Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
kingdom_n child_n king_n lord_n 2,366 5 3.6403 3 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A40488 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 [sic] 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. ... / by a minister of the Church of England. Kingsman, Dr.; Minister of the Church of England.; Trimmer, Gratianus. 1689 (1689) Wing F2218; ESTC R18348 69,303 83

There are 7 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

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
turn to the place The Solemnity of Coronation when the People acknowledg their King and the King again gives the People assurance that he will preserve their Religion Rights and Laws is far from intending to express the King's Authority to be derived from the People by a Contract as some have weakly argued for the King is actually King by his Right of Inheritance c. T. I distinguish between the solemnity of Coronation the Prince appearing in Splendor doth excite the People to make Acknowledgments and expression of Affection with Acclamations c. as the Doctor goes on and the Questions proposed to the King and the Coronation-Oath The Argument for Consent and Contract is built upon the Demands made to the King and his Oath and the Fealty sworn to the King. The Forms of the Coronation Oath have been divers as you may see in the most laborious Mr. Pryn Epist to the Reader before his Hist of K. John Hen. 3. Edw. the I. out of the Records of the Tower from p. 30 c. The King is obliged as Fleta tells you C. praedict Nec potest quis judicare in temporalibus nisi solus Rex vel sub delegatus Ipse namque ex virtute Sacramenti ad hoc specialiter Obligatur ideò Coronâ insignitur ut per judicia populum rogat sibi subjectum I follow the directions of that Learned laborious Writer and find his Quotation out of Bracton true l. 3. de Actionibus c. 9. p. 107. S. 1 2 3. The King ought in his Coronation to swear and promise to his People subject to him 1. That he will Command and to his Power help that Peace be observed all his Time to the Church of God and all Christian People 2. That he will interdict Rapines and all Iniquities to all degrees 3. That in all his Judgments he will command Equity and Mercy that the Gracious and Merciful God may grant him Mercy and that all may through his Righteousness enjoy a firm Peace Ad hoc autem Creatus Electus est To this End or Office he is Created and Chosen And our Righteous Kings have look'd upon themselves as bound to do what they promised and swore to at their Coronation See the Quotations in that Epist p. 31. And K. James the First Even Dr. Fern doth acknowledg It is probable indeed that Things at first were by choice here as elsewhere The Resolving of Conse S. 4. p. 19. said He should be perjur'd if he did not observe the Laws Secondly I distinguish between Sole Election Consent and Hereditary Right by Common Law. Our Kings and Queens succeed by Hereditary Right presupposing an Election of the Royal Progenitors or voluntary Consent in the Acts of Settlement and still demanded and declared at every Coronation As every King or Queen is not Elected as by a People in absolute Liberty to chuse whom they please so it is not conceived to be Hereditary by Common Law but by Settlement implying the Consent of the People And if you would know how it was of Old observe how it is now in the most happy Agreement between our now most Gracious King William and Queen Mary and the Collective Wisdom and Power of the Kingdom Now our High Court of Parliament in the for-ever to be celebrated Convention Our former wise Kings have thought an Act of Parliament the best Deed of Settlement of the Crown And how the Succession hath been changed is to be seen in that Excellent short History of the Succession come to my Hands t'other day * Sold by J. Robinson in St. Pauls Ch. yard K. Let things be as they were in former Times Let us if we be Men of Conscience remember our Declaration and the Oath sworn by all Officers of the Unlawfulness of taking Arms against the King or those commissionated by him upon any Pretence whatsoever Remember your Declaration and the words Pretence whatsoever What-ever Limitation the Author of the Inquiry hath put upon it by limiting the words in all things in the Duty of Children to their Parents And look upon what that Good and Learned Man Dr. Falkener hath written at large upon that Oath in vindication of it in the 2d Book of Christian Loyalty T. Content Sir let us look to the Book there it is K. In the first Section he tells you Dr. Falkener considered There is a two-fold Declaration of Loyalty in detestation of such Positions as undermine the Security of Kings and Kingdoms required in this Realm the one more particular in