Chief Commander And have not our Peers and Commons as good right to preserve and settle the Government now as any of their Forefathers had How long shall the Nation stay for this King's Return He best knew the Reasons for his deserting the Government and if the Kingdom had delayed to settle it Self he would then have by the Counsellors of Evil had made us see a greater necessity of having him and wrought upon our wanting him for a Head to go besides our selves like a distracted People a foolish People of no understanding In our Case we had as good Reason to settle the Government as ever People had to put themselves into a Form and Order And it is an inestimable Mercy that God presented to us such Royal Persons so nearly related to the Inheritance of the Crown to fill up the Vacancy James the 2d was not deposed nor molested neither for his Religion as inconsistent as it was with the Religion Government and Happiness of the Kingdom The Accusation of Deposing the King is altogether untrue He made the Vacancy and when it was made it must be filled up Come Doctor now let us follow Dr. F. to the next Section K. There you will see what he saith of the general Declaration of Loyalty T. So I do p. 337 c. The more general Acknowledgment for the preservation of the King's Safety is that which is required by the Act of Uniformity and enjoined upon all Civil and Military Officers The first Clause of which is that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King c. p. 338. The sense of this is no more than what the Church of England and Eminent Members thereof hath constantly acknowledged Homil. of Obed. part 2. Can. of 1640. Judiciam Vniversitat is Oxoniensis The Doctor goes on to give some explication of the Oath N. 3. This Clause being framed and enjoin'd by an English Parliament not without respect to the disloyal and unchristian Proceedings in this Nation and tendred to English Subjects and relating particularly to the King not indefinitely to any King can bear no other rational Construction than to condemn the English Subjects taking Arms against their Natural Sovereign the King of England And therefore though the like Attempts against any other Kings who enjoy Soveraign Authority are equally blameless in their Subjects yet this Position doth not assert the utter unlawfulness of taking Arms amongst other Nations against him who hath the Title of King if he doth not therewith enjoy the Right of Supreme Government which our Kings have and exercise And therefore in such a Constitution as the Lacedemonian was and Tabrobana c. we are not concerned p. 339. The true Friends of the Church of England have been free from disloyal Actions and Assertions N. 4. He repeats several pretences for War but all unlawful c. Sir I am resolved to be brief with you Therefore shall make some short Remarks 1. I note He grants the position holds of the K. of England because he hath and exerciseth Soveraign Authority Why Dr. Falkner should be honoured who saith as much as Calvin did yet Calvin is commonly branded and Dr. F. admired and honoured see Calv. Instit cap. ultimo L. 4. Sect. 31. doth shew us the power of Prejudice 2. The reason why our Kings must not be resisted is because they have Soveraign Authority Which really is but a limited Soveraignty of Administration and not of Legislation The Law makes the King to be Supreme Governor and not sole Legislator and it hath been debated Whether the King can refuse to sign such Bills as have past both Houses according to the Order of the Houses His Power of Calling and Dissolving Parliaments at his own Pleasure hath been deemed an Usurpation upon the Rights and Liberties of the Kingdom K. Ch. I. in his Answer to the xix Prop. confesseth In this Kingdom the Laws are jointly made by a King by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons chosen by the People all having free Votes and particular Priviledges The Government according to these Laws is trusted to the King. You see then what a Soveraign Prince our King is only in some respect 3. Another Reason against taking Arms and for the Soveraign Power of Kings is because the jus Gladii is in the Hand of the King determined by the Word of God as Bp Saunderson affirms Pref. Sec. 15. and is determined to belong to the Kings of England as Dr. Falkner pleads p. 347. Be it so yet this is far also from the present Case truly stated The late Invasion and Insurrection was not to take the Power of the Sword from the King nor to deprive him of that Authority which he had from God and the Laws The Power of the Sword and Militia is not intrusted in the King's Hand for the Destruction but Protection of his Subjects The Office of the King and the use of the Sword is declared to be for the punishment of Evil-Doers Rom. 13.4 But what when the Sword of the Magistrate is abused against a Kingdom 's Right and Safety The Militia which the Apostle speaks of in that place is a Power to Punish and to take Vengeance upon Evil-doers according to their Crimes And the Sword being the Instrument of the sorest and highest degree of Punishment which is Capital Punishment comprehends under it all degrees of Punishments And this Power of the Sword which is chiefly placed in the Hand of the Supreme Magistrate is distributed in the Hands of all inferior Magistrates and Officers that administer Justice and punish Offenders What is this to the raising of Armies maintaining standing Armies Disposing in order to have them made Parliament-Men by false Returns disposing Military Officers into places of Civil Government and to debauch all places whereever they come and to oppress the Nation And here 's another Consideration worthy your Notice That a King that maintains Arbitrary Power by the Sword against Law and standing Force in Times of Peace turns the Civil Government into a military and that is not the Government of England That which some speak that the King of England hath Merum Imperium Merum Imperium What will do us no Hurt if rightly understod Gladius indicat illos ut Jurisperiti loqui solent imperium habere merum What 's that Vlpianus ait illud esse merum imperium quod habet potestatem Gladii ad animadvertendum in Homines facinerosos Peter Martyr on Rom. ch 13. If this right use of the Sword or avenging and punishing Power were duly observed what Work would it make among them who wear the Sword The Contests that have been in this Kingdom about the Power of the Militia and the use that hath been made of it is a matter of doleful remembrance The Declaration of the Lords and Commons July 1.42 A Second Remonstrance Jan. 16.42 The King's Letter to the Sheriff of Leicester
