane Creature It was the Wisdom of our Ancestors and their Wisdoms could not at first find out or make a perfect Mould but it seems tried and mended and in Time by Experience and Wisdom cast it into the present Mould Answ to the XIX Propos as before quoted 2. The Kings of England were Elected and chosen to the Office and Trust of Kingly Government This is clear enough from the British through the Saxon and Danish Kings to William the First called the Conqueror and we derive our Common Laws from the Saxons as I am informed I will shew you what the Ancient
First One Answer to this Demand may be That Queen Elizabeth's wise Council did foresee that this was an effectual if not the only way to prevent greater Mischiefs and Effusion of Blood which in all probability had followed if this Course had not been taken And in an Extraordinary Case some Extraordinary Thing tending to the Publick Good may lawfully be done Lawson Pol. S. Civil p. 87. Our Convention will merit an honourable Memorial of all Generations for what they have done in our extraordinary Danger and Confusion We are in a way to Happiness if Unthankfulness and Murmuring doth not cast us back And such Papers as these will not at all help us towards Peace and Quietness I have no mind to deal any further with him I am sorry for him that he hath given such just Provocation to Authority as he hath by many Passages in it Sir I thank you for any thing you communicate to me Now let me put into your Hand a Rational Moderate and Convincing Paper The lawfulness of taking the New Oaths asserted K. I should be glad to be satisfied in the Point of Allegiance to King James the 2d My Conscience is not at ease and I am afraid I shall offend one way or other T. I am glad Our King Queen and Parliament are so moderate and patient with Our new Dissenters and Seminaries There are two sorts we would wish at ease in their own Minds and for their own Sakes Allegiance not due to the late King. and of many that are jealous of some strange Mutations among us But can we expect so great a Deliverance without any signs of Danger Man is a sullen morose Creature if he be not pleased But now God with a holy Reverence be it acknowledged is pleasing Himself whether you be pleased or not How long shall it be before he have your good-will to advance his own Glory He hath patiently been gratifying you many Years even to the giving you the King you preferr'd before all things You have tried him grew afraid of him talk'd boldly of him and acted too to displease him and towards his removal also And now what 's the matter what would you have Can you neither be well with him nor well without him How many of you acted as if you believ'd him to be no King that the Obligation was dissolved between you and Him This ingenuous moderate Gentleman presseth that handsomely and home enough May I be so bold to say something upon this tender Argument of Allegiance What though many of you knew what Designs were laid and conceal'd them from the King did neither argue against them nor estrange your selves from the Conspirators preach'd not one piece of a Sermon against them but went with them or sent to them assisted countenanced wellcom'd them Home subscribed the Association voted for Members of the Convention or joined being chosen And yet now recoile All this and Conscience stand in a Man's way and put him not only to a stand but make him retreat in disorder and fear And tenderness of Conscience is to be kindly used and for Oaths in particular in an Age wherein they have been common to a Sin and slighted to a high provocation of the Holy God. I cannot stay long upon this But in short 1. I grant that Allegiance is due to the Person of a King and not only to his Crown and Dignity but then that Person that possesseth that Crown and Dignity is not considered absolutely in his Natural Capacity but in his Political as vested with the Crown and Dignities of a King. 2. The Person of a King as King in the lawful possession of the Crown is intrusted with the Administration of the Government according to the Laws of the Kingdom which he is bound to God and the Kingdom by Promise and Oath to observe And he ought to give himself to the actual exercise of that Trust and Authority which he hath 3. The Soveraign of England is only Soveraign for Administration according to the Laws made by the joint Powen of the two Houses of Parliament with him 4. The natural Person to whom we are Subjects and are obliged to be true and faithful to as true Subjects How can he watch for our Good if he be not secure from Danger from us and of our Subjection and Obedience as ready to serve him who is the Minister of God for good to us The Person I say to whom we owe Allegiance is that Person endowed with Authority and Majesty for the Ends of his Office. 