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
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
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
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
the sole Soveraignty of Power in himself and can't be controll'd or contradicted much less opposed by Force T. I do as freely acknowledg the Supremacy of the King of England according to Law and settled upon him by Law as you do and that Subjects should keep in the Bounds of Subjection and obey their Superiors for Conscience-sake I acknowledg that a mixt Monarchy is as absurd as a Compound Simple But yet I find our Monarchy to be a Regulated and not an Absolute Monarchy And if it be compounded of the three Forms of Government Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy then it is no such Bull as to be an Errand One. That it is such a Monarchy I prove by a greater Author than that Learned Writer Look then to the Answer of King Charles I. to the XIX Propositions sent to him from the two Houses to York July 1642. The Wisdom of your Ancestors hath moulded this Government out of a Mixture of all three p. 18. And let me note to you to what the King did attribute this Constitution the saith The Wisdom and Experience of your Ancestors hath moulded this K. But when did the Wisdom of our Ancestors meet and where to mould and fashion this Government T. That I may not confound our Discourse I must first speak to the Particulars of the former Objection or Query and then come to new Matter 6. We are bound to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King his Heirs and Successors and to defend him and them to the utmost of our Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever that shall be made against their Persons their Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any such Sentence c. I pray Sir let me explain my self to you concerning these things 1. We may I conceive lay down this that the Soveraignty of Power lies in the King and three Estates Of our Allegiance or in the Parliament consisting of all these jointly That the Superiority of Government is vested in the King who as he is King by Law so he is obliged to govern according to it Therefore the Power of the King is not Absolute in respect of his Subjects nor unlimited but tho the Limits of Prerogative are not set down because extraordinary Emergencies cannot be foreseen nor determined yet it is limited by Law or else it would be in some sense infinite That it is not unlimited is no new Divinity as it is no new Law. See also Dr. Ferm Conse satisfied Non largimur Regibus potestatem illimitatam infinitam ut quamlibet Religionem possint subditis pro arbitrio praescribere sed potestatem à Deo delegatam ac proinde Regulis Legis Divinae circumscriptam Nam ut in Causis Civilibus quamvis sint suprema potestate armati non possunt tamen Leges condere contra aequitatem naturam c. Rev. Dr. Ward Determin Regis in Regno suo suprema est sub Deo potestas p. 105. 3. And if the Power of Soveraigns be limited so the Obedience of Subjects is limited also for Power of Commanding and Duty of Obeying are of the same Extent 2. Allegiance is the Duty of a Subject to which he is bound by Law and Allegiance is reciprocal between the King and his Subjects Ligantia significat inde Ligantia Allegiantia Vinculum arctius inter subditum Regem utrosque invicem connectens hunc ad Protectionem justum Regimen illos ad Tributa debitam subjectionem c. Sir H. Spellman Gloss 3. The King is the formal and express Object of Allegiance as Supreme Governor but the Kingdom is the compleat Object of it yea and the ultimate Object of it under God and its Welfare and Good. And so I find in that great Author Sir Hen. Spelman v. Fidelitas a Law of St. Edward That all People ought once a Year to confederate and consolidate like sworn Brethren to defend the Kingdom against Foreigners and Enemies together with the King. By which I see the true Interest of the King and Kingdom is one and the very same but it was our unhappiness of late to find the true and united Interest divided and an Interest promoted as contrary to the Kingdom as Darkness to Light and Superstition and Idolatry to the Gospel of Christ In the Condition we are in What was to be done but what was done No Man in Conscience could adhere to the King against Religion and the Kingdom for our Obligation and Subjection is first due to God and to the King in him and for him and no otherwise as it is in the Prayer in the Communion Service If the King doth persist to act contrary to God Who can in Duty folly him or assist him Next to my Fidelity to my Heavenly Lord I owe my Fidelity to the Community of England by the Law of God and of Nature whereof I am a Member because the Community must be governed by righteous and good Laws and these Laws executed I am next obliged to that form of Government constituted and agreed unto And then lastly I am obliged to the personal Soveraign the King. My Fidelity to the Community or Kingdom under a King is due by God's Law in Nature My Fidelity to the Person of the King is by a voluntary Obligation required by a positive Law as King of England governing by Law. And