which was disputable before and undetermin'd was declared to be in the King the Edg of the Sword was turned against a Protestant State to swallow it up if they could is not forgotten And how we were opprest with Royal Aids and vast Paiments to maintain that Sword is felt to this day If the King alone hath the Power of the Sword the Commons of England in Parliament have the Power of the Purse the Sinews of War and Peace as King Ch. I. acknowledged VVhitlock's Memorials Anno 1642. And at the Treaty at Uxbridg 1644 p. 124. Answ to the xix Propos And as long as our Kings advise with their Parliaments about War and Peace as they were wont to do as that Learned Sir Robert Cotton proves in his Treatise on that Argument Anno. 1621. it must be our Fault and God's Judgment upon us if the Sword do hurt us But how God hath vouchsafed us that Mercy in disposing of the Crown and Sword that we shall not fear the Sword nor grudg to pray Tribute to them that are the Ministers of God for Good. 4. All that the worthy Doctor speaks of Fanatick Notions and Assertions and of the War between the King and Parliament belongs not to this present Case any further than the Common Reason of both is concerned in them 5. Those Cases in which both Grotius and Barclay affirm that a King may be resisted are with the Doctor but imaginary Cases which for the ill Consequences of Misunderstanding them are not to be supposed 6. He at large shews what security the People of England have for their Liberties and Religion so that they need not fear any Extremities to drive them to take up Arms. 7. There is something that comes near our Case in p. 517. First That the Agreement of the whole Body of the People or the chief and greater part thereof can give no sufficient Authority for such an enterprise as taking Arms against the Soveraign when oppressed by him because saith he the whole Community are Subjects as well as the particular Persons thereof And with especial respect to this Kingdom I have observed that the Laws declare it unlawful for the two Houses of Parliament though jointly to take Arms against the King. Here are some Mistakes delivered by the worthy Doctor What a Community is 1. He saith that the Community are Subjects A Community as such is the Subject of a Common-Wealth in a state of Freedom not formed into a Government The Majestas Realis is in the Community and the Community is one Person in Fiction of Law and is Persona conjuncta as the Civilians speak So Reverend Mr. Lawson Answer to Hobs p. 21. Polit. Sacra Civilis A Community is the Matter of a Common-Wealth c. 15 206. A Community contains in it virtually all the Forms and Degrees of Government and Governours that arise out of it A Community as such is no Subject But if the Doctor mean by a Community all the Common People subjected by their own Consent to a Soveraign or Governor then they are Subjects indeed as contradistinguished from Superiors But if all or the greater part of the People by which I do not understand the Vulgar Peers and Commons perceive the Constitution to be in apparent hazard of being destroyed what they act in the necessary defence of the Government and Fundamental Laws and for their preservation they do not act as meer Subjects but as one Party in Covenant and Contract with him who threatneth to bring them to Confusion by destroying their Government 2. It doth not follow that because both Houses cannot take Arms against the Soveraign therefore the whole People or the greatest part of the People among whom we include the wisest and the best Part and the Nobility of all Degrees cannot in such a Case as ours lately was take Arms For tho a Parliament be entrusted to act for the People in those Affairs to which they are called and summoned yet not with all the Rights and Liberties of the People But now here is an extraordinary Convention and the Representatives of the Commons in it have an extraordinary Trust even that of forming us again and settling us upon the best Foundation And for this Reason though this Convention wanted the usual Call by the King 's Writ it is one of the greatest Conventions that ever was and its Acts of greater Authority in the extent of it than any ordinary Parliament and therefore the People of England are concluded by them in what they do The Nation was generally sensible of approaching Ruin they knew the King had left his Government and willingly and freely elected their Representatives to do the best in their Wisdom for the Kingdom 's good And the Constitution and Government is not changed only the Persons of our Supreme Governors 3. Parliaments and their Powers have been much decried and debased especially of late Years But though every Individual be a Subject and the whole Body stile themselves the King's Subjects yet as a Parliament they have a part in the Legislation and therefore an essential part of Dominion in them and as making Laws they are above themselves as obeying Laws 8. The Doctor instanceth in one Case p. 542. Whether if a Supreme Governor should according to his own Pleasure and contrary to the established Laws and his Subjects Property actually engage upon the destroying and ruining a considerable part of his People they might not defend themselves by Arms yet this is packt up among Notions and not to be supposed But p. 544. If ever any such strange Case as is proposed should happen in the World I confess it would have its great Difficulties and quotes Grotius that in this ultimo necessitatis praesidio as the last Refuge Defence is not to be condemned provided the Care of the Common Good be preserved And if this be true it must be upon this Ground that such attempts of ruining do ipso facto exclude a disclaiming the governing those Persons as Subjects and consequently of being their Prince or King. And then the Expressions of our Publick Declaration and Acknowledgment would still be secured that it is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King. That is at last the Doctor confesseth such a King to be no King. Whether this be not the Case or much like to that we were in I refer it to all that know the Motions of the late King. Did he not act to the destruction of Property He might as justly have filled all our Churches with Popish Priests yea and our Houses with Inhabitants as some Colledges in the Universities Did he not go as far and as fast as he could to destroy our Religion which is our dearest Property And what would have become of our Liberties if a pack'd Parliament could have been made and the Popish Lords have sate in the House of Lords And what of our Persons and Lives if we had not