5. If He assume a greater Power than he hath by the Laws and Constitution or endeavour by Arts and Force to change the Government into another form or deprive the Subjects of their Fundamental Rights then though he be the same Natural Person to whom we promised Allegiance he is not the same Moral or Political Person He is not that King to whom we are Subjects but another quite contrary to that Majesty intended by us 6. Allegiance is during the Life of the King if while he lives he continueth to be King. He may forfeit to God And if God disable him or remove him Subjects are discharged for their Allegiance while God hath deposed him He may forfeit to his People if the Kingdom be Regnum pactionatum non absolutum Great Failures come short of Forfeitures And if a King not only cease to rule and defend according to his place but be so far perverted as to set up his Will and strive to carry all before it against the Religion and wellfare of his People they should be slow to Wrath and Revenge or to recover their own Rights by Wars and not at all by Injustice Many Miseries are rather to be endured than the Miseries of War. 7. It conduceth much to satisfy Conscience to understand what Allegiance is Ligantia inde ligiantia Allegiantia vinculum arctius inter subditum Regem invicem connectens The Bond Covenant or Compact by which a King and his Subjects are mutually bound to one another Hunc ad Protectionem justum Regimen illos ad Tributa debitam subjectionem The King is bound to Protection and just Rule and Government the People to pay Tribute and due Subjection The learned Spellman Gloss Dr. Robert Austin who hath taken pains to state it according to the Resolution of the Judges in Calvin's Case gives this description of Allegiance Ligeance is a Quality of Soul whereby were are disposed to bear all Truth and Faith to the Person of the King his Crown and Dignity ready to yield him all true Obedience according to the Laws of Nature of God and the Realm wherein we live Tract of Allegiance not impeach'd by the Parliaments taking Arms. c. 2. 8. Let us revive the Oaths wherein the promise of Fidelity is made and thence also gather something for our direction in this Case And here I will begin 1. The Case is hardest upon them who took
Protestant Countries and of our own Times and Posterity after us if we sin not away our Mercies These Things thus considered I pray give me leave to come up close to you 1. Do you think in your Conscience that James the Second did govern the Nation according to Law Did he chuse the most of his Judges to do impartial Justice Did he really design a pack'd Parliament for the good of the Protestant the Protestant Religion the Church of England and our Brethren abroad Was his daily augmented Army for our Protection and Defence o◠not Did many Noble Officers and others of his Army believe it Why did not they defend and assist him then And do you hold your self bound in Allegiance to such a King Shew me such a King constituted by our Laws shew me Law for such Allegiance See the words of Sir Henry Spelman above What Legiance binds the King to and upon what condition we promise Allegiance K. But if he break with me I will keep Oath to him and be his Liege Subject T. You will If he then at this time should send an Express to you to come to him and serve him in your Person in your Purse in your Capacity with your Counsel and that against your own Native Country would you go Would you serve him in his Wars against us If not what signifies your Allegiance If you assist are you not a Traitor to God and your Countrey to whom your Allegiance is due before it is due to the King. Remember your Duty to serve the King is in God and for God and not for Popery against God so the Prayer in the Communion K. But I will not oppose his Return if he should attempt it to recover his own Lawful Inheritance and to rule his People T. If ever he should attempt to return you think it will be by Force don'd ye And do you think it will be to be a Nursing-Father to the Church and a gracious Governour over the People or will it not rather be to Revenge and Conquer and with more Curses from the Pope and Fire in his Bosom against Protestants and Fury for Popery And you will not as much as pray against him nor be delivered from him nor help to preserve our Religion and Country from Popish Tyranny without which you cannot rationally look for him if the way were never so open and easy Will you be ever able to prove a Popish King to be a Lawful King of England when you do then you will have an answer to this Argument That King who according to the Principles of his Religion and consequently the perswasion of his Conscience must endeavour to promote his Own and to root out our Religion and with it our Laws by which it is established is a King inconsistent with his Government and drives contrary to the End of it and by consequence is no King for such a Kingdom But a Popish especially a Jesuited King as they boast him to be is such a King therefore c. And will you assist and serve such a King as bound in Conscience then your Oath is vinculum iniquitatis and by it you cannot assist him but you must do Iniquity or neglect a Duty and violate the Bonds of all other Relations Can the performance of your Oath to James the late King consist with the publick Safety and Welfare of the Church and Kingdom Then non est servandum juramentum cujus Executio cum salute publicâ cum honestate bonis moribus pugnaret You a Doctor I will not English it I have neither Time nor Paper to spare It is a Rule about Oaths among others laid down by the excellent Rivet Explic. Decal Juramenti obligatio qualis Can your late King give you Protection and the Benefit of Laws If not can you think your self bound in Conscience to be his Subject and owe him Allegiance Kings are the Shields of the Earth to give Protection Therefore they are chosen of Men and given of God. That 's the Consideration that moves you to subjection if that cannot be had from Him are you not free That 's the Lige the Ligeance between the King and Subject if he cannot and that by his Fault the Bond is dissolved Who broke first he with the Kingdom or his Subjects with him Si una partium prior juramentum violaverit in re mutuò promissa altera solvitur obligatione Rivet L. cit R. 4. K. But