my natural Allegiance to the King is to him as a King by Law and governing by Law. Judicious Mr. Lawson delivers himself thus concifely and rationally Fidelity to the Community is first due Fidelity to it under some form of Government was the second Fidelity to it under that form by King Peers and Commons was the third Fidelity unto the Person of the King is the last and presupposeth the former Whosoever understands and takes them that is the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance otherwise perverts the true meaning of them and makes them unlawful Politica Sacra Civilis c. 15. p. 125. An Answer to the Learned Author of the Rights of the Kingdom Hobs p. 17. gives us several Ancient Laws obliging the Subject to Allegiance to the Kingdom with the King in the Days of Old. 7. The Oaths of Allegiance were made to the King as a Protestant in a direct opposition to the Pope and his usurped Jurisdiction and Power And though Fidelity and Obedience is due to Kings of the Romish Faith yet how these Oaths can be taken under such a King I do not understand Except I declare what the King ought to be viz. the only Supreme Governour in his Kingdoms and Dominions and that the Pope ought not to have any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical or Spiritual when I am sure enough the King doth own such a Jurisdiction by professing that Religion How can I swear to maintain the Prehemencies and Authorites granted or annexed to the Imperial Crown when he hath parted with the Preheminence and Authority of being supreme Governour in all Causes
K. But the Church of England hath been always Loyal and the Friends of the Church of England T. And may they be so now to our most wise and gracious King William and Queen Mary I do not very well know Doctor what Church of England you mean for there have been several Alterations in it since reformed nor who you take to be the Friends of the Church of England If you mean such as the Convocation was 1640 as Dr. Falkener seems to mean B. 2. p. 338. or the Compilers of the Homilies and their Friends as he also seems to mean wit the Judgment of the University of Oxford supposed to be written by Bishop Saunderson then all these Friends will not well agree together I do take a great number of the Clergy in 1640 to be of the new fashion'd Church that some had been long a making an were near to finish Others were true Friends to the Reformation as at first old-fashion'd true Friends to the Churches Purity and Peace upon equal Terms Give me leave to present to you good Doctor some of their Sentiments And I shall shew you what the Old Friends of the Church of England of the first Edition have said to these Matters in debate between us And first many of your Acquaintance Doctor have spit in the Face of the Churches of Christ beyond Sea and slandered them as polluted with rebellious Doctrines and Practices But the old true Friends of the Church of England have wip'd off the Spittle and clear'd them from it They have acknowledged the Form of Government to be divers in divers Countries they have vindicated the publiâ—k Doctrine of the Reformed Pastors and candidly interpreted the Resistances made against their Tyrannical Persecutors and allowed Resistance by force of Arms of their Magistrates in some Cases I fear I should be too tedious in giving you Quotations at large I shall only refer you to the Writings of the undoubted Friends of the Church of England Great Assistances were sent from England by Queen Elizabeth to preserve the States of the Low Countries Sir John Fortescue in his Speech in Parliament Anno 35 of the Queen said As for the Low Countries they stood her Majesty yearly since she undertook the Defence of them in one hundred and fifty thousand Pounds The Burden of four Kingdoms hath rested upon her Majesty Sir Simon Dew's Journal of the Parliaments in Queen Elizabeth's Reign And how commonly are those Provinces termed Rebels against the King of Spain King James calls those that revolted from the King of Spain and that were forced to make Resistance for Religion in France the Saints of God Et nonnè jam Commota sunt ubique arma in Sactos qui per Galliam per Belgium sunt directa Commentatio de Antichristo printed after Bishop Abbot's B. Demonstratio Antichristi 8o. p. 477. That Learned King had not Sainted them if he had thought them Rebels See Bishop Jewel's Defence of the Apology p. 16 17. And what a great Friend was he to the Church of England See famous Bishop Bilson's another particular Friend of Hers True Difference Edit 4o. p. 512 515 518 519 520 521. Bishop Robert Abbot who wrote a Learned Book De Supremâ Regiâ Majestate and the more to be noted for that was Regius Professor of Divinity in Oxford hath a notable Passage Demonstratio Antichristi p. 150 c. c. 7. § 6. Bishop Morton's Treatise of Satisfaction hath one part called A Justification of Protestants in Case of Rebellion There are no Seditious Passages in any of these Reverend Authors But if these were not in them what would they be call'd in others I note this out of Jewel neither doth any of these meaning Luther and Melancthon teach their People to rebel against their Princes but only