been delivered by an extraordinary Providence And I will add but this under this Head That all the Gentlemen that I have discoursed with who took up Arms profess they would never have taken Arms against the King ruling by Law as he was bound to do but look'd upon him as no King i. e. no Legal King of England in the exercise of his Power and that there was no other way left for them to preserve themselves our Laws and Religion K. But this doth still stick with me that we declared or swore That it was unlawful to take up Arms upon any Pretence whatsoever therefore not upon this Pretence or for this Cause or any other real or Imaginary either this or any that can be imagined possible T. The evil Design of framing that Oath to bring the Nation tamely under Arbitrary Power and Popery I must say less upon this Head than I have to say I am extreamly deceived 1. If Popery was not design'd to be either made the topping Profession of the Nation or so far countenanced and upheld that it would be in a fair way to be restored as the Religion of the Court and Country when that Act was made 2. This could never be but by the Arbitrary Power of the King. 3. To set up and maintain that the sole Power of the Militia is put into the Hand of the King. 4. The War of the Parliament against the King is made Rebellion by Law. 5. All those things had been insufficient to serve the Design of introducing Popery which could not come in but by Arbitrary Power unless an Oath be devised and imposed to tie the Hearts and Hands of the Subject from thinking to act or acting against the Armed Force of Arbitrary Power And lastly no word was large enough to comprehend all possible Causes or Reasons of Opposition but whatsoever Do the Pope's Creatures what they they will we are tied up by upon any Pretence whatsoever to look upon our Miseries coming on and passively to lie down at the Feet of Popish Majesty i. e. cruel Tyranny and thereby become Vassals to the Triple Crown The Sense of the Declaration of Non-resistance Sir I have subscribed the Declaration of my Consent to that which was required as a formal Oath of all Officers Civil and Military thinking it was but Reason and Duty to give the King as a lawful Governor security in his Throne But the sense I had of it was to this purpose I do believe it is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever or from any Cause or Reason pretended for Subjects to take Arms against the King my lawful Soveraign for to such a King we are subjected and that I do abhor that traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are legally commissioned by him See if you please an Enquiry into the Oath required of all the Non-Con by an Act made at Oxford by that wise and worthy Man Mr John Corbet all other Commissions that are not legal being really none of the Commissions of the King of England who is bound to govern according to Law in the legal pursuance of legal Commissions and that I will not at any time endeavour any alteration of Government either in Church or State by any unlawful ways And more than this no King that means the good of his Subjects can desire and this a peaceable Subject may conscientiously give if the King require it for his Satisfaction But now if a King act contrary to the Laws not by a particular Act or Acts only by which many private Subjects are injured or opprest but to the changing the Fundamental Government and overturning it then when the Cause is not a pretended Cause framed by Jealousy or uncharitable Suspitions of the King and his Ministers whether the Body and Majority of the Kingdom may not in an Extremity appeal to the supreme determination of God by the Sword and vindicate the Right which they have to their Religion and Liberties is a Case wherein it appears even by Dr. Falkener that the King is no King and by Consequence the People which before were Subjects to the King while he acted as King in a legal manner are no further subject and so the Oath is not violated but stands good The word Whatsoever is intended in the largest sense and is so used in the Canons of 1640. and the Writings of several Men When a King goes about to set up a new Form of Government contrary to the Rights of the People the People as a Party in Contract and Covenant and still willing to perform their part take Arms as a Party to maintain their Rights which are invaded and do not rebel as Subjects So that the People of England are considerable as a Party in a legal Contract with the King as Subjects as well as Dr. Ealkener But then I ask Whether the King of England may act and do beyond and contrary to the Laws of his Government not in some particular Instances to the particular Injury of some private Persons but against the Foundations of the Government and Interest Peace Welfare Property Liberty and Safety of the whole Protestant and greatest part of his Subjects be to be deemed the lawful King of England as he was or would be held and reputed to be if he ruled as a sworn King of England And then Whether the People of England are by the Laws subjected to an Arbitrary Jesuited King or to a Regular and Regulated King Whether the Subjects of England are bound to whatsoever a King pleaseth to do set up and command or to those things only which are commanded them by Law If the Laws be the Rule and Measure of their Obedience and those Laws no other than what were made by their own implied Consents then the Subjects of England have not in this Extraordinary Action broken the Bonds of their Subjection but acted for their own Preservation as a People that were never bound to an Arbitrary Absolute King. If the Parliament that enacted that Law that prescribes this Oath did intend to bind all those Persons enjoined to take it to an unlimited Obedience to all manner of Arbitrary Commissions and Commands whatsoever of the King then they allowed to the King scope enough to run out into all Excess of Arbitrariness and did by that betray the Kingdom to the Will of a King be he Papist or Tyrant Did they intend to bind themselves and their Posterity from taking Arms even when a King shall go about to change the Legal Religion and change the Government If they did not then in this Case the Oath bindeth not That they did not seems plain by the Oath which was for the preservation of the Government and against the alteration of it But this we cannot think to be in their Minds though there was a great number in Favour and Pension to serve the secret Designs of the Court