he was Disabled he was forced by his Subjects And therefore it is not his fault that he cannot govern or protect T. He was despirited by him who cutteth off the Spirit of Princes and disabled to a Wonder of Divine Power over him Did he grant what his Subjects desired according to their Right and Duty or hath he ever since his going made an offer to return to govern by Law You know his Mind and his Engagements blind not your self Was the least Violence offered or threatned if he would stay and not begon I know who said it but doth he not wrong our King and Nobles To ease you by a Conclusion Doctor hath God wrought any Deliverance for us If not where are your Senses if he hath why will you not help us to thank God our Saviour And why will you not own Our Instrumental Saviour you will pray him in Grumbling and Withdrawing and Disobedience and omission of Duty Is that the way on 't I must beg pardon for this Liberty and do remember that if God and Man set a King and Queen to bear Rule I believe our King and Queen to be by Divine Designation and Humane Lawful Ordination I owe and hope to pay true Allegiance to them and therefore I owe none to any other King. If our King and Queen give you the Benefit of their Protection the Benefit and Comfort of the true Religion and the Peace of your Country as you may have while they have it you will be obliged in Conscience to pay Allegiance to them and you cannot pay Allegiance to two contrary Supremes if you owe to Our King and Queen you owe it not to Him that was once your King. Sir I have no pique at any particular Person to expose or displease my Design is Charity and to serve the Common-Good And if I have done any acceptable Service to God and any Neighbour I shall be glad Glory to God on High on Earth Peace and good Will towards and among Men. FINIS ERRATA PAge 3. line 5. read afraid P. 6. in T. 2d the Scripture doth constitute no perpetual Form insert no. P. 13. l. 3. dele whom and read who is wonderful in working P. 14. T. 2. dele non and read legibus solutus P. 23. Margin r. Dr. Fern. P. 25. dele Hobs in the Margin and after Pol. Sacr. Civil add c. 15. p. 125. And Answ to Hobs p. 17. begin the next Sentence The Learned Author of the Rights of the Kingdom c. is a different Sentence The
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
rest of the Sheets the Author did not see therefore the Reader is entreated to correct or pardon the Printer's Faults therein Books lately Printed and Sold by Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Pauls Church-yard relating to the great Revolutions and Affairs in England 1688 1689. ☞ AN Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry's Invitation of the Prince of Orange into England Being a Memorial from the English Protestants concerning their Grievances with a large Account of the Birth of the Prince of Wales presented to their Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Orange A Collection of Political and Historical Papers relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England in Ten Parts which will be Continued from Time to Time according as Matter occurs A Brief History of the Succession of the Crown of England c. Collected out of the Records and the most Authentick Historians written for the Satisfaction of the Nation Wonderful Predections of Nostredamus Grebner David Pareus and Antonius Torquatus wherein the Grandeur of their Present Majesties the Happiness of England and Downfall of France and Rome are plainly Delineated With a large Preface shewing That the Crown of England has not been obscurely foretold to their Majesties William the 3d and Queen Mary late Prince and Princess of Orange and that the People of this Ancient Monarchy have duly contributed thereunto in the present Assembly of Lords and Commons notwithstanding the Objections of Men of different Extremes A Seasonable Discourse wherein is examined what is lawful during the Confusions and Revolutions of Government especially in the Case of a King deserting his Kingdoms and how far a Man may lawfully conform to the Powers and Commands of those who with Various Successes hold Kingdoms Whether it be lawful 1 In Paying Taxes 2 In personal Service 3 In taking of Oaths 4 In giving up himself to a final Allegiance A Seasonable Treatise wherein is proved That King William commonly called the Conqueror did not get the Imperial Crown of England by the Sword but by the Election and Consent of the People To whom he swore to observe the Original Contract between King and People An Answer to a Paper Intituled The Desertion Discussed being a Vindication of the Proceedings of the late Honourable Convention in their Filling up the Throne with King William and Queen Mary An Exact Collection of the Debates of the House of Commons particularly such as relate to the Bill of Exclusion a Popish Successor c. held at Westminster Octob. 21. 1680 Prorogued the 10th and Dissolved the 18th of January following With the Debates of the House of Commons at Oxford Assembled March. 21. 