and Renowned Fleta hath left as his Judgment and Law l. 1. c. 17. S. 2 3. Nec à Regnando dicitur sed a benè regendo nomen assumitur Rex verò dum benè regit Tyrannus dum populum suâ violatâ apprimitur dominatione Ad hoc namque electus est ut justitiam pariter Vniversis sibi subditis faciat exhibere c. And Sect. 14. Ad haec enim Creatus est Rex Electus ut justiciam faciat Vniversis c. Florentius Wigorniensis that old Historian relates That Edgar the First who united England into one Kingdom was Electus ab omni Anglorum Populo of all the People of England Edit 4º p. 355. as he was before chosen of the Mercians and Northumbrians who deserted King Edwin because he acted foolishly in the Government committed to him p. 354. After the decease of Edgar there arose a great Dissention among the chief Men of the Kingdom about the Election of a King for some Elected Edward his Son and others Elected his Brother Ethelred p. 361. And to save the labour of looking further you may see how the Succession went see in a brief History of the Succession printed the other Day 3. Government grew by degrees into Kingdoms and began in Families encreased into Vicinities Towns Cities Common-Wealths and Kingdoms And that Form of Government was best which best agreed with the People and was most conducive to the Publick Benefit Hear what the Admired and Learned Mr. Hooker thought Book I. of Eccles Policy p. 27 29. The Case of Man's Nature standing as it doth some kind of Regiment the Law of Nature doth require yet the Kinds thereof being many Nature tieth not to any One but leaveth the Choice as a thing Arbitrary This is contrary to them that set up Monarchy and Absolute too upon the Foundation of the Law of Nature 4. As to the derided Contract and Consent of the People where and by whom and abundance of Questions about it I conceive the words of the same Learned Hooker may ballance those of Bishop Saunderson That which we spake before concerning the Power of Government must be here applied to the Power of making Laws to command whole politick Societies of Men belongeth so properly unto the same intire Societies of Men that for any Prince or Potentate of what kind soever upon Earth to exercise the same of himself and not either by express Commission immediately and personally received from God or else by Authority derived at first from their Consent upon whose Persons they impose Laws it is no better than meer Tyranny Laws they are not therefore which publick Approbation hath not made so But Approbation not only they give who personally declare their Consent by Voice Sign or Act but also when others do it in their Names by Right at least originally derived from them As in Parliaments Councils and the like Assemblies B. 1. p. 28. The many of Bishop Saunderson's Questions may easily be answered by destroying his Supposition That there was a great number of People as big suppose as a Kingdom without Government and that these all must in all respects be equal or else they may be injured by some who contract and all present to chuse their Governor and give him Power to rule according to contract * See the same Supposition handsomly flourish'd by Dr. Fern. Consc satisfied p. 9. It is no Matter by whom or when the first Contract was made we are sure it was by the Light of Nature or Reason in the most convenient way Let us see how it is now and hath been of a long time Whereas we read in our Histories that sometimes the Nobles sometimes Nobles and Prelats sometimes the Heads of the Commons agreed with their King upon Conditions to govern But that is the most perfect way which is by the three Estates met in Parliament or Convention 5. That there were and are Contracts between the Kings of England and the People or the Community made by their Representatives is not void of sufficient Proof Take a few The People of England are called the King's Liege People because they are obliged to him And the King is also called the Liege King for the same Reason because he is bound by Contract or Covenant to them Dicuntin utrique ligii Princeps nempe ligius Dominus subdits verb Populus ligius homines ligii Ligia foedus Eigii igitus liges idem sunt quod ligati Spelm. Gloss Many Instances might be produced of Contracts between our Ancient Kings and the People of England Two shall suffice When Suanus tyrannized over the Land he exacted a huge Tribute of St. Edmunds-Bury threatned to burn it if he had it not paid him and giving out opprobious Language against that St. Edmund at Gainsburrough where he held a General Plea died there in great Agony and Fear upon the appearance of St. Edmund coming against him The Danish Fleet chose his Son Canutus to be King. At majores Natu totius Angliae The Elders or Eldermen of all England sent Messengers with one consent to Ethelred King of England then in Normandy saying That they loved and would love none more than Him their natural Lord If he would more rightly govern or more mildly handle them than he had before Which when he heard he directed his Son Edward with Embassadors to them and he in most friendly manner saluted the Greater and the Lesser of his Nation Promising That he would be to them a mild and devoted Lord that he would consent to their Will in all Things acquiesce in their Counsels that he would pardon what soever was reproachfully and disgracefully said of him or his or done contrary to him and his s◠omnes