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
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
should be born so long as he lived so as whatsoever Property any other person had or could have in any part of the World they held it all of Him. So after the Flood whatsoever Property or Share in the Government over any part of the World any of his Sons had they had it by his sole Allotment and Authority without waiting for Election or Consent or entring into any Articles or Capitulations with the People that were to be governed by them c. T. Is the Argument Good from Adam before the Fall to the Government after the Fall Is the Argument good from Adam the Common Father or Noah a Common Father to the State of the World distinguished and divided in the several Kingdoms and Territories Was Adam's Monarchy Hereditary to his eldest Son next in succession Did Cain succeed him in the Universal Monarchy Or did Cain forfeit Did Adam allot him the land of Nod and so it descended to the next Brother To be brief with you 1. When Soveraign Princes are Nature Fathers and give Portions to their Subject as to their Children then let them be as Great in their Dominions as Adam or as Noah was provided they be kind and righteous as they were 2. The Law then in Being and Force was the Law of Nature which established Property in the 8th Commandment And Judgment which is a Branch of Government or of Civil Power doth suppose Property as its Object or Matter about which it is conversant And there could be no actual Exercise of the judicial Port of Power and Government but there was a Property to be judged of K. How far the King of England is supreme But you cannot but say that the King of England is the onely supreme Governour and Monarch and if a Monarch the Supremacy is in Him alone for a Co-ordination of Power and a mixt Monarchy are absurd contradictory Notions As you may see in the Reverend Bishop Sanderson Sect 14. Preface We are bound by our Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King and his Heirs and Successors and to assist and defend all Jurisdictions c. Granted or belonging to him c. I pray read the Oaths And then we are bound by the Oath of the 14. of Charles the second not to take Arms against the King c. upon any pretence whatsoever c. And therefore surely such Actions and Alterations as we know and see of late are utterly unlawful and therefore I cannot joyn in the Thanksgiving for our Deliverance c. T. Sir You put me upon a necessity of speaking what otherwise I should be as unwilling to discourse of as any other Man. But conceiving my self obliged in Conscience and Religion to acknowledge our wonderful Deliverance I shall lay before you what I have learnt in these great matters I know Sir. O. Bridgman did urge the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy upon the Regicides and all that took Arms against the King in the Trial of Mr. Scroop pag. 67 68. What is the Oath of Allegiance is it not that you will defend the King his Crown c. against all Persons whatsoever It was not onely against the Pope Vnder favour that word Or otherwise doth there signify some other way or means not named by which the Pope might act against the King. as some would have it but the word is or Otherwise They broke the Oath of Supremacy which was that the King was the supreme Governour c. There is saith he a difference between some Crowns and Imperial Crowns An Imperial Crown is that which was not to be touched by any person We do not speak of the Absolute Power of the King pag. 68. The Reverend Bishop Sanderson builds his strong Tower for defence of the King's Soveraignty upon the words of the Oath of Supremacy That the King's Highness is the onely Supreme Governour of this Realm Sect. 14. The quickest way to bring our discourse to an issue is to lay down what I think very considerable in this matter 1. We acknowledge the King or Queen of England to be the onely supreme Governour within his Dominions But the Kings and Queens of England had no more Power given or attributed to them by these Oaths or the Statutes enjoyning them than they had before these Declarations So Queen Elizabeth declared in her Injunction 1559. Note this An Admonition to simple men deceived by the malitious in the Collection of Doctor Sparrow pag. 81. The Queens Majesty c. would that all her loving Subjects though understand that nothing was is or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath to have any other Duty Allegiance or Bond required by the same Oath than was acknowledged to be due to the most Noble Kings of famous Memory King Henry the 8th or Edward the 6. For certainly her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any Authority than what was challenedg and lately used by the said Noble Kings of famous Memory King Henry the 8th or Edward the 6th which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm That is under God to have the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countreys of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other forreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them 2. You heard what Sir Orlando Bridgman understood by that Great Title of Imperial Crown Now take notice of another Interpretation of it from Queen Elizabeth in that Admonition now quoted Imperial Crown That under God and not under the Pope or any foreign Prince or Potentate so as no other foreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them And it is rational to conceive that such as the King or Monarch is So saith Lord Keeper Bridgman in the Book quoted such is his Crown The King of England is not an Absolute King but in contradistinction to all foreign Princes and Powers none of whom hath any power over him he is subject to none therefore the Title of Imperial Crown adds nothing of Real power to the King but a glorious Epithet signifying that he holds not his Crown of any other forreign Prince or Power So is the Monarchy of England described by that famous Counsellour Sir Thomas Smith At the last the Realm of England grew into one Monarchy Neither were any one of those Kings neither he who first had all took any Investiture at the hand of the Emperor of Rome or of any other superior or foreign Prince but held of God to Himself and by his Sword his People and Crown acknowledging no Prince on Earth his superior and so it is kept and holden at this day De Repub. Anglorum c. 9 Sect. I. And when our Writers speak of the Independency of the Kings of England in opposition to the Pope and his Usurpation they speak of
the 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