1680. Also a Just and Modest Vindication of the Proceedings of the said Parliaments Julian's Arts to Undermine and Extirpate Christianity c. By Samuel Johnson The Impression of which Book was made in the Year 1683 and has ever since lain buried under the Ruins of all those English Rights which it endeavoured to defend but by the Auspicious and Happy Arrival of the Prince of Orange both They and It have obtained a Resurrection Dr. Gilbert Burnet now Bishop of Salisbury his Tracts in Two Vollumes in which are contained several Things relating to the Affairs of England The Mystery of Iniquity working in the Dividing of Protestants in order to the subverting of Religion and our Laws for al most the space of thirty Years last past plainly laid open With some Advices to Protestants of all Perswasions in the present Juncture of our Affairs To which is added A Specimen of a Bill for uniting of Protestants Liberty of Conscience now highly necessary for England humbly represented to this present Parliament An Enquiry into and Detection of the Barbarous Murther of the late Earl of Essex now under consideration of a Committee of the House of Lords Or a Vindication of that Noble Person from the Guilt and Infamy of having destroyed himself An Account of the Trial of Mr. Papillon To which is added The Matter of Fact in the chusing of Sheriffs in Sir John Moor's Year now under the consideration of the Committee for Grievances A Collection of strange Predictions of Mr. J. P. for the Years 1687 and 1688 about K. James the Second Prince of Wales and the scampering away of many great Ministers of State. Arguments against the Dispensing Power in Answer to L. C. J. Herbert The Royal Cards Being a lively Representation of the late Popish and Tyrannical Designs and of the wonderful Deliverance of this Kingdom from the same by the glorious Expedition of William Henry Prince of Orange now King of England whom God long preserve in curious Copper Plates Price â—… s. a Pack
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
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
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
which was disputable before and undetermin'd was declared to be in the King the Edg of the Sword was turned against a Protestant State to swallow it up if they could is not forgotten And how we were opprest with Royal Aids and vast Paiments to maintain that Sword is felt to this day If the King alone hath the Power of the Sword the Commons of England in Parliament have the Power of the Purse the Sinews of War and Peace as King Ch. I. acknowledged VVhitlock's Memorials Anno 1642. And at the Treaty at Uxbridg 1644 p. 124. Answ to the xix Propos And as long as our Kings advise with their Parliaments about War and Peace as they were wont to do as that Learned Sir Robert Cotton proves in his Treatise on that Argument Anno. 1621. it must be our Fault and God's Judgment upon us if the Sword do hurt us But how God hath vouchsafed us that Mercy in disposing of the Crown and Sword that we shall not fear the Sword nor grudg to pray Tribute to them that are the Ministers of God for Good. 4. All that the worthy Doctor speaks of Fanatick Notions and Assertions and of the War between the King and Parliament belongs not to this present Case any further than the Common Reason of both is concerned in them 5. Those Cases in which both Grotius and Barclay affirm that a King may be resisted are with the Doctor but imaginary Cases which for the ill Consequences of Misunderstanding them are not to be supposed 6. He at large shews what security the People of England have for their Liberties and Religion so that they need not fear any Extremities to drive them to take up Arms. 7. There is something that comes near our Case in p. 517. First That the Agreement of the whole Body of the People or the chief and greater part thereof can give no sufficient Authority for such an enterprise as taking Arms against the Soveraign when oppressed by him because saith he the whole Community are Subjects as well as the particular Persons thereof And with especial respect to this Kingdom I have observed that the Laws declare it unlawful for the two Houses of Parliament though jointly to take Arms against the King. Here are some Mistakes delivered by the worthy Doctor What a Community is 1. He saith that the Community are Subjects A Community as such is the Subject of a Common-Wealth in a state of Freedom not formed into a Government The Majestas Realis is in the Community and the Community is one Person in Fiction of Law and is Persona conjuncta as the Civilians speak So Reverend Mr. Lawson Answer to Hobs p. 21. Polit. Sacra Civilis A Community is the Matter of a Common-Wealth c. 15 206. A Community contains in it virtually all the Forms and Degrees of Government and Governours that arise out of it A Community as such is no Subject But if the Doctor mean by a Community all the Common People subjected by their own Consent to a Soveraign or Governor then they are Subjects indeed as contradistinguished from Superiors But if all or the greater part of the People by which I do not understand the Vulgar Peers and Commons perceive the Constitution to be in apparent hazard of being destroyed what they act in the necessary defence of the Government and Fundamental Laws and for their preservation they do not act as meer Subjects but as one Party in Covenant and Contract with him who threatneth to bring them to Confusion by destroying their Government 2. It doth not follow that because both Houses cannot take Arms against the Soveraign therefore the whole People or the greatest part of the People among whom we include the wisest and the best Part and the Nobility of all Degrees cannot in such a Case as ours lately was take Arms For tho a Parliament be entrusted to act for the People in those Affairs to which they are called and summoned yet not with all the Rights and Liberties of the People But now here is an extraordinary Convention and the Representatives of the Commons in it have an extraordinary Trust even that of forming