the Oath of Allegiance against deposing Excommunicated Heretical Kings and the other more General Of which he speaks § 2. T. We detest the Doctrine and Practices of the Pope and Papists as much as you do And all that the Doctor hath learnedly discoursed of it in that Section doth not at all concern us not only because that is Popish Doctrine and because it is unlawful for the Pope to excommunicate and depose a Protestant King but because we are not guilty of Deposing our late King Jam. II. our Case hath been more briefly than it might be declared before to prevent the Accusation of deposing him 1. The King did really depose himself from being an Independent King of England K. Jam. 2. deposed himself and was not deposed by submitting to the Pope 2. He dispens'd with our taking the Oath of Allegiance which I think I should not have taken had I been required without a plain declaration of my Mind for it implied a contradiction to take it to a Popish King. 3. After he deserted his puissant great Army and durst not put his Cause upon a Battel he gave one Branch of his Soveraignty to the Prince of Orange viz. the Command of his Army and Navy and then attempted to go beyond Sea and at last went leaving his Kingdom without Force or Compulsion or Menace The Illustrious Prince of Orange and the Kingdom desired nothing but what was their Right as much their Right as the Crown was his 4. In this Case what shall the Kingdom do You may be satisfied by the Debates about Abdication and Vacancy Must the Kingdom lie open to the Enemies of it Must there be a Justicium a silence of the Laws and stop to Justice and Righteousness and all things fall into unsettlement and confusions to wait upon his Return Yea must the Affairs of the Protestant Confederates be under distractions through our irresolutions Must the Illustrious Prince of Orange go back again losing the Opportunities of finishing his Work which God gave him in so wonderful a manner And must the Nation give time to Papists for new Plots and gathering strength to do us their designed Mischiefs What will become of Trade What Foreign Princes will treat with us when we have none to treat with them and give them Security Who shall govern or pay our Armies or preserve the People from their Rudeness or Violence and Factions if they have no
Chief Commander And have not our Peers and Commons as good right to preserve and settle the Government now as any of their Forefathers had How long shall the Nation stay for this King's Return He best knew the Reasons for his deserting the Government and if the Kingdom had delayed to settle it Self he would then have by the Counsellors of Evil had made us see a greater necessity of having him and wrought upon our wanting him for a Head to go besides our selves like a distracted People a foolish People of no understanding In our Case we had as good Reason to settle the Government as ever People had to put themselves into a Form and Order And it is an inestimable Mercy that God presented to us such Royal Persons so nearly related to the Inheritance of the Crown to fill up the Vacancy James the 2d was not deposed nor molested neither for his Religion as inconsistent as it was with the Religion Government and Happiness of the Kingdom The Accusation of Deposing the King is altogether untrue He made the Vacancy and when it was made it must be filled up Come Doctor now let us follow Dr. F. to the next Section K. There you will see what he saith of the general Declaration of Loyalty T. So I do p. 337 c. The more general Acknowledgment for the preservation of the King's Safety is that which is required by the Act of Uniformity and enjoined upon all Civil and Military Officers The first Clause of which is that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King c. p. 338. The sense of this is no more than what the Church of England and Eminent Members thereof hath constantly acknowledged Homil. of Obed. part 2. Can. of 1640. Judiciam Vniversitat is Oxoniensis The Doctor goes on to give some explication of the Oath N. 3. This Clause being framed and enjoin'd by an English Parliament not without respect to the disloyal and unchristian Proceedings in this Nation and tendred to English Subjects and relating particularly to the King not indefinitely to any King can bear no other rational Construction than to condemn the English Subjects taking Arms against their Natural Sovereign the King of England And therefore though the like Attempts against any other Kings who enjoy Soveraign Authority are equally blameless in their Subjects yet this Position doth not assert the utter unlawfulness of taking Arms amongst other Nations against him who hath the Title of King if he doth not therewith enjoy the Right of Supreme Government which our Kings have