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
second Letter to Le Cheese We have here a mighty Work upon our Hands no less than the Conversion of the three Kingdoms and by that perhaps the subduing of a Pestilent Heresy which has domineer'd over a great part of the Northern World a long time there were never such hopes of Success since the Death of Queen Mary as now in our days when God hath given us a Prince who is become may I say a Miracle zealous of being the Author and Instrument of so glorious a Work Collect. of Letters p. 118. Now ordinary Reason will hence advance the probability of all kind of mutual Engagements between these two Princes to promote the Catholick Interest by Dragooning us either to turn Papists or turn out of the Land. Pray Sir can you disprove the Story as you call it of the French League either by detecting the Imposture or by demonstrating the unreasonableness of the thing Or is it sufficient that their being both entirely devoted to the innocent and harmless Society of the Jesuits to unite them in the same Heavenly and Spiritual Interest and Designs as would make such a League incredible and unsupposable 3. Thè Story of the Prince of Wales whose Right to the Crown is so clear to some of your Seminaries that it is as certain as an Article of Faith is not laid asleep nor past away in silence We have read the Observations made upon him in the Memorial and upon the Queen's Progress with him We give credit to the Letter of Father Petre to La Chese As to the Queen's being with Child that Great Concern goes on as well as we could with c. you will agree with me most Reverend Father that we have done a great thing by introducing Mrs. Cellier to the Queen this Woman is totally devoted to our Society A rare Midwife of a Plot to dig a Baby out of a Meal-Tub The zealous Catholicks lay already two to one that it will be a Prince he must be a Prince or as good never be with Child But that which is pretty indeed in the Reverend Father is That the King 's Secret Council think good to wait for the Queen's Delivery that they may see a Successor who may have need of the whole Protection of the most Christian King to support him maintain his Rights Now what was to become of the King of England Whither was he to be sent after the Birth of this young Successor the Question may be asked of the Friends of that little Prince for was King James to live or not If he was to live notwithstanding the having of a Prince to succeed him then why was not he able to support and protect his Successor and his Rights Or was the King of England to be disabled from supporting his Successor The Princes of Wales were never wont to have Guardians and Protectors out of the English Dominions But this Unfortunate Prince would need Protection from a Foreign Monarch and his whole Protection A skirt of his Protection was not large enough he must have the whole Campaign Cloke of his Protection to Cover him and to support Him and maintain his Rights Why so Well it seems Father Petre was a Fortuneteller of the young friendless injured Prince that he must be carried to France when young and tender and stand in need of the whole Protection of a Great King. 4. You say That which they call the Original Contract was designed for no more than a Popular Flourish Now Doctor how doth this appear that it was no more than a Popular Flourish what a kindness was the King's withdrawing to the Gentlemen of the Convention and Men of their Sentiments had it not been for that they would have had no stress for their opinion of the Vacancy For the French League was but a Story the Prince of Wales was but a Story which they cared not how soon was laid asleep or put to silence And what they call an Original Contract was but a popular Flourish Now Doctor because your Author is a Man that leads because he writes and against a whole Convention also I will make some further discovery of this Contract which others of the same Genius make so light of And here I will shew what some of Eminency of the Church of England have written of it These Men will not allow the Kingdom of England to be as much as a Contracted Matron but a Prostitute to Absolute Arbitrary Power Of the Original Contract between the King and People of England I have noted before how Bishop Saunderson doth labour to manifest the Absurdity if not Impossibility of any Contract between King and People But if the People had at any time any Power of Electing their King it is rational enough to conceive that they made Conditions and Terms and would never have consented to their Hurt and Injury There are several ways of acquiring Soveraign Power Dr. Fern whose appearance was eminent against Defensive Arms doth yet acknowledg It is probable indeed that Kings at first were by choice Here as Elsewhere The Resolving of Conscience p. 19. This I speak not as if the Kings of this Land might rule as Conquerors God forbid The King is bound unto all those Laws Grants and Priviledges and that by Oath Whereas Our King is King before he comes to the Coronation which is sooner or later at his pleasure Then it seems Security must be given to the People but always to be in due time in regard of the security his People receive by his taking the Oath and he again mutually from them in which performance there is something like a Covenant all but Forfeiture The King there promises and binds himself by Oath to performance Could they shew us in this Covenant such an Agreement between the King and his People that in case he will not discharge his Trust that it shall be lawful for the States of the Kingdom by Arms to resist and provide for the Safety thereof it were something p. 21. Here is a Covenant and Contract confirmed by Oath which is enough to qualify the Spirits of them who deride or expose it And though there be no Forfeiture mentioned it doth not follow none can be incurred There is a mutual Benevolence Hope and Confidence in the Marriage of the sponsus Regni to the Kingdom it doth not therefore follow the Marriage-Bond cannot be violated Suppose all that swear Fealty to the King do break Faith with him do they not forfeit their Priviledges and Honours yet where is it exprest in the Contract or Capitulation A Government founded upon Contract and Agreement is not so strange a thing in it self as some Men make it to be when there are many Learned Writers that affirm there can be no just and righteous Government but by Election and Consent and that without it Government could not subsist And others hold though Election and Consent be not absolutely necessary to a just Government they