us again and settling us upon the best Foundation And for this Reason though this Convention wanted the usual Call by the King 's Writ it is one of the greatest Conventions that ever was and its Acts of greater Authority in the extent of it than any ordinary Parliament and therefore the People of England are concluded by them in what they do The Nation was generally sensible of approaching Ruin they knew the King had left his Government and willingly and freely elected their Representatives to do the best in their Wisdom for the Kingdom 's good And the Constitution and Government is not changed only the Persons of our Supreme Governors 3. Parliaments and their Powers have been much decried and debased especially of late Years But though every Individual be a Subject and the whole Body stile themselves the King's Subjects yet as a Parliament they have a part in the Legislation and therefore an essential part of Dominion in them and as making Laws they are above themselves as obeying Laws 8. The Doctor instanceth in one Case p. 542. Whether if a Supreme Governor should according to his own Pleasure and contrary to the established Laws and his Subjects Property actually engage upon the destroying and ruining a considerable part of his People they might not defend themselves by Arms yet this is packt up among Notions and not to be supposed But p. 544. If ever any such strange Case as is proposed should happen in the World I confess it would have its great Difficulties and quotes Grotius that in this ultimo necessitatis praesidio as the last Refuge Defence is not to be condemned provided the Care of the Common Good be preserved And if this be true it must be upon this Ground that such attempts of ruining do ipso facto exclude a disclaiming the governing those Persons as Subjects and consequently of being their Prince or King. And then the Expressions of our Publick Declaration and Acknowledgment would still be secured that it is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King. That is at last the Doctor confesseth such a King to be no King. Whether this be not the Case or much like to that we were in I refer it to all that know the Motions of the late King. Did he not act to the destruction of Property He might as justly have filled all our Churches with Popish Priests yea and our Houses with Inhabitants as some Colledges in the Universities Did he not go as far and as fast as he could to destroy our Religion which is our dearest Property And what would have become of our Liberties if a pack'd Parliament could have been made and the Popish Lords have sate in the House of Lords And what of our Persons and Lives if we had not
K. But the Church of England hath been always Loyal and the Friends of the Church of England T. And may they be so now to our most wise and gracious King William and Queen Mary I do not very well know Doctor what Church of England you mean for there have been several Alterations in it since reformed nor who you take to be the Friends of the Church of England If you mean such as the Convocation was 1640 as Dr. Falkener seems to mean B. 2. p. 338. or the Compilers of the Homilies and their Friends as he also seems to mean wit the Judgment of the University of Oxford supposed to be written by Bishop Saunderson then all these Friends will not well agree together I do take a great number of the Clergy in 1640 to be of the new fashion'd Church that some had been long a making an were near to finish Others were true Friends to the Reformation as at first old-fashion'd true Friends to the Churches Purity and Peace upon equal Terms Give me leave to present to you good Doctor some of their Sentiments And I shall shew you what the Old Friends of the Church of England of the first Edition have said to these Matters in debate between us And first many of your Acquaintance Doctor have spit in the Face of the Churches of Christ beyond Sea and slandered them as polluted with rebellious Doctrines and Practices But the old true Friends of the Church of England have wip'd off the Spittle and clear'd them from it They have acknowledged the Form of Government to be divers in divers Countries they have vindicated the publiâ—k Doctrine of the Reformed Pastors and candidly interpreted the Resistances made against their Tyrannical Persecutors and allowed Resistance by force of Arms of their Magistrates in some Cases I fear I should be too tedious in giving you Quotations at large I shall only refer you to the Writings of the undoubted Friends of the Church of England Great Assistances were sent from England by Queen Elizabeth to preserve the States of the Low Countries Sir John Fortescue in his Speech in Parliament Anno 35 of the Queen said As for the Low Countries they stood her Majesty yearly since she undertook the Defence of them in one hundred and fifty thousand Pounds The Burden of four Kingdoms hath rested upon her Majesty Sir Simon Dew's Journal of the Parliaments in Queen Elizabeth's Reign And how commonly are those Provinces termed Rebels against the King of Spain King James calls those that revolted from the King of Spain and that were forced to make Resistance for Religion in France the Saints of God Et nonnè jam Commota sunt ubique arma in Sactos qui per Galliam per Belgium sunt directa Commentatio de Antichristo printed after Bishop Abbot's B. Demonstratio Antichristi 8o. p. 477. That Learned King had not Sainted them if he had thought them Rebels See Bishop Jewel's Defence of the Apology p. 16 17. And what a great Friend was he to the Church of England See famous Bishop Bilson's another particular Friend of Hers True Difference Edit 4o. p. 512 515 518 519 520 521. Bishop Robert Abbot who wrote a Learned Book De Supremâ Regiâ Majestate and the more to be noted for that was Regius Professor of Divinity in Oxford hath a notable Passage Demonstratio Antichristi p. 150 c. c. 7. § 6. Bishop Morton's Treatise of Satisfaction hath one part called A Justification of Protestants in Case of Rebellion There are no Seditious Passages in any of these Reverend Authors But if these were not in them what would they be call'd in others I note this out of Jewel neither doth any of these meaning Luther and Melancthon teach their People to rebel against their Princes but only to defend themselves against Oppression by all lawful means as did David against Saul So do the Nobles in France at this day Then to take Arms is a lawful Means by consequence for David took Arms and the Nobles in France They themselves are best acquainted with the Laws and Constitutions of their Country p. 16. Touching the Queen of Scotland I will say nothing The Kingdoms and States of the World have sundry Agreements and Compositions The Nobles and Commons there neither drew the Sword nor attempted Force against the Prince They sought only the continuance of God's undoubted Truth and defence of their own Lives against your barbarous and cruel Invasions p. 17. See Addition out of Bishop Bilson I observe he vindicates Beza and the Protestant Divines and to our Case of late in England may be applied That which may be done by the Laws of Kingdoms and States is lawful and not rebellious as in the Civil Wars of France p. 511. The Princes in Germany may lawfully resist the Emperor and by Force reduce him to the Ancient and received Form of Government or else repel him as a Tyrant and set another in his place by the Right and Freedom of their Country p. 513. We grant it to be true that if the Laws of the Land as in some places they do warrant to depose their Governor p. 517. He quotes the Judgment of Luther when he was informed by Lawyers that the States of Germany might defend themselves against the Emperor and displace him p. 518. If a Prince should go about to subject his Kingdom to a Foreign ☜ Realm or change the Form of the Common-Wealth from Empery to Tyranny or neglect the Laws established by Common Consent of Prince and People to execute his own Pleasure In these and other Cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons join together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty they may not well be accounted Rebels p. 520. In Kingdoms where Princes bear Rule by the Sword we do not mean the Prince's private Will against his Laws but his Precept derived from his Laws c. Ibid. He excuseth the Germans and Flemings and of the Scots he ☞ speaks full to our Case The Scots what have they done besides the placing the Right Heir and her own Son when the Mother fled and forsook the Realm Be these those furious Attempts and Rebellions you talk of I grant he saith our Princes are Hereditary and that Subjects are absolutely bound to obey p. 515 517. But if we are absolutely bound to obey then the King of England is an Absolute Prince which he is not over or in respect of his Subjects because he rules by Laws made by their Consent though he be absolute in respect of any Foreign State. The Passage quoted in Bishop Rob. Abbot is notable throughout I 'll onely cull out of it Hic vero politica res agitur Quid Principi juris in Subditos per Leges cujusque Reip. fundatrices promissum sit What Power is promised to the Prince over Subjectâ— by the Fundamental Laws of every Common-wealth whether he have infinitam a boundless unlimitted Power or a
Eyes have been opened to see the tendency of Affairs we can think no less and have good Authority for what we say Godliness and Honesty with Quietness and Peace is the desire of our Souls And Doctor do not Grumble Let not your Eye be Evil because God is Good. What! hate Popery and oppose the King's Declaration and now hanker after your King whom you cannot have without Popery if he were not shut out K. Conscience and Allegiance T. It is well the power of Conscience is at least acknowledged Conscience was Fanaticism a great while and a religious Pretence for Rebellion and the worst of Actions I wish you a well-setled enlightned Conscience And for your Allegiance pay it where it is now due by God's Providence to a Wonder by the Laws of the Land we have God the Laws King Queen and Parliament for us Come down down Doctor soft and fair there are a pair of Stairs from your coming down from you Pinacles who had never got up had you not been better at flying up than orderly Motions and leisurely Ascents Take your share of a happy Peace and be glad you are not forced by an Act of Parliament to renounce your Allegiance to your deceased King as the Non-Cons were to renounce the Covenant Preach Peace and perswade the Gentlemen of the Swear and the Sword to be thankful they came off so well and were not kill'd and damn'd at on Day according to their Atheistical Wishes for God was against them the Prince of Orange was Ordained of God to be Victor and now King. But Sir I perceive your Colour comes I will therefore dismiss you calmly Live in Peace and Love Do the Work and Will of God and so farewel The God of Peace go with you An After-Debate Of the Original Contract P. W. Convention And no Allegiance due to the late King. K. I Am come again to visit you and to shew you something that 's worth your reading and consideration