to defend themselves against Oppression by all lawful means as did David against Saul So do the Nobles in France at this day Then to take Arms is a lawful Means by consequence for David took Arms and the Nobles in France They themselves are best acquainted with the Laws and Constitutions of their Country p. 16. Touching the Queen of Scotland I will say nothing The Kingdoms and States of the World have sundry Agreements and Compositions The Nobles and Commons there neither drew the Sword nor attempted Force against the Prince They sought only the continuance of God's undoubted Truth and defence of their own Lives against your barbarous and cruel Invasions p. 17. See Addition out of Bishop Bilson I observe he vindicates Beza and the Protestant Divines and to our Case of late in England may be applied That which may be done by the Laws of Kingdoms and States is lawful and not rebellious as in the Civil Wars of France p. 511. The Princes in Germany may lawfully resist the Emperor and by Force reduce him to the Ancient and received Form of Government or else repel him as a Tyrant and set another in his place by the Right and Freedom of their Country p. 513. We grant it to be true that if the Laws of the Land as in some places they do warrant to depose their Governor p. 517. He quotes the Judgment of Luther when he was informed by Lawyers that the States of Germany might defend themselves against the Emperor and displace him p. 518. If a Prince should go about to subject his Kingdom to a Foreign ☜ Realm or change the Form of the Common-Wealth from Empery to Tyranny or neglect the Laws established by Common Consent of Prince and People to execute his own Pleasure In these and other Cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons join together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty they may not well be accounted Rebels p. 520. In Kingdoms where Princes bear Rule by the Sword we do not mean the Prince's private Will against his Laws but his Precept derived from his Laws c. Ibid. He excuseth the Germans and Flemings and of the Scots he ☞ speaks full to our Case The Scots what have they done besides the placing the Right Heir and her own Son when the Mother fled and forsook the Realm Be these those furious Attempts and Rebellions you talk of I grant he saith our Princes are Hereditary and that Subjects are absolutely bound to obey p. 515 517. But if we are absolutely bound to obey then the King of England is an Absolute Prince which he is not over or in respect of his Subjects because he rules by Laws made by their Consent though he be absolute in respect of any Foreign State. The Passage quoted in Bishop Rob. Abbot is notable throughout I 'll onely cull out of it Hic vero politica res agitur Quid Principi juris in Subditos per Leges cujusque Reip. fundatrices promissum sit What Power is promised to the Prince over Subjectâ— by the Fundamental Laws of every Common-wealth whether he have infinitam a boundless unlimitted Power or a
rest of the Sheets the Author did not see therefore the Reader is entreated to correct or pardon the Printer's Faults therein Books lately Printed and Sold by Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Pauls Church-yard relating to the great Revolutions and Affairs in England 1688 1689. ☞ AN Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry's Invitation of the Prince of Orange into England Being a Memorial from the English Protestants concerning their Grievances with a large Account of the Birth of the Prince of Wales presented to their Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Orange A Collection of Political and Historical Papers relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England in Ten Parts which will be Continued from Time to Time according as Matter occurs A Brief History of the Succession of the Crown of England c. Collected out of the Records and the most Authentick Historians written for the Satisfaction of the Nation Wonderful Predections of Nostredamus Grebner David Pareus and Antonius Torquatus wherein the Grandeur of their Present Majesties the Happiness of England and Downfall of France and Rome are plainly Delineated With a large Preface shewing That the Crown of England has not been obscurely foretold to their Majesties William the 3d and Queen Mary late Prince and Princess of Orange and that the People of this Ancient Monarchy have duly contributed thereunto in the present Assembly of Lords and Commons notwithstanding the Objections of Men of different Extremes A Seasonable Discourse wherein is examined what is lawful during the Confusions and Revolutions of Government especially in the Case of a King deserting his Kingdoms and how far a Man may lawfully conform to the Powers and Commands of those who with Various Successes hold Kingdoms Whether it be lawful 1 In Paying Taxes 2 In personal Service 3 In taking of Oaths 4 In giving up himself to a final Allegiance A Seasonable Treatise wherein is proved That King William commonly called the Conqueror did not get the Imperial Crown of England by the Sword but by the Election and Consent of the People To whom he swore to observe the Original Contract between King and People An Answer to a Paper Intituled The Desertion Discussed being a Vindication of the Proceedings of the late Honourable Convention in their Filling up the Throne with King William and Queen Mary An Exact Collection of the Debates of the House of Commons particularly such as relate to the Bill of Exclusion a Popish Successor c. held at Westminster Octob. 