1. In taking away Counsel and Power from the One and 2. raising a mighty Spirit of Courage and Conduct in the often despised Prince of Orange and that State and turning the Spirits of this great People like one Man to oppose Popery and Slavery K. But Providence is dark and an uncertain Guide look to the Rule the Law of God and Man. T. Such apparent Providences are to be adored as Supreme Decisions of Cases reserved in the Divine Power Is not writing against the King's Will Resistance 2. I ask by what Law did so many Learned Men oppose Popery and the King's Will with their Learned Pens Had they Law for it shew it Was not that a Ressistance and a provoking one too For ought I know by the same Reason a Souldier may take his Sword who cannot dispute and write in this Cause as justly as a Scholar or a Divine may take his Pen and oppose I grant a Disparity in the Instrument and way of Resistance but the Reason or Motives of the one and the other the same But as the one doth it to maintain the Truth of God to confute Idolatry and Errors and to save Souls so doth the other and more than the Scholar doth for he labours to save Life and Estate Liberty and Property and the Protestant Religion abroad from being persecuted out of the World whereas the Scholar by his Disputes doth irritate and defends the Cause but not the Persons that are in danger And why may not a Peer of England and a Gentleman use all his Power Wisdom and Interest in such a Case as well as a Scholar use his Reason and his Books The Disputant is not passive but doth resist in his way and is it not then unlawful to contradict as well in its kind as to contra-act Is it lawful for me to defend my Inheritance by Law from the King's Incroachment You 'l say it is And why is it not lawful for a Kingdom to defend their Inheritance in Religion and Laws by the Sword when there is no other way left There 's a Treason against a Government as well as against a Governor Every free-Man of England hath a share in the benefit of the Fundamental Constitution and ought to be aiding and assisting in his place to defend it from pernicious Changes K. But is it fit the people should judg T. That kind of Passive-Obedience ill stated and ill timed also is blind Obedience The Wise and Great and Good Men of the Kingdom are competent Judges of Fact and Law also And a share is due to them in the Legislative also and a share is due to them in the Judicial and Executive Power And if they clearly see through right Mediums that they are in danger of being denied their Right I ask you What Law doth forbid them to vindicate their Right and defend the Government There is no Law of England that doth forbid the Kingdom to preserve its Legislative Power and Hereditary Right to a great share in the Government And their lying still in such a Case as ours had been to suffer the ruin of the Ancient Establishment and the erection of a New after a Jesuital Model There is no positive Law that forbids all Endeavours even by Force against Force in Extremity when Right cannot be had without it and if the King be but one of the three Estates of the Kingdom as K. Charles the First seems to me clearly to assert Answ to the XIX Propos p. 12 13 18 19 21. of the first Edit making himself One and the Houses of Lords and Commons the other Two and not as some others who make the Temporal Lords one the Spiritual the other and the Commons the third Then the Lords and Commons have two parts in the Legislation and Government and if they have not a supposed Right which they never gave up nor was ever taken from them nor parted with to preserve and vindicate their Rights and Liberties and that by Force or forcible Attempts when other ways have been used to no purpose and when Arbitrary Power strikes at the Root of the Constitution then if they have no inherent Right to maintain their Right to their Liberties and Religion they have no right to the things themselves but owe them altogether to the meer Grace and hold them at the meer Will of the King if so then he is an Absolute Soveraign and may at pleasure make us absolute passive Slaves But the Monarchy of England is a regulated limited Monarchy we have a legal Right to our Liberties Properties and Religion and the Lords and Commons never parted with their Fundamental Rights therefore they may vindicate them by their Power and Force in Extremity and apparent Danger K. But the Primitive Christians did not resist Tyrants and Persecutors though they had Force and Armies as Tertullian and others declare T. The Case of the Primitive Christians in nothing to Ours Christians as Christians have no Weapons but Christian no more than Subjects as Subjects have a right to Arms and to make Resistance And they were then in the state of meer Christianity Had they a right of Election to be Senators Had they a legal establishment of their Religion Was their Consent demanded by Heralds to have such a Man for their Emperor Did the Emperor swear at his Inauguration to govern by Laws in the making of which they had a share Dr. Falkener arguing against Subjects taking Arms against the King shews we need not fear to be driven to it for we have the security of good and wholsom Laws fixed with us by general accord of King Lords and Commons And it is a great Priviledg in this Realm that both Civil Rights and Matters of Religion are established by our Laws and that no Law can be made or repealed nor publick Monies raised but by the Consent of the Commons c. B. 2. p. 378. Had the Condition of the Primitive Christians been like ours we have no reason to think but they would have vindicated their own Right as had our Condition been the same with theirs I hope through Grace we should have put on the Crown of ☜ Martyrdom as they did The Question is not Whether it be lawful for Subjects to take Arms against their King when they have their Rights and Religion established by Laws and those preserved but whether a Kingdom the Peers Gentry and Body of it may not vindicate their Legal Rights both Sacred and Civil by open Force in conjunction with a free Protestant Prince who hath a Right in the Kingdom to preserve when there is an apparent Necessity either so to do or suffer and intollerable kind of Government to come upon them Our Case put home And that at such a time when their Passive Stupidity Dulness Compliance or Cowardise would ruin their Posterity and extreamly hazard every Protestant State and Kingdom to a speedy ruin and desolation whom we ought to our power to preserve