and exercise And therefore in such a Constitution as the Lacedemonian was and Tabrobana c. we are not concerned p. 339. The true Friends of the Church of England have been free from disloyal Actions and Assertions N. 4. He repeats several pretences for War but all unlawful c. Sir I am resolved to be brief with you Therefore shall make some short Remarks 1. I note He grants the position holds of the K. of England because he hath and exerciseth Soveraign Authority Why Dr. Falkner should be honoured who saith as much as Calvin did yet Calvin is commonly branded and Dr. F. admired and honoured see Calv. Instit cap. ultimo L. 4. Sect. 31. doth shew us the power of Prejudice 2. The reason why our Kings must not be resisted is because they have Soveraign Authority Which really is but a limited Soveraignty of Administration and not of Legislation The Law makes the King to be Supreme Governor and not sole Legislator and it hath been debated Whether the King can refuse to sign such Bills as have past both Houses according to the Order of the Houses His Power of Calling and Dissolving Parliaments at his own Pleasure hath been deemed an Usurpation upon the Rights and Liberties of the Kingdom K. Ch. I. in his Answer to the xix Prop. confesseth In this Kingdom the Laws are jointly made by a King by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons chosen by the People all having free Votes and particular Priviledges The Government according to these Laws is trusted to the King. You see then what a Soveraign Prince our King is only in some respect 3. Another Reason against taking Arms and for the Soveraign Power of Kings is because the jus Gladii is in the Hand of the King determined by the Word of God as Bp Saunderson affirms Pref. Sec. 15. and is determined to belong to the Kings of England as Dr. Falkner pleads p. 347. Be it so yet this is far also from the present Case truly stated The late Invasion and Insurrection was not to take the Power of the Sword from the King nor to deprive him of that Authority which he had from God and the Laws The Power of the Sword and Militia is not intrusted in the King's Hand for the Destruction but Protection of his Subjects The Office of the King and the use of the Sword is declared to be for the punishment of Evil-Doers Rom. 13.4 But what when the Sword of the Magistrate is abused against a Kingdom 's Right and Safety The Militia which the Apostle speaks of in that place is a Power to Punish and to take Vengeance upon Evil-doers according to their Crimes And the Sword being the Instrument of the sorest and highest degree of Punishment which is Capital Punishment comprehends under it all degrees of Punishments And this Power of the Sword which is chiefly placed in the Hand of the Supreme Magistrate is distributed in the Hands of all inferior Magistrates and Officers that administer Justice and punish Offenders What is this to the raising of Armies maintaining standing Armies Disposing in order to have them made Parliament-Men by false Returns disposing Military Officers into places of Civil Government and to debauch all places whereever they come and to oppress the Nation And here 's another Consideration worthy your Notice That a King that maintains Arbitrary Power by the Sword against Law and standing Force in Times of Peace turns the Civil Government into a military and that is not the Government of England That which some speak that the King of England hath Merum Imperium Merum Imperium What will do us no Hurt if rightly understod Gladius indicat illos ut Jurisperiti loqui solent imperium habere merum What 's that Vlpianus ait illud esse merum imperium quod habet potestatem Gladii ad animadvertendum in Homines facinerosos Peter Martyr on Rom. ch 13. If this right use of the Sword or avenging and punishing Power were duly observed what Work would it make among them who wear the Sword The Contests that have been in this Kingdom about the Power of the Militia and the use that hath been made of it is a matter of doleful remembrance The Declaration of the Lords and Commons July 1.42 A Second Remonstrance Jan. 16.42 The King's Letter to the Sheriff of Leicester