too There are some things for you to chew upon T. You are very welcome to me at all times who desire a fairness and friendship with you and if there be a scuffle of Notions let us labour to prevent the drawing of Blood and bringing in Popery and Misery about our Ears There are a new Sect of Seminaries sculking and haunting up and down sowing their Discontents and ill Nature under the Name of Loyalty and Religion but the best is their Notions are like heated Corn chitted in their Brains that I hope they will not grow nor come up so tall as to hide a Rebel in Well but Sir what have you to shew me K. Here 's and ingenious Paper called The Desertion Discuss'd in a Letter to a Country Gentleman T. I will peruse it and deal with it as I find it or as I am able And though you think me prepossest yet I am as willing to sind out Truth as any of you can be Let us read him together and be pleased to insist upon what you think most material in him K. I think it is all material and well penn'd T. If it be so material I were best leave him to be handled by the Author of the Enquiry into the Present State of Affairs whom he takes into his hands to discuss And if the Bones of his Subject will bear Discussion without breaking or disjointing he will sleep the better in a bad Lodging If any thing be left out by me think not the Paper unanswerable for I do not intend a Discussion of him 1. How saith the Gentleman to him Can the Seat of Government be empty while the King who all grant had an unquestionable Title is still living and his Absence forced and involuntary Here are Suppositions imply'd that should first be proved As 1. A King once supposed to have a good Title must needs have it during Life 2. That during a King's natural Life the Throne cannot be empty 3. Tho it is true in a sense that the King's Absence be Involuntary so in a sense it was Voluntary It was a mixt Action and the Reasons for his leaving the Kingdom are not altogether unknown and whatever the Necessity was his Counsellors and Friends the Papists with his own Affection to that Interest which God hath crost for the present and such as you acting contrary to God are active to restore brought upon him In Answer to the Gentleman's Question drawn up by himself he saith The Gentlemen of the Convention who declare a Vacancy in the Government lay the main stress of their Opinion upon his Majesty's withdrawing himself For now especially since the Story of the French League and the Business of the Prince of Wales are past over in silence most Men believe that the pretended Breach of that which they call the Original Contract was design'd for no more than a Popular Flourish I confess to you Doctor these Lines are very material of each branch I 'le crop a little 1. The Noblemen and Gentlemen of the Convention who had the Personal Majesty lodged in them in a high degree and that as they were a Convention entrusted to act for the Community of England did doubtless lay a great stress for their Judgment upon that which is more than the Opinion of the Gentlemen as he calls them But the foregoing Actions of the King terminated in that first Act had their share in influencing that Publick Reason so to judg The Story of the French League is past in silence No Sir that which you and your Fellow-Rockers of the soft-headed Disciples call a Story is not past away in silence yet A Story you 'd make it as if all this Action was begotten by a Story or two or three Fictions I shall not without Authority relate what I have heard of that Story But I build my belief of a designed Mischief upon Publick Evidence and undeniable by adding a little use of Reason to it My Evidence riseth out of Coleman's Letters Letter to Sir W. Throckmorton Feb. 1. 74 / 5. For you well know that when the Duke the late King James come to be Master of our Affairs Joint Interest with France the King of France will have reason to promise himself all things that he can desire For according to the Mind of the Duke the Interests of the King of England the King of France and his own are so close bound up together that it is impossible to separate them the one from the other without Ruin to all three but being joined they must notwithstanding all opposition become invincible Letter to Mons le Cheese The King of France esteemed his Interest and the Interest of his R. H. to be the same p. 110. and that if his Royal Highness would endeavour to dissolve the Parliament his Majesty King of France would assist him with his Power and Purse to have such a new One as would be for their purpose His Royal Highness was convinced their Interests were both one A
the Oaths since the late King did manifestly act contrary to the Duty of his Place But yet the words of the Oath are expresly made to him believing him to be the Lawful and Rightful King of this Realm Now he is Lawful King who hath a Lawful Right and is no Pretender or Usurper or he is Lawful King who is no Tyrant in Exercise nor Usurper of Power above or contrary to Law. How any Man could understandingly swear his belief of his being Lawful King without such a distinction I cannot conceive And then it is to be considered that he is the lawful King who governs according to Law or at least not contrary to Law in the main and then he being the King recognized by the Subject who swears Allegiance to him if he prove quite contrary How can he who own'd him under a true Notion of him be bound to him when he is corrupted from what he was taken to be He took him for his King who is King by Law and doth not bend himself to