Morning And now Doctor I come to the end of what at our first meeting we fell upon As I intended by the help of God to observe the Thanksgiving Febr. 14. so I have And cannot Express the Sense I have of the many Causes of Thanksgiving Behold and wonder at what God hath wrought Salvation belongeth unto the Lord his Blessing is upon his People The Lord hath answered before we called Isa 65.24 Who hath heard such a thing who hath seen such a thing Shall the Earth be made to bring forth in one day or shall a Nation be born at Once for as soon as Zion travelled she brought forth Children Isa 66.8 There are three admirable Providences to be told our Children that the Generations to come may praise the Lord. 1. The Greatness of our Deliverance from the Sins the Curse the Plague of Popery the deliverance of our Bodies from the Sword of our Wives and Virgins from unnatural beastliness of Papists who put Nature to shame As in Savoy 1686. and yet their Nature cannot blush 2. The Deliverance without Blood. 3. The Suddainess of it Providence dispatched his marvellous Work. 4. The immediateness of God's hand 2. After a Deliverance we are come to a Settlement the most hopeful this Nation ever saw in many respects it exceeds all that ever went before it as the Deliverance also doth 3. That God should make way for it by taking away the Spirit of the late King and coveying him away without reproach to our Religion 4. The Lord wonderfully united the Spirit of the Nation in the choice of Representatives and united their Counsels without tedious distracting Debates to fill the Throne to clear and recover their own despised and almost extinguished Rights and to do Right to our most Gracious King and Queen and the Royal Line upon better terms than they were in before 5. God hath given a King and Queen of our own Religion and that the true rarely set off with an ilustrious Exemplariness Zeal and Moderation 6. I rejoice for the joy of the persecuted desolated Protestant Churches abroad and strength added to the Protestant Princes 7. I rejoice for the Consolation which this wonderful Providence hath brought to Protestants abroad that have suffered Persecution and that were in danger to be swallowed up and that the Prosperity and Peace of England is like to add Courage and Strength to Protestant Princes and States every-where 8. I rejoice that Popery is put to shame and confusion in our Land. I wish the Simple and Deluded may see the Hand of God which is lifted up and not love Darkness rather than Light. The Lord hath broken the Head of Popish Counsels disclosed their Secrets and made them fall in their own Devices 9. I hope the Lord will finish his work and having brought to the Birth will also bring forth Shall I cause to bring forth and shut the Womb saith the Lord. Isa 66.9 10. I hope to see Protestants united more in the profession of Faith Love Worship Communion and Peace that there be no Colour from Laws to scatter the Flocks put Lights under Bushels and make them a Prey to the worst of Men. 11. I hope to see with admiration Behold a King shall reign in Righteousness and Princes shall rule in Judgment that the Work of Righteousness shall be Peace and the Effect of Righteousness Quietness and Assurance for ever Isa 32.1 17 c. 12. I hope Our gracious King Queen and wise Parliament who are taking off Arbitrary Yokes apace will take off another Yoke of Arbitrariness in Ecclesiastical Courts I do not winch because I am gall'd but rejoice because I am delivered and preserved There is a great sense among us of the Arbitrariness of Canonical Obedience which was extended even to Votes for Parliament-Men and answering Questions as in the High Commission proceeding upon Arbitrary Canons not confirmed by the King's Proclamation Arbitrary Articles of Visitation Arbitrary Oaths exacted of Church-wardens and their Legal Duties never that I could hear of explained unto them And calling for Subscriptions to Addresses and Abhorrences to serve the Designs of Papists against us and deceive the King with Promises 13. I rejoice that I am in my place to serve God out of which I was preparing my self to be thrown out for not reading the King's Declaration as it was a means to advance Popery and not out of a grudg at the Indulgence of Protestants which had been the means of our ruin if God had not given him an unexpected Diversion to look to his own Kingdom and found him other Work. Every day will I praise the Lord and call upon mine own Soul to bless the Lord and not to forget all his Benefits and I will by the Grace of God stir up others with an O that Men would praise the Lord c. And as I have since I was capable kept the 5th of November so now while I can upon another Reason the most seasonable peaceable happy entrance of our now more Illustrious that the then Illustrious Prince of Orange as a Day which the Lord hath made My Joys may be grievous to you which I am sorry for and therefore I will pray that we may not fail as Hezekiah did to return thanks according to the Mercy received There are thousands and ten thousands of Mercies and Blessings in this marvellous Deliverance and Settlement of the Kingdom nothing can blast this hopeful Spring and silence the singing of Birds but our continuance in Prodigious Profaneness and Debauchery brought in at the very Heels of the joyful Restoration of the King in 1660. If the sense of Mercy doth but run through our Hearts and oblige us to think as well of the Practice of Religion as it is described Tit. 2.11 12 13. and other places as we think ill of Popery all your new Sect of Grumblers can only give us some exercise of our Charity and Moderation you and all your Party under your antiquated and self-deposed King with the hopeful succession of the Prince of Wales and his Brother in the little Belly of the Queen cannot hurt us Therefore Good Doctor grumble not against God our Laws our King and Queen and Parliament the hoped-for settlement of the Church upon the Word of God maintained by unity of Spirit in the Bond of Peace and commended in a Better Act than our last of Uniformity or else we shall go as far back as that Act cast the happiness of this Church and Kingdom For from that day that Act took place it hath been ill with the Church of God and Christianity in England and a private Apartment was made for Popery under the Church Walls K. Are you a Conformist and say so T. You have called us Trimmers and our Conformity hath been in a great part from the Principle of Passive Obedience and Peace and Love to Souls resolving to go as far with you as we could with a good Conscience And since our