But if they intended no more than the Safety of a Legal King acting Legally from ill Principles and Practices of bad Men then the Note of Universality whatsoever was never intended to subject the Kingdom to Arbitrary Dominion and then it will follow that they who took this Oath are no further bound than to an Universal Obedience to the lawful Commands of the King and are not guilty of Perjury by their late taking Arms for they did not design to break the Yoke of Government by Rebellion Not only the Author of the Enquiry into the Bounds of Obedience but also the most Reverend Arch-bishop Vsher in his Treatise of the Power of a Prince and Subjection and Obedience doth interpret the Note of Vniversality All Ephes 5.24 Col. 3.20 with a limitation p. 143 145. K. But those Commands are Affirmative and this Oath is Negative It is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever binds at all Times and to a total universal abstinence from taking Arms. And those Commands require Active Obedience with a limitation and if we cannot actually obey we must suffer and not rebel but bear even with a Tyrant for the Laws have prohibited the Subjects to take up Arms they have no Law that makes it lawful in any Case to take up Arms therefore they must be Passive The Law is against Arms therefore it is unlawful they have no right to the Sword therefore it is unlawful for them to take it T. As Subjects they may not but as a Party I ask you why they may not I cannot speak to every Branch of your Objection Besides what I have said I am in reason constrained to think and speak that the late King acting as he did did not act as King and that his Attempts were growing more intollerable and that as there is no Provision in any Laws for the Peoples taking of Arms so there is none which forbids them to defend the Government the Legislative Power and Religion established There is no Law nor Right to bear out the King in doing as he did He broke the Foundations first and in reason if the King may defend his Soveraignty from the Invasion of his Rebellious Subjects so the several Degrees and Ranks of the Kingdom may defend the Government from being changed and their Properties Liberties Religion and Lives from being destroyed If a King shall set himself against the Constitution and the Publick Good he is no longer that King to whom the Laws oblige us And is it not plain to every Man that seeing he could not have his way in Governing or rather Dissolving he will no longer abide in the Kingdom To suppose that the Laws would provide in what Cases a King may turn Tyrant and allow him to turn the Militia against the Kingdom and in what Cases the Kingdom may take the Sword against the King is to suppose such a Law as would be inconsistent with the Constitution For as the King would never pass an Act that should make it lawful for Subjects to rise in Arms against him so it is not to be thought that the Lords and Commons should consent to such a Law as would enable the King to destroy the Government Religion and Laws The Consent of King and Parliament in not to be supposed to make such a Law for one against the other and without the consent of both Parties there could be no Law. And such a Law would not prove safe to the Government which is preserved by Union As the Subjects run the hazard of Life and Estate if they rebel so the King doth run the hazard of his Crown if he usurp and make himself to be what the Law hath not made him but directly contrary To conclude this Head. How many Violations had we been guilty of even of all the Bonds of Nature and Religion if the Papists and their Loyal Friends had not been opposed at this Time. And though in this Case it is lawful for a People a free People by the Constitution to preserve Themselves and Posterity from Slavery and Idolatry yet it is unlawful for Subjects as far as they are Subjects to rebel against their King and it had been happy that Oath had never been enjoined if any took it ignorantly and rashly or brake it in their Hearts intentionally or were actually the occasion of promoting Arbitrary Power and Popery by it or had any Design against the King's Dignity out of Revenge or for private E●ds the Lord grant unto them Repentance for the forgiveness of their Sin and cleanse the Land from the guilt of multitudes of Oaths not well understood nor kept K. But we know the Scripture is plain against Resistance and we have many Examples against Resistance and for Passive Obedience And our Homilies condemn it and the Friends of the Church of England have always been Guiltless T. Shew me if you can any thing in Scripture Precept or Example that condemns such an Action as this was in the Circumstances of Persons and Causes The Homilies do insist much upon the Example of David David's Example I allow what they teach But I will make the Case worse than David's was Had Saul brought in Foreign Forces and turn'd his Strength against the Kingdom and done all after the manner of the King 1 Sam. 8. it had been utterly unlawful for David and all the People of Israel to take Arms against Saul or depose Him for there was a Law of God binding them to make him King whom the Lord should choose as he chose Saul See the 17th of Deut. 14 15. The Case of David and ours differ as much as the Case of a private Subject and a free People as we were when the King set Himself to do as he did David though appointed to be King