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
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
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
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
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
First One Answer to this Demand may be That Queen Elizabeth's wise Council did foresee that this was an effectual if not the only way to prevent greater Mischiefs and Effusion of Blood which in all probability had followed if this Course had not been taken And in an Extraordinary Case some Extraordinary Thing tending to the Publick Good may lawfully be done Lawson Pol. S. Civil p. 87. Our Convention will merit an honourable Memorial of all Generations for what they have done in our extraordinary Danger and Confusion We are in a way to Happiness if Unthankfulness and Murmuring doth not cast us back And such Papers as these will not at all help us towards Peace and Quietness I have no mind to deal any further with him I am sorry for him that he hath given such just Provocation to Authority as he hath by many Passages in it Sir I thank you for any thing you communicate to me Now let me put into your Hand a Rational Moderate and Convincing Paper The lawfulness of taking the New Oaths asserted K. I should be glad to be satisfied in the Point of Allegiance to King James the 2d My Conscience is not at ease and I am afraid I shall offend one way or other T. I am glad Our King Queen and Parliament are so moderate and patient with Our new Dissenters and Seminaries There are two sorts we would wish at ease in their own Minds and for their own Sakes Allegiance not due to the late King. and of many that are jealous of some strange Mutations among us But can we expect so great a Deliverance without any signs of Danger Man is a sullen morose Creature if he be not pleased But now God with a holy Reverence be it acknowledged is pleasing Himself whether you be pleased or not How long shall it be before he have your good-will to advance his own Glory He hath patiently been gratifying you many Years even to the giving you the King you preferr'd before all things You have tried him grew afraid of him talk'd boldly of him and acted too to displease him and towards his removal also And now what 's the matter what would you have Can you neither be well with him nor well without him How many of you acted as if you believ'd him to be no King that the Obligation was dissolved between you and Him This ingenuous moderate Gentleman presseth that handsomely and home enough May I be so bold to say something upon this tender Argument of Allegiance What though many of you knew what Designs were laid and conceal'd them from the King did neither argue against them nor estrange your selves from the Conspirators preach'd not one piece of a Sermon against them but went with them or sent to them assisted countenanced wellcom'd them Home subscribed the Association voted for Members of the Convention or joined being chosen And yet now recoile All this and Conscience stand in a Man's way and put him not only to a stand but make him retreat in disorder and fear And tenderness of Conscience is to be kindly used and for Oaths in particular in an Age wherein they have been common to a Sin and slighted to a high provocation of the Holy God. I cannot stay long upon this But in short 1. I grant that Allegiance is due to the Person of a King and not only to his Crown and Dignity but then that Person that possesseth that Crown and Dignity is not considered absolutely in his Natural Capacity but in his Political as vested with the Crown and Dignities of a King. 2. The Person of a King as King in the lawful possession of the Crown is intrusted with the Administration of the Government according to the Laws of the Kingdom which he is bound to God and the Kingdom by Promise and Oath to observe And he ought to give himself to the actual exercise of that Trust and Authority which he hath 3. The Soveraign of England is only Soveraign for Administration according to the Laws made by the joint Powen of the two Houses of Parliament with him 4. The natural Person to whom we are Subjects and are obliged to be true and faithful to as true Subjects How can he watch for our Good if he be not secure from Danger from us and of our Subjection and Obedience as ready to serve him who is the Minister of God for good to us The Person I say to whom we owe Allegiance is that Person endowed with Authority and Majesty for the Ends of his Office. 5. If He assume a greater Power than he hath by the Laws and Constitution or endeavour by Arts and Force to change the Government into another form or deprive the Subjects of their Fundamental Rights then though he be the same Natural Person to whom we promised Allegiance he is not the same Moral or Political Person He is not that King to whom we are Subjects but another quite contrary to that Majesty intended by us 6. Allegiance is during the Life of the King if while he lives he continueth to be King. He may forfeit to God And if God disable him or remove him Subjects are discharged for their Allegiance while God hath deposed him He may forfeit to his People if the Kingdom be Regnum pactionatum non absolutum Great Failures come short of Forfeitures And if a King not only cease to rule and defend according to his place but be so far perverted as to set up his Will and strive to carry all before it against the Religion and wellfare of his People they should be slow to Wrath and Revenge or to recover their own Rights by Wars and not at all by Injustice Many Miseries are rather to be endured than the Miseries of War. 7. It conduceth much to satisfy Conscience to understand what Allegiance is Ligantia inde ligiantia Allegiantia vinculum arctius inter subditum Regem invicem connectens The Bond Covenant or Compact by which a King and his Subjects are mutually bound to one another Hunc ad Protectionem justum Regimen illos ad Tributa debitam subjectionem The King is bound to Protection and just Rule and Government the People to pay Tribute and due Subjection The learned Spellman Gloss Dr. Robert Austin who hath taken pains to state it according to the Resolution of the Judges in Calvin's Case gives this description of Allegiance Ligeance is a Quality of Soul whereby were are disposed to bear all Truth and Faith to the Person of the King his Crown and Dignity ready to yield him all true Obedience according to the Laws of Nature of God and the Realm wherein we live Tract of Allegiance not impeach'd by the Parliaments taking Arms. c. 2. 8. Let us revive the Oaths wherein the promise of Fidelity is made and thence also gather something for our direction in this Case And here I will begin 1. The Case is hardest upon them who took
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