unanimiter c. if all would unanimously and without treachery agree to receive him into the Kingdom All of them did answer Courteously or freely to these things Afterwards a full Accord or Friendship is confirmed on both sides Verbis Pacto both by Words and Contract Florentius Wigerniensis p. 381. The other Instance I give out of the same Historian is omni Exceptione major it is of William the first commonly called the Conqueror William came to London with his whole Army ut ibi in Regem sublimaretur that he might be advanced to be King and was Consecrated in an honourable manner Promising first as Aldred the Archbishop of York required or exacted of him before the Altar of St. Peter by Oath before the Clergy and People That he would defend the Holy Churches of God and their Rectors and govern all the People subject to Him justly and with Regal Care and Providence Appoint or ordain and hold Right Law and forbid Rapines and unjust Judgments utterly or altogether p. 431. But that which goes beyond all particular Instances is the Coronation Oath K. But concerning the Coronation Oath I am of the Opinion of Rev. Dr. Falkner Christian Loyalty B. 2. c. 2. p. 423. Let us
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
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
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
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
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
the Souls of many that are liable to Temptation to yield to its Charms or be exposed to its Furies You must choose either Holy-Water or Blood. Had he been driven away by the Flaming Sword of Rebellious Subjects you might have some pretence for your Murmurings but not daring to trust his own great Force nor the Men of his own Religion and having no Confidence in God whose tremendous Providence hath conveyed him away I think you have no cause to wish for him again but to think that well done which God hath done K. But can you think the Nation innocent in this matter And if our Deliverance from some Mischiefs be considerable yet if the People have sinned we have small cause to be thankful And seeing I have no Legal Command from my Ordinary and that Ash-Wednesday is the Day before I will keep that and hope no notice will be taken for my not observing the other T. And why not both I am sure you have not been so nice about other Thanksgivings K. I have no Book T. Our Prayers for the Queen and Prince of Wales were commonly called Modest Prayers Then you want a Book of Prayers modestly penn'd Will you do nothing from your Heart no more than you will do without Order by the Apparitor on your own Head But will you read the Litany and Denunciations sicut olim as you are commanded to do on Ash-Wednesday or will you omit them K. I will do as the Law requires and according to my Declaration of Assent to all and every thing contained in c. T. Then you will still pray for the King tho he deserted the Kingdom not as much as leaving a Commission for Administrators in his Absence then you will pray that he may be kept and preserved in the true worshipping of God which he hath not done since he became a Papist then you will pray for the Queen and Prince of Wales still right or wrong and that God would give the King the victory over all his Enemies What without fighting And who are they Are they reputed his Enemies or his Friends who sign'd the Association at Guild-Hall and do you pray he may be in a condition to fight against them and overcome them too And who will you mean when you denounce him Cursed who removeth his Neighbours Landmark The King who turn'd out the President and Fellows of Magdalen-Colledg which is a little more than gaining a little Ground by removing the Land-marks or the Convention who labour to find out the ancient Bounds and Foundations remov'd by Arbitrary Goverment for my part I deal truly with you I cannot pray every Petition contained in the Book of Common-Prayer notwithstanding Assent declared for tho there be no Alterations made in the Book there is an Alteration made in Things and Persons that I look upon my self as so far discharged from the Obligation of the Act except I should offer that to God which I believe he will not accept K. Then you will presume to make publick Prayers of your own without Authority T. When this was written I had no Book but rather than loose a Shilling for a Book not worth Two Pence after the Rate of Paper and Print so basely Printed that it would even blind a pair of Specticles to read it I had one sent me the Evening before in which there was no Order for a Sermon nor Homily against Rebellion And therefore they who preached not that Day may plead their Excuse for none was required Why not pray without a Book as well as preach without One on such an Occasion as this especially If Superiors neglect their Duty I know no reason why I should neglect mine The Scripture is as full of matter for Prayer and Praise as for Preaching And altho God hath by his Providence as much as blotted out several parts of the Common-Prayer and transported the King yet that Command and Act of his Will continues still in force Let Prayers and Supplications and giving of Thanks be made for all men for Kings and such as are in Authority There are some still in Authority and therefore I am obliged to pray for them and to give Thanks And tho I cannot make Versicles for