was but a private and particular Subject under Saul and Saul was nominated and appointed King by God himself and it was God's express Law Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose Deut. 17.15 And when David gave this Reason why he would not do what his Party would have had him do he said God forbid I should do this thing unto my Master the Lord 's Annointed to stretch forth mine Hand against Him seeing he is the Annointed of the Lord 1 Sam. 24.6 His autem Verbis David tantùm spectabat Institutum Dei. David regarded the Appointment of God. Ergo injussu Dei non debeo eum dejicere Therefore without God's Command I ought not depose him Pet. Martyr on the words And that Learned and Reverend Man answering the Reasons of some who thought David might lawfully have killed Saul gives the Reasons why he could not They say David was King. Esto be it so saith P. Martyr but he was not publickly inaugurated Vim vi repellere licet say they Fateor I confess it is lawful to repel Force with Force saith P. Martyr Sed inculpatâ tutelâ with an innocent or blamless
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 Twa●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 Justi●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
1. In taking away Counsel and Power from the One and 2. raising a mighty Spirit of Courage and Conduct in the often despised Prince of Orange and that State and turning the Spirits of this great People like one Man to oppose Popery and Slavery K. But Providence is dark and an uncertain Guide look to the Rule the Law of God and Man. T. Such apparent Providences are to be adored as Supreme Decisions of Cases reserved in the Divine Power Is not writing against the King's Will Resistance 2. I ask by what Law did so many Learned Men oppose Popery and the King's Will with their Learned Pens Had they Law for it shew it Was not that a Ressistance and a provoking one too For ought I know by the same Reason a Souldier may take his Sword who cannot dispute and write in this Cause as justly as a Scholar or a Divine may take his Pen and oppose I grant a Disparity in the Instrument and way of Resistance but the Reason or Motives of the one and the other the same But as the one doth it to maintain the Truth of God to confute Idolatry and Errors and to save Souls so doth the other and more than the Scholar doth for he labours to save Life and Estate Liberty and Property and the Protestant Religion abroad from being persecuted out of the World whereas the Scholar by his Disputes doth irritate and defends the Cause but not the Persons that are in danger And why may not a Peer of England and a Gentleman use all his Power Wisdom and Interest in such a Case as well as a Scholar use his Reason and his Books The Disputant is not passive but doth resist in his way and is it not then unlawful to contradict as well in its kind as to contra-act Is it lawful for me to defend my Inheritance by Law from the King's Incroachment You 'l say it is And why is it not lawful for a Kingdom to defend their Inheritance in Religion and Laws by the Sword when there is no other way left There 's a Treason against a Government as well as against a Governor Every free-Man of England hath a share in the benefit of the Fundamental Constitution and ought to be aiding and assisting in his place to defend it from pernicious Changes K. But is it fit the people should judg T. That kind of Passive-Obedience ill stated and ill timed also is blind Obedience The Wise and Great and Good Men of the Kingdom are competent Judges of Fact and Law also And a share is due to them in the Legislative also and a share is due to them in the Judicial and Executive Power And if they clearly see through right Mediums that they are in danger of being denied their Right I ask you What Law doth forbid them to vindicate their Right and defend the Government There is no Law of England that doth forbid the Kingdom to preserve its Legislative Power and Hereditary Right to a great share in the Government And their lying still in such a Case as ours had been to suffer the ruin of the Ancient Establishment and the erection of a New after a Jesuital Model There is no positive Law that forbids all Endeavours even by Force against Force in Extremity when Right cannot be had without it and if the King be but one of the three Estates of the Kingdom as K. Charles the First seems to me clearly to assert Answ to the XIX Propos p. 12 13 18 19 21. of the first Edit making himself One and the Houses of Lords and Commons the other Two and not as some others who make the Temporal Lords one the Spiritual the other and the Commons the third Then the Lords and Commons have two parts in the Legislation and Government and if they have not a supposed Right which they never gave