21. 1680 Prorogued the 10th and Dissolved the 18th of January following With the Debates of the House of Commons at Oxford Assembled March. 21. 1680. Also a Just and Modest Vindication of the Proceedings of the said Parliaments Julian's Arts to Undermine and Extirpate Christianity c. By Samuel Johnson The Impression of which Book was made in the Year 1683 and has ever since lain buried under the Ruins of all those English Rights which it endeavoured to defend but by the Auspicious and Happy Arrival of the Prince of Orange both They and It have obtained a Resurrection Dr. Gilbert Burnet now Bishop of Salisbury his Tracts in Two Vollumes in which are contained several Things relating to the Affairs of England The Mystery of Iniquity working in the Dividing of Protestants in order to the subverting of Religion and our Laws for al most the space of thirty Years last past plainly laid open With some Advices to Protestants of all Perswasions in the present Juncture of our Affairs To which is added A Specimen of a Bill for uniting of Protestants Liberty of Conscience now highly necessary for England humbly represented to this present Parliament An Enquiry into and Detection of the Barbarous Murther of the late Earl of Essex now under consideration of a Committee of the House of Lords Or a Vindication of that Noble Person from the Guilt and Infamy of having destroyed himself An Account of the Trial of Mr. Papillon To which is added The Matter of Fact in the chusing of Sheriffs in Sir John Moor's Year now under the consideration of the Committee for Grievances A Collection of strange Predictions of Mr. J. P. for the Years 1687 and 1688 about K. James the Second Prince of Wales and the scampering away of many great Ministers of State. Arguments against the Dispensing Power in Answer to L. C. J. Herbert The Royal Cards Being a lively Representation of the late Popish and Tyrannical Designs and of the wonderful Deliverance of this Kingdom from the same by the glorious Expedition of William Henry Prince of Orange now King of England whom God long preserve in curious Copper Plates Price â—… s. a Pack
there were Streams of penitent Tears ruuning from our Eyes and more fervant Prayers of the Righteous sent up to Heaven But notwithstanding the great Scarcity of both I think it a great Duty to give thanks to God for delivering us from the Hands of our Enemies K. You do not know but the King's Heart might be changed He did a great deal in a little time for the Satisfaction of the People in restoring Charters and declaring he would Call a Parliament and offered Pardons to his Enemies T. We know these Acts of Grace and when they were made publick Of these see the Sence of the Prince of Orange in his Declaration What if the Counsellors and Tools advised these Acts to Cast us into a sleep and to gain time for French Preparations You may see what the Nation did and what Methods of Proceedings were used What Methods were used for our Preservation 1. Many of our Peers and Gentlemen of Honour and Interest first represented the State of the Kingdom to the Heirs Expectant of the Crown and therein declared That their Hignesses if no Prince be born to the King have an unquestionable Right to defend the Legal Monarchy Rege etiam renitente That the People of England have an Unquestionable Right to seek Assistance from their Royal Highnesses Our Case stated on the Nations part That the Ancient Kings of England acknowledged the Peoples Right to save their Free Government c. See the Memorial p. 26 c. If the Prince and Princess have Right to defend Note this and the People of England a Right to seek that Defence wherein doth the Iniquity of both or of either appear especially considering the Nominal Prince of Wales being not an undoubted Heir Our Case stated on the Prince of Orange's part 2. The Prince and Princess timely dealt with the King in a most dutiful manner proposing Expedients to compose and settle the Nation as appears by Pensioner Fagel's Letter and Vindication But the Contrivers of our Ruine both in Soul and Body proceeding to obstruct all healing Methods His Highness put forth his pious and just Declaration of his Reasons and Intentions to come over into England The Reflections upon it are very wordy and weak See the Declaration 3. If the Prince of Orange had no Interest by proximity of Blood to seek the Preservation of the Church and Kingdom Why might not he come over to us as righteously to deliver us as Our former Kings and Queen Elizabeth have assisted forreign Protestant States and Sufferers by Money and Arms 4. The Miseries of the Protestants in France and Savoy and the Dangers which threatned all Protestant Kingdoms and Sates by the Power and Blood-thirstiness of France and the Popish Confederates awakened Protestant Kings and Princes to