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 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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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