a Dialogue between the Minister and Clerk there are Psalms and Chapters as proper for this service as for other and I hope more proper than those for the Prince of Wales and the Queen's being with Child and I might name more than those And I hope to find matter enough for a large Thanksgiving K. But where will you find Precedents in Scripture for the Insurrections of Subjects against their Lawful Prince and Soveraign or for a Son and Nephew to invade the Kingdom of his Father and Uncle or for a Convention of Subjects to depose their natural Lord and King T. I might ask you as many Questions on the other side But not to tire my self with talk to Day I will come home to the Present Case and lay all these things together The Case openedt 1. The King being a Zealous Papist wishing all his Subjects were of his Religion in the Declaration of Indulgence and governed by the Jesuits it is impossible for him to keep his Word or Declarations made to his Protestant Subjects any further than shall serve their Designs and Interests 2. How the King kept his Promises to govern by Law to invade no Mans Property to maintain the Church of England ask the Judges enquire at Cambridge and Oxford and the late Chancellor and Ecclesiastical Commissioners 3. Popery was disseminated all over the Land Mass-Houses publick Papists put in Offices Schools opened and taught by Jesuits c. contrary to Law. 4. The King declared Himself absolute having an inherent power in Himself to dispence with Statutes Another Argument that there was no hold to be taken of his Word or Promises For if he do not keep the Statutes made by his Royal Assent and his Predecessors how can we expect firmness in verbal Promises and Declarations And if his Power be Arbitrary and absolute he may change and recede from his Word as often as he doth change his Mind and Councils King James II. chang'd the Government 5. He changed the form of Government and Constitution from an English Monarchy and Independent from an imperial Crown to a subjection to the Pope and See of Rome And whether He be any longer King of England than he is Supreme in his Dominions and that in Opposition to the Bishop of Rome by Name I dare refer it to your self He hath lost his legal claim to the Monarchy of the Kings of England by Subjection to the Roman Pontiff K. But tho he has yet the Order and Authority of Kings being of the Law of Nature He is Sovereign still tho he hath degraded Himself from the dignity and Supremacy of the King of England by the Law of England T. Sir You are mistaken in that Point for you
there were Streams of penitent Tears ruuning from our Eyes and more fervant Prayers of the Righteous sent up to Heaven But notwithstanding the great Scarcity of both I think it a great Duty to give thanks to God for delivering us from the Hands of our Enemies K. You do not know but the King's Heart might be changed He did a great deal in a little time for the Satisfaction of the People in restoring Charters and declaring he would Call a Parliament and offered Pardons to his Enemies T. We know these Acts of Grace and when they were made publick Of these see the Sence of the Prince of Orange in his Declaration What if the Counsellors and Tools advised these Acts to Cast us into a sleep and to gain time for French Preparations You may see what the Nation did and what Methods of Proceedings were used What Methods were used for our Preservation 1. Many of our Peers and Gentlemen of Honour and Interest first represented the State of the Kingdom to the Heirs Expectant of the Crown and therein declared That their Hignesses if no Prince be born to the King have an unquestionable Right to defend the Legal Monarchy Rege etiam renitente That the People of England have an Unquestionable Right to seek Assistance from their Royal Highnesses Our Case stated on the Nations part That the Ancient Kings of England acknowledged the Peoples Right to save their Free Government c. See the Memorial p. 26 c. If the Prince and Princess have Right to defend Note this and the People of England a Right to seek that Defence wherein doth the Iniquity of both or of either appear especially considering the Nominal Prince of Wales being not an undoubted Heir Our Case stated on the Prince of Orange's part 2. The Prince and Princess timely dealt with the King in a most dutiful manner proposing Expedients to compose and settle the Nation as appears by Pensioner Fagel's Letter and Vindication But the Contrivers of our Ruine both in Soul and Body proceeding to obstruct all healing Methods His Highness put forth his pious and just Declaration of his Reasons and Intentions to come over into England The Reflections upon it are very wordy and weak See the Declaration 3. If the Prince of Orange had no Interest by proximity of Blood to seek the Preservation of the Church and Kingdom Why might not he come over to us as righteously to deliver us as Our former Kings and Queen Elizabeth have assisted forreign Protestant States and Sufferers by Money and Arms 4. The Miseries of the Protestants in France and Savoy and the Dangers which threatned all Protestant Kingdoms and Sates by the Power and Blood-thirstiness of France and the Popish Confederates awakened Protestant Kings and Princes to prevent the Desosolation of their Countries and Religion to enter into a League and to begin with England to rescue it from its growing Perils and