up nor was ever taken from them nor parted with to preserve and vindicate their Rights and Liberties and that by Force or forcible Attempts when other ways have been used to no purpose and when Arbitrary Power strikes at the Root of the Constitution then if they have no inherent Right to maintain their Right to their Liberties and Religion they have no right to the things themselves but owe them altogether to the meer Grace and hold them at the meer Will of the King if so then he is an Absolute Soveraign and may at pleasure make us absolute passive Slaves But the Monarchy of England is a regulated limited Monarchy we have a legal Right to our Liberties Properties and Religion and the Lords and Commons never parted with their Fundamental Rights therefore they may vindicate them by their Power and Force in Extremity and apparent Danger K. But the Primitive Christians did not resist Tyrants and Persecutors though they had Force and Armies as Tertullian and others declare T. The Case of the Primitive Christians in nothing to Ours Christians as Christians have no Weapons but Christian no more than Subjects as Subjects have a right to Arms and to make Resistance And they were then in the state of meer Christianity Had they a right of Election to be Senators Had they a legal establishment of their Religion Was their Consent demanded by Heralds to have such a Man for their Emperor Did the Emperor swear at his Inauguration to govern by Laws in the making of which they had a share Dr. Falkener arguing against Subjects taking Arms against the King shews we need not fear to be driven to it for we have the security of good and wholsom Laws fixed with us by general accord of King Lords and Commons And it is a great Priviledg in this Realm that both Civil Rights and Matters of Religion are established by our Laws and that no Law can be made or repealed nor publick Monies raised but by the Consent of the Commons c. B. 2. p. 378. Had the Condition of the Primitive Christians been like ours we have no reason to think but they would have vindicated their own Right as had our Condition been the same with theirs I hope through Grace we should have put on the Crown of ☜ Martyrdom as they did The Question is not Whether it be lawful for Subjects to take Arms against their King when they have their Rights and Religion established by Laws and those preserved but whether a Kingdom the Peers Gentry and Body of it may not vindicate their Legal Rights both Sacred and Civil by open Force in conjunction with a free Protestant Prince who hath a Right in the Kingdom to preserve when there is an apparent Necessity either so to do or suffer and intollerable kind of Government to come upon them Our Case put home And that at such a time when their Passive Stupidity Dulness Compliance or Cowardise would ruin their Posterity and extreamly hazard every Protestant State and Kingdom to a speedy ruin and desolation whom we ought to our power to preserve
Morning And now Doctor I come to the end of what at our first meeting we fell upon As I intended by the help of God to observe the Thanksgiving Febr. 14. so I have And cannot Express the Sense I have of the many Causes of Thanksgiving Behold and wonder at what God hath wrought Salvation belongeth unto the Lord his Blessing is upon his People The Lord hath answered before we called Isa 65.24 Who hath heard such a thing who hath seen such a thing Shall the Earth be made to bring forth in one day or shall a Nation be born at Once for as soon as Zion travelled she brought forth Children Isa 66.8 There are three admirable Providences to be told our Children that the Generations to come may praise the Lord. 1. The Greatness of our Deliverance from the Sins the Curse the Plague of Popery the deliverance of our Bodies from the Sword of our Wives and Virgins from unnatural beastliness of Papists who put Nature to shame As in Savoy 1686. and yet their Nature cannot blush 2. The Deliverance without Blood. 3. The Suddainess of it Providence dispatched his marvellous Work. 4. The immediateness of God's hand 2. After a Deliverance we are come to a Settlement the most hopeful this Nation ever saw in many respects it exceeds all that ever went before it as the Deliverance also doth 3. That God should make way for it by taking away the Spirit of the late King and coveying him away without reproach to our Religion 4. The Lord wonderfully united the Spirit of the Nation in the choice of Representatives and united their Counsels without tedious distracting Debates to fill the Throne to clear and recover their own despised and almost extinguished Rights and to do Right to our most Gracious King and Queen and the Royal Line upon better terms than they were in before 5. God hath given a King and Queen of our own