prevent the Desosolation of their Countries and Religion to enter into a League and to begin with England to rescue it from its growing Perils and to settle the State of it as knowing what an Influence its Preservation or Destruction would have upon Countries of the same Profession And his Highness the Prince being so deeply engaged in that League he must as a Christian prefer the Glory of Christ before all Obligations of Relation as a Son and a Nephew Yet still performing all the Duties of that Relation in which he hath not been wanting as far as is consistent with the Common Cause and Interest And respect to the Common Protestant Interest and Engagement prevail'd with his Highness the Prince of Denmark to go over to the Prince of Orange as he professeth in his Letter to the King. 5. The Prince in his Declaration invited All Degrees and Orders of Men in the Kingdom to come in and joyn with him to promote his Ends in getting a Free Parliament to which he refers Himself and the Settlement of Church and State. Should the Nobility and Gentry look on and see him ready to Fight in their Defence and give him no Assistance K. Yes certainly for they ought not to assist an Invader against their King. T. The Case stated resteth upon this as one chief Pillar If they have right to relate their Grievances and Pressures and to call him to their Rescue there being no other way left for them and if he have Right and Interest in England which he cannot give up for lost and if that which he desires is neither Crown nor Conquest but the Preservation of the Government in a lawful Parliamentary-way then the Invasion is not the Invasion of an Enemy but the coming in of a Saviour to deliver us That the People of England have right to defend their Government they prove in the Memorial quoted before K. But do not you know that Private Persons are not fit Judges whether their Present Case be such in which they may lawfully resist or no T. I remember something to that purpose in Dr. Falkner Christian Loyalty Book 2. p. 365. p. 373. and he quotes the more Corrected Judgment of Grotius differing from what he had written in his younger Time upon Mat. 26. But Are the wisest Noblemen Gentry and Lawyers of the Land unfit to Judg of this Case Doth their incapacity to judge rise from the Privacy of their Condition or what else A private Man well studied in the Laws and Constitution is as able to judge when that is Uiolated as more Publick Persons and a good Lawyer in his Study knows the Law as well as many a Judg upon the Bench. Besides I distinguish between a particular private Man The Nobles and Gentry who appeared in this Action not meer private Men. or more sustaining private Injuries or Oppressions or some lesser Bodies and Corporations and the Community of the whole Kingdom They who have appeared for the Prince of Orange are by far the Majority of the whole Kingdom and men of as great Understandings as any of those who drove them to this Course This Resistance was not in a private Cause but the Essentials of the Government and Concern of the Kingdom And therefore what the Doctor saith and quoteth out of Grotius is nothing to our Case And for a fuller understanding of our Case I pray Sir remember what the King did Our Case opened on the Kings â—… part The Prince and Majority of the Kingdom declare for a Free Parliament for the Protestant Religion and for the Laws and Government by Law. Can any King that is a King by Law sworn and obliged by Promises to govern by Law refuse to grant what the Kingdom desires But He on the Contrary 1. Prepares a Royal Navy increaseth his standing Army calling in many thousands of Popish Irish and of Scots tho not all Papists yet as he thought for his purpose 2. Tho he declared he would summon a free Parliament yet he sent out but few Writs which came to nothing 3. He prepares to defend his Cause and to oppose the Prince and Kingdom by the Sword Whereas if
Chief Commander And have not our Peers and Commons as good right to preserve and settle the Government now as any of their Forefathers had How long shall the Nation stay for this King's Return He best knew the Reasons for his deserting the Government and if the Kingdom had delayed to settle it Self he would then have by the Counsellors of Evil had made us see a greater necessity of having him and wrought upon our wanting him for a Head to go besides our selves like a distracted People a foolish People of no understanding In our Case we had as good Reason to settle the Government as ever People had to put themselves into a Form and Order And it is an inestimable Mercy that God presented to us such Royal Persons so nearly related to the Inheritance of the Crown to fill up the Vacancy James the 2d was not deposed nor molested neither for his Religion as inconsistent as it was with the Religion Government and Happiness of the Kingdom The Accusation of Deposing the King is altogether untrue He made the Vacancy and when it was made it must be filled up Come Doctor now let us follow Dr. F. to the next Section K. There you will see what he saith of the general Declaration of Loyalty T. So I do p. 337 c. The more general Acknowledgment for the