to settle the State of it as knowing what an Influence its Preservation or Destruction would have upon Countries of the same Profession And his Highness the Prince being so deeply engaged in that League he must as a Christian prefer the Glory of Christ before all Obligations of Relation as a Son and a Nephew Yet still performing all the Duties of that Relation in which he hath not been wanting as far as is consistent with the Common Cause and Interest And respect to the Common Protestant Interest and Engagement prevail'd with his Highness the Prince of Denmark to go over to the Prince of Orange as he professeth in his Letter to the King. 5. The Prince in his Declaration invited All Degrees and Orders of Men in the Kingdom to come in and joyn with him to promote his Ends in getting a Free Parliament to which he refers Himself and the Settlement of Church and State. Should the Nobility and Gentry look on and see him ready to Fight in their Defence and give him no Assistance K. Yes certainly for they ought not to assist an Invader against their King. T. The Case stated resteth upon this as one chief Pillar If they have right to relate their Grievances and Pressures and to call him to their Rescue there being no other way left for them and if he have Right and Interest in England which he cannot give up for lost and if that which he desires is neither Crown nor Conquest but the Preservation of the Government in a lawful Parliamentary-way then the Invasion is not the Invasion of an Enemy but the coming in of a Saviour to deliver us That the People of England have right to defend their Government they prove in the Memorial quoted before K. But do not you know that Private Persons are not fit Judges whether their Present Case be such in which they may lawfully resist or no T. I remember something to that purpose in Dr. Falkner Christian Loyalty Book 2. p. 365. p. 373. and he quotes the more Corrected Judgment of Grotius differing from what he had written in his younger Time upon Mat. 26. But Are the wisest Noblemen Gentry and Lawyers of the Land unfit to Judg of this Case Doth their incapacity to judge rise from the Privacy of their Condition or what else A private Man well studied in the Laws and Constitution is as able to judge when that is Uiolated as more Publick Persons and a good Lawyer in his Study knows the Law as well as many a Judg upon the Bench. Besides I distinguish between a particular private Man The Nobles and Gentry who appeared in this Action not meer private Men. or more sustaining private Injuries or Oppressions or some lesser Bodies and Corporations and the Community of the whole Kingdom They who have appeared for the Prince of Orange are by far the Majority of the whole Kingdom and men of as great Understandings as any of those who drove them to this Course This Resistance was not in a private Cause but the Essentials of the Government and Concern of the Kingdom And therefore what the Doctor saith and quoteth out of Grotius is nothing to our Case And for a fuller understanding of our Case I pray Sir remember what the King did Our Case opened on the Kings â—… part The Prince and Majority of the Kingdom declare for a Free Parliament for the Protestant Religion and for the Laws and Government by Law. Can any King that is a King by Law sworn and obliged by Promises to govern by Law refuse to grant what the Kingdom desires But He on the Contrary 1. Prepares a Royal Navy increaseth his standing Army calling in many thousands of Popish Irish and of Scots tho not all Papists yet as he thought for his purpose 2. Tho he declared he would summon a free Parliament yet he sent out but few Writs which came to nothing 3. He prepares to defend his Cause and to oppose the Prince and Kingdom by the Sword Whereas if
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
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
turn to the place The Solemnity of Coronation when the People acknowledg their King and the King again gives the People assurance that he will preserve their Religion Rights and Laws is far from intending to express the King's Authority to be derived from the People by a Contract as some have weakly argued for the King is actually King by his Right of Inheritance c. T. I distinguish between the solemnity of Coronation the Prince appearing in Splendor doth excite the People to make Acknowledgments and expression of Affection with Acclamations c. as the Doctor goes on and the Questions proposed to the King and the Coronation-Oath The Argument for Consent and Contract is built upon the Demands made to the King and his Oath and the Fealty sworn to the King. The Forms of the Coronation Oath have been divers as you may see in the most laborious Mr. Pryn Epist to the Reader before his Hist of K. John Hen. 3. Edw. the I. out of the Records of the Tower from p. 30 c. The King is obliged as Fleta tells you C. praedict Nec potest quis judicare in temporalibus nisi solus Rex vel sub delegatus Ipse namque ex virtute Sacramenti ad hoc specialiter Obligatur ideò Coronâ insignitur ut per judicia populum rogat sibi subjectum I follow the directions of that Learned laborious Writer and find his Quotation out of Bracton true l. 3. de Actionibus c. 9. p. 107. S. 1 2 3. The King ought in his Coronation to swear and promise to his People subject to him 1. That he will Command and to his Power help that Peace be observed all his Time to the Church of God and all Christian People 2. That he will interdict Rapines and all Iniquities to all degrees 3. That in all his Judgments he will command Equity and Mercy that the Gracious and Merciful God may grant him Mercy and that all may through his Righteousness enjoy a firm Peace Ad hoc autem Creatus Electus est To this End or Office he is Created and Chosen And our Righteous Kings have look'd upon themselves as bound to do what they promised and swore to at their Coronation See the Quotations in that Epist p. 31. And K. James the First Even Dr. Fern doth acknowledg It is probable indeed that Things at first were by choice here as elsewhere The Resolving of Conse S. 4. p. 19. said He should be perjur'd if he did not observe the Laws Secondly I distinguish between Sole Election Consent and Hereditary Right by Common Law. Our Kings and Queens succeed by Hereditary Right presupposing an Election of the Royal Progenitors or voluntary Consent in the Acts of Settlement and still demanded and declared at every Coronation As every King or Queen is not Elected as by a People in absolute Liberty to chuse whom they please so it is not conceived to be Hereditary by Common Law but by Settlement implying the Consent of the People And if you would know how it was of Old observe how it is now in the most happy Agreement between our now most Gracious King William and Queen Mary and the Collective Wisdom and Power of the Kingdom Now our High Court of Parliament in the for-ever to be celebrated Convention Our former wise Kings have thought an Act of Parliament the best Deed of Settlement of the Crown And how the Succession hath been changed is to be seen in that Excellent short History of the Succession come to my Hands t'other day * Sold by J. Robinson in St. Pauls Ch. yard K. Let things be as they were in former Times Let us if we be Men of Conscience remember our Declaration and the Oath sworn by all Officers of the Unlawfulness of taking Arms against the King or those commissionated by him upon any Pretence whatsoever Remember your Declaration and the words Pretence whatsoever What-ever Limitation the Author of the Inquiry hath put upon it by limiting the words in all things in the Duty of Children to their Parents And look upon what that Good and Learned Man Dr. Falkener hath written at large upon that Oath in vindication of it in the 2d Book of Christian Loyalty T. Content Sir let us look to the Book there it is K. In the first Section he tells you Dr. Falkener considered There is a two-fold Declaration of Loyalty in detestation of such Positions as undermine the Security of Kings and Kingdoms required in this Realm the one more particular in the Oath of Allegiance against deposing Excommunicated Heretical Kings and the other more General Of which he speaks § 2. T. We detest the Doctrine and Practices of the Pope and Papists as much as you do And all that the Doctor hath learnedly discoursed of it in that Section doth not at all concern us not only because that is Popish Doctrine and because it is unlawful for the Pope to excommunicate and depose a Protestant King but because we are not guilty of Deposing our late King Jam. II. our Case hath been more briefly than it might be declared before to prevent the Accusation of deposing him 1. The King did really depose himself from being an Independent King of England K. Jam. 2. deposed himself and was not deposed by submitting to the Pope 2. He dispens'd with our taking the Oath of Allegiance which I think I should not have taken had I been required without a plain declaration of my Mind for it implied a contradiction to take it to a Popish King. 3. After he deserted his puissant great Army and durst not put his Cause upon a Battel he gave one Branch of his Soveraignty to the Prince of Orange viz. the Command of his Army and Navy and then attempted to go beyond Sea and at last went leaving his Kingdom without Force or Compulsion or Menace The Illustrious Prince of Orange and the Kingdom desired nothing but what was their Right as much their Right as the Crown was his 4. In this Case what shall the Kingdom do You may be satisfied by the Debates about Abdication and Vacancy Must the Kingdom lie open to the Enemies of it Must there be a Justicium a silence of the Laws and stop to Justice and Righteousness and all things fall into unsettlement and confusions to wait upon his Return Yea must the Affairs of the Protestant Confederates be under distractions through our irresolutions Must the Illustrious Prince of Orange go back again losing the Opportunities of finishing his Work which God gave him in so wonderful a manner And must the Nation give time to Papists for new Plots and gathering strength to do us their designed Mischiefs What will become of Trade What Foreign Princes will treat with us when we have none to treat with them and give them Security Who shall govern or pay our Armies or preserve the People from their Rudeness or Violence and Factions if they have no
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
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
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
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
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
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
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