Religion and that the true rarely set off with an ilustrious Exemplariness Zeal and Moderation 6. I rejoice for the joy of the persecuted desolated Protestant Churches abroad and strength added to the Protestant Princes 7. I rejoice for the Consolation which this wonderful Providence hath brought to Protestants abroad that have suffered Persecution and that were in danger to be swallowed up and that the Prosperity and Peace of England is like to add Courage and Strength to Protestant Princes and States every-where 8. I rejoice that Popery is put to shame and confusion in our Land. I wish the Simple and Deluded may see the Hand of God which is lifted up and not love Darkness rather than Light. The Lord hath broken the Head of Popish Counsels disclosed their Secrets and made them fall in their own Devices 9. I hope the Lord will finish his work and having brought to the Birth will also bring forth Shall I cause to bring forth and shut the Womb saith the Lord. Isa 66.9 10. I hope to see Protestants united more in the profession of Faith Love Worship Communion and Peace that there be no Colour from Laws to scatter the Flocks put Lights under Bushels and make them a Prey to the worst of Men. 11. I hope to see with admiration Behold a King shall reign in Righteousness and Princes shall rule in Judgment that the Work of Righteousness shall be Peace and the Effect of Righteousness Quietness and Assurance for ever Isa 32.1 17 c. 12. I hope Our gracious King Queen and wise Parliament who are taking off Arbitrary Yokes apace will take off another Yoke of Arbitrariness in Ecclesiastical Courts I do not winch because I am gall'd but rejoice because I am delivered and preserved There is a great sense among us of the Arbitrariness of Canonical Obedience which was extended even to Votes for Parliament-Men and answering Questions as in the High Commission proceeding upon Arbitrary Canons not confirmed by the King's Proclamation Arbitrary Articles of Visitation Arbitrary Oaths exacted of Church-wardens and their Legal Duties never that I could hear of explained unto them And calling for Subscriptions to Addresses and Abhorrences to serve the Designs of Papists against us and deceive the King with Promises 13. I rejoice that I am in my place to serve God out of which I was preparing my self to be thrown out for not reading the King's Declaration as it was a means to advance Popery and not out of a grudg at the Indulgence of Protestants which had been the means of our ruin if God had not given him an unexpected Diversion to look to his own Kingdom and found him other Work. Every day will I praise the Lord and call upon mine own Soul to bless the Lord and not to forget all his Benefits and I will by the Grace of God stir up others with an O that Men would praise the Lord c. And as I have since I was capable kept the 5th of November so now while I can upon another Reason the most seasonable peaceable happy entrance of our now more Illustrious that the then Illustrious Prince of Orange as a Day which the Lord hath made My Joys may be grievous to you which I am sorry for and therefore I will pray that we may not fail as Hezekiah did to return thanks according to the Mercy received There are thousands and ten thousands of Mercies and Blessings in this marvellous Deliverance and Settlement of the Kingdom nothing can blast this hopeful Spring and silence the singing of Birds but our continuance in Prodigious Profaneness and Debauchery brought in at the very Heels of the joyful Restoration of the King in 1660. If the sense of Mercy doth but run through our Hearts and oblige us to think as well of the Practice of Religion as it is described Tit. 2.11 12 13. and other places as we think ill of Popery all your new Sect of Grumblers can only give us some exercise of our Charity and Moderation you and all your Party under your antiquated and self-deposed King with the hopeful succession of the Prince of Wales and his Brother in the little Belly of the Queen cannot hurt us Therefore Good Doctor grumble not against God our Laws our King and Queen and Parliament the hoped-for settlement of the Church upon the Word of God maintained by unity of Spirit in the Bond of Peace and commended in a Better Act than our last of Uniformity or else we shall go as far back as that Act cast the happiness of this Church and Kingdom For from that day that Act took place it hath been ill with the Church of God and Christianity in England and a private Apartment was made for Popery under the Church Walls K. Are you a Conformist and say so T. You have called us Trimmers and our Conformity hath been in a great part from the Principle of Passive Obedience and Peace and Love to Souls resolving to go as far with you as we could with a good Conscience And since our