preservation of the King's Safety is that which is required by the Act of Uniformity and enjoined upon all Civil and Military Officers The first Clause of which is that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King c. p. 338. The sense of this is no more than what the Church of England and Eminent Members thereof hath constantly acknowledged Homil. of Obed. part 2. Can. of 1640. Judiciam Vniversitat is Oxoniensis The Doctor goes on to give some explication of the Oath N. 3. This Clause being framed and enjoin'd by an English Parliament not without respect to the disloyal and unchristian Proceedings in this Nation and tendred to English Subjects and relating particularly to the King not indefinitely to any King can bear no other rational Construction than to condemn the English Subjects taking Arms against their Natural Sovereign the King of England And therefore though the like Attempts against any other Kings who enjoy Soveraign Authority are equally blameless in their Subjects yet this Position doth not assert the utter unlawfulness of taking Arms amongst other Nations against him who hath the Title of King if he doth not therewith enjoy the Right of Supreme Government which our Kings have and exercise And therefore in such a Constitution as the Lacedemonian was and Tabrobana c. we are not concerned p. 339. The true Friends of the Church of England have been free from disloyal Actions and Assertions N. 4. He repeats several pretences for War but all unlawful c. Sir I am resolved to be brief with you Therefore shall make some short Remarks 1. I note He grants the position holds of the K. of England because he hath and exerciseth Soveraign Authority Why Dr. Falkner should be honoured who saith as much as Calvin did yet Calvin is commonly branded and Dr. F. admired and honoured see Calv. Instit cap. ultimo L. 4. Sect. 31. doth shew us the power of Prejudice 2. The reason why our Kings must not be resisted is because they have Soveraign Authority Which really is but a limited Soveraignty of Administration and not of Legislation The Law makes the King to be Supreme Governor and not sole Legislator and it hath been debated Whether the King can refuse to sign such Bills as have past both Houses according to the Order of the Houses His Power of Calling and Dissolving Parliaments at his own Pleasure hath been deemed an Usurpation upon the Rights and Liberties of the Kingdom K. Ch. I. in his Answer to the xix Prop. confesseth In this Kingdom the Laws are jointly made by a King by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons chosen by the People all having free Votes and particular Priviledges The Government according to these Laws is trusted to the King. You see then what a Soveraign Prince our King is only in some respect 3. Another Reason against taking Arms and for the Soveraign Power of Kings is because the jus Gladii is in the Hand of the King determined by the Word of God as Bp Saunderson affirms Pref. Sec. 15. and is determined to belong to the Kings of England as Dr. Falkner pleads p. 347. Be it so yet this is far also from the present Case truly stated The late Invasion and Insurrection was not to take the Power of the Sword from the King nor to deprive him of that Authority which he had from God and the Laws The Power of the Sword and Militia is not intrusted in the King's Hand for the Destruction but Protection of his Subjects The Office of the King and the use of the Sword is declared to be for the punishment of Evil-Doers Rom. 13.4 But what when the Sword of the Magistrate is abused against a Kingdom 's Right and Safety The Militia which the Apostle speaks of in that place is a Power to Punish and to take Vengeance upon Evil-doers according to their Crimes And the Sword being the Instrument of the sorest and highest degree of Punishment which is Capital Punishment comprehends under it all degrees of Punishments And this Power of the Sword which is chiefly placed in the Hand of the Supreme Magistrate is distributed in the Hands of all inferior Magistrates and Officers that administer Justice and punish Offenders What is this to the raising of Armies maintaining standing Armies Disposing in order to have them made Parliament-Men by false Returns disposing Military Officers into places of Civil Government and to debauch all places whereever they come and to oppress the Nation And here 's another Consideration worthy your Notice That a King that maintains Arbitrary Power by the Sword against Law and standing Force in Times of Peace turns the Civil Government into a military and that is not the Government of England That which some speak that the King of England hath Merum Imperium Merum Imperium What will do us no Hurt if rightly understod Gladius indicat illos ut Jurisperiti loqui solent imperium habere merum What 's that Vlpianus ait illud esse merum imperium quod habet potestatem Gladii ad animadvertendum in Homines facinerosos Peter Martyr on Rom. ch 13. If this right use of the Sword or avenging and punishing Power were duly observed what Work would it make among them who wear the Sword The Contests that have been in this Kingdom about the Power of the Militia and the use that hath been made of it is a matter of doleful remembrance The Declaration of the Lords and Commons July 1.42 A Second Remonstrance Jan. 16.42 The King's Letter to the Sheriff of Leicester