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 sole Soveraignty of Power in himself and can't be controll'd or contradicted much less opposed by Force T. I do as freely acknowledg the Supremacy of the King of England according to Law and settled upon him by Law as you do and that Subjects should keep in the Bounds of Subjection and obey their Superiors for Conscience-sake I acknowledg that a mixt Monarchy is as absurd as a Compound Simple But yet I find our Monarchy to be a Regulated and not an Absolute Monarchy And if it be compounded of the three Forms of Government Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy then it is no such Bull as to be an Errand One. That it is such a Monarchy I prove by a greater Author than that Learned Writer Look then to the Answer of King Charles I. to the XIX Propositions sent to him from the two Houses to York July 1642. The Wisdom of your Ancestors hath moulded this Government out of a Mixture of all three p. 18. And let me note to you to what the King did attribute this Constitution the saith The Wisdom and Experience of your Ancestors hath moulded this K. But when did the Wisdom of our Ancestors meet and where to mould and fashion this Government T. That I may not confound our Discourse I must first speak to the Particulars of the former Objection or Query and then come to new Matter 6. We are bound to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King his Heirs and Successors and to defend him and them to the utmost of our Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever that shall be made against their Persons their Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any such Sentence c. I pray Sir let me explain my self to you concerning these things 1. We may I conceive lay down this that the Soveraignty of Power lies in the King and three Estates Of our Allegiance or in the Parliament consisting of all these jointly That the Superiority of Government is vested in the King who as he is King by Law so he is obliged to govern according to it Therefore the Power of the King is not Absolute in respect of his Subjects nor unlimited but tho the Limits of Prerogative are not set down because extraordinary Emergencies cannot be foreseen nor determined yet it is limited by Law or else it would be in some sense infinite That it is not unlimited is no new Divinity as it is no new Law. See also Dr. Ferm Conse satisfied Non largimur Regibus potestatem illimitatam infinitam ut quamlibet Religionem possint subditis pro arbitrio praescribere sed potestatem à Deo delegatam ac proinde Regulis Legis Divinae circumscriptam Nam ut in Causis Civilibus quamvis sint suprema potestate armati non possunt tamen Leges condere contra aequitatem naturam c. Rev. Dr. Ward Determin Regis in Regno suo suprema est sub Deo potestas p. 105. 3. And if the Power of Soveraigns be limited so the Obedience of Subjects is limited also for Power of Commanding and Duty of Obeying are of the same Extent 2. Allegiance is the Duty of a Subject to which he is bound by Law and Allegiance is reciprocal between the King and his Subjects Ligantia significat inde Ligantia Allegiantia Vinculum arctius inter subditum Regem utrosque invicem connectens hunc ad Protectionem justum Regimen illos ad Tributa debitam subjectionem c. Sir H. Spellman Gloss 3. The King is the formal and express Object of Allegiance as Supreme Governor but the Kingdom is the compleat Object of it yea and the ultimate Object of it under God and its Welfare and Good. And so I find in that great Author Sir Hen. Spelman v. Fidelitas a Law of St. Edward That all People ought once a Year to confederate and consolidate like sworn Brethren to defend the Kingdom against Foreigners and Enemies together with the King. By which I see the true Interest of the King and Kingdom is one and the very same but it was our unhappiness of late to find the true and united Interest divided and an Interest promoted as contrary to the Kingdom as Darkness to Light and Superstition and Idolatry to the Gospel of Christ In the Condition we are in What was to be done but what was done No Man in Conscience could adhere to the King against Religion and the Kingdom for our Obligation and Subjection is first due to God and to the King in him and for him and no otherwise as it is in the Prayer in the Communion Service If the King doth persist to act contrary to God Who can in Duty folly him or assist him Next to my Fidelity to my Heavenly Lord I owe my Fidelity to the Community of England by the Law of God and of Nature whereof I am a Member because the Community must be governed by righteous and good Laws and these Laws executed I am next obliged to that form of Government constituted and agreed unto And then lastly I am obliged to the personal Soveraign the King. My Fidelity to the Community or Kingdom under a King is due by God's Law in Nature My Fidelity to the Person of the King is by a voluntary Obligation required by a positive Law as King of England governing by Law. And my natural Allegiance to the King is to him as a King by Law and governing by Law. Judicious Mr. Lawson delivers himself thus concifely and rationally Fidelity to the Community is first due Fidelity to it under some form of Government was the second Fidelity to it under that form by King Peers and Commons was the third Fidelity unto the Person of the King is the last and presupposeth the former Whosoever understands and takes them that is the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance otherwise perverts the true meaning of them and makes them unlawful Politica Sacra Civilis c. 15. p. 125. An Answer to the Learned Author of the Rights of the Kingdom Hobs p. 17. gives us several Ancient Laws obliging the Subject to Allegiance to the Kingdom with the King in the Days of Old. 7. The Oaths of Allegiance were made to the King as a Protestant in a direct opposition to the Pope and his usurped Jurisdiction and Power And though Fidelity and Obedience is due to Kings of the Romish Faith yet how these Oaths can be taken under such a King I do not understand Except I declare what the King ought to be viz. the only Supreme Governour in his Kingdoms and Dominions and that the Pope ought not to have any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical or Spiritual when I am sure enough the King doth own such a Jurisdiction by professing that Religion How can I swear to maintain the Prehemencies and Authorites granted or annexed to the Imperial Crown when he hath parted with the Preheminence and Authority of being supreme Governour in all Causes