overthrow it but when he ceaseth to govern his Subjects as Subjects he disclaims the governing them as Subjects and his own being their King saith Dr. Falkner Chr. Loyalty l. 2. c. 5. p. 544 c. The Relation of an English Subject is to an English not an Absolute King. If one term of the Relation be chang'd or ceased the Obligation of the other Relate and Correlate ceaseth Cessante personâ relata naturali cessat obligatio personalis Cessante relatione vel personâ Civili cessat obligatio talis quâ talis The natural Father dying the relation to him is at an end and the Obligation to Duty is dissolved The moral and political Relation and political Person ceasing to be what he ought to be the Relation and Obligation dies A King is not bound to govern or protect Traitors Nor are Subjects bound to Allegiance and Obedience to him that is not their King. See the Christian Directory Cases Obligation of Vows and Promises p. 703. And Mr. Lawson is short and positive The personal Majesty of a King with us requires subjection whilst he lives and governeth according to Law but upon his Death or Tyranny in Exercise or acting to the Dissolution of the Fundamental Constitution he ceaseth to be a Soveraign and the obligation as to Him ceaseth p. 214. Polit. Sacra Civilis In a word so many ways as Majesty and Soveraignty may be lost so many ways this Obligation may be lost Ibid. 2. All that concerns the Papal pretended Powers of doing Evil in the Oath remains true for ever The only Clause in the Oath in which any can think himself concerned is the Promise I will bear faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors and Him and them will defend to the uttermost of my Power against all Conspiracies and attempts whatsoever The resolution of this Doubt depends upon the former Plots and treacherous Conspiracies are practices unworthy of Christians against the worst of Tyrants The ways of defence must be lawful But who was that King which you promised to defend and to bear Faith to Was it not to your Lawful King in the lawful Exercise of his Authority If you were a Servant to his Arbitrary Will if you had defended him and served him to persecute the true Religion or to remove and corrupt it or to set up Arbitrary Power you were a Traitor against God and your Country Your Oath was a Bond of Iniquity and ought now to be repented of Had you fought for him when he was gone to the Camp to fight against the Kingdom you had been a Traitor to England for whose good only Kings are ordained 3. If you are ensnared with the Opinion of the pretended Prince of Wales's being the next Heir you are to be pitied if you are sincere in your Opinion The great Convention the highest Judges in the Kingdom saw the Depositions in favour of his Royal Birth and Natural Descent and what swaying Presumptions and Reasons are produced and publish'd against him and have rejected him and judged him no lawful Heir And if you had much more to confirm your Opinion of his Birth you ought to acquiesce in their Highest Judgment and Determination And if you believe never so honourably of the late King that he would not impose upon us yet he might be imposed upon But when we consider how Popish Principles corrupt Nature you have no reason to be confident And if you are not forestall'd and partial you have much more reason to believe that our Gracious King and Queen who express uprightness in all that they speak or do that they would abhor to deprive a Right Heir of the Priviledg of his Birth to gain a Kingdom too soon when they were no further distant from it and stood in so little need of it 4. But then if you insist upon it Why did not the undoubted Heir succeed in Order This is one of our marvelous Blessings and we have cause to acknowledg the Wisdom and Goodness of our Queen that she consented to and approved of the Method and Order of the Settlement of the Crown by a wise Act of the Convention to cut off Debates and to shorten the way to a happy Settlement If her Majesty be well pleased and her Royal Highness in a better state than she was in before what Cause have you to be dissatisfied There is no such exactness and niceness to be found in most of our Successions in the Throne Peter Martyr was a very wise and learned good Man and his words are worth our following Nihil anxiè disputandum est quo jure quarè injuriâ Principes adepti sunt suam potestatem Illud potiùs agendum est ut Magistratus praesentes revereamur in Rom. c. 13. v. 1. Let us not anxiously dispute Princes Titles let us rather mind this that we honour and fear the present Magistrates I do not speak this as if I doubted the lawfulness of the present happy happy Settlement but for your sake King James the First spake it I am since come to that Knowledg that an Act of Parliament can do greater Wonders than unite Scotland to England by the Name of Great Britain And that old wise Man Treasurer Burleigh was wont to say He knew not what an Act of Parliament can do in England Speech in Star-Chamber And some great Lawyers in a Parliament of Queen Elizabeth Mr. Yelverton afterwards Speaker and Judg said That to say the Parliament had no Power to determine of the Crown was High Treason And Mr. Mounson said It were horrible to say that the Parliament had no Authority to determine of the Crown Sir S. Dew's Journal p. 164 176. And what cannot a Convention a Representative of the Community do and what Parliament will not confirm what they have done And what good Man will be so cloudy and sullen as not to rejoice for what is done to the unspeakable Comfort of