which was disputable before and undetermin'd was declared to be in the King the Edg of the Sword was turned against a Protestant State to swallow it up if they could is not forgotten And how we were opprest with Royal Aids and vast Paiments to maintain that Sword is felt to this day If the King alone hath the Power of the Sword the Commons of England in Parliament have the Power of the Purse the Sinews of War and Peace as King Ch. I. acknowledged VVhitlock's Memorials Anno 1642. And at the Treaty at Uxbridg 1644 p. 124. Answ to the xix Propos And as long as our Kings advise with their Parliaments about War and Peace as they were wont to do as that Learned Sir Robert Cotton proves in his Treatise on that Argument Anno. 1621. it must be our Fault and God's Judgment upon us if the Sword do hurt us But how God hath vouchsafed us that Mercy in disposing of the Crown and Sword that we shall not fear the Sword nor grudg to pray Tribute to them that are the Ministers of God for Good. 4. All that the worthy Doctor speaks of Fanatick Notions and Assertions and of the War between the King and Parliament belongs not to this present Case any further than the Common Reason of both is concerned in them 5. Those Cases in which both Grotius and Barclay affirm that a King may be resisted are with the Doctor but imaginary Cases which for the ill Consequences of Misunderstanding them are not to be supposed 6. He at large shews what security the People of England have for their Liberties and Religion so that they need not fear any Extremities to drive them to take up Arms. 7. There is something that comes near our Case in p. 517. First That the Agreement of the whole Body of the People or the chief and greater part thereof can give no sufficient Authority for such an enterprise as taking Arms against the Soveraign when oppressed by him because saith he the whole Community are Subjects as well as the particular Persons thereof And with especial respect to this Kingdom I have observed that the Laws declare it unlawful for the two Houses of Parliament though jointly to take Arms against the King. Here are some Mistakes delivered by the worthy Doctor What a Community is 1. He saith that the Community are Subjects A Community as such is the Subject of a Common-Wealth in a state of Freedom not formed into a Government The Majestas Realis is in the Community and the Community is one Person in Fiction of Law and is Persona conjuncta as the Civilians speak So Reverend Mr. Lawson Answer to Hobs p. 21. Polit. Sacra Civilis A Community is the Matter of a Common-Wealth c. 15 206. A Community contains in it virtually all the Forms and Degrees of Government and Governours that arise out of it A Community as such is no Subject But if the Doctor mean by a Community all the Common People subjected by their own Consent to a Soveraign or Governor then they are Subjects indeed as contradistinguished from Superiors But if all or the greater part of the People by which I do not understand the Vulgar Peers and Commons perceive the Constitution to be in apparent hazard of being destroyed what they act in the necessary defence of the Government and Fundamental Laws and for their preservation they do not act as meer Subjects but as one Party in Covenant and Contract with him who threatneth to bring them to Confusion by destroying their Government 2. It doth not follow that because both Houses cannot take Arms against the Soveraign therefore the whole People or the greatest part of the People among whom we include the wisest and the best Part and the Nobility of all Degrees cannot in such a Case as ours lately was take Arms For tho a Parliament be entrusted to act for the People in those Affairs to which they are called and summoned yet not with all the Rights and Liberties of the People But now here is an extraordinary Convention and the Representatives of the Commons in it have an extraordinary Trust even that of forming us again and settling us upon the best Foundation And for this Reason though this Convention wanted the usual Call by the King 's Writ it is one of the greatest Conventions that ever was and its Acts of greater Authority in the extent of it than any ordinary Parliament and therefore the People of England are concluded by them in what they do The Nation was generally sensible of approaching Ruin they knew the King had left his Government and willingly and freely elected their Representatives to do the best in their Wisdom for the Kingdom 's good And the Constitution and Government is not changed only the Persons of our Supreme Governors 3. Parliaments and their Powers have been much decried and debased especially of late Years But though every Individual be a Subject and the whole Body stile themselves the King's Subjects yet as a Parliament they have a part in the Legislation and therefore an essential part of Dominion in them and as making Laws they are above themselves as obeying Laws 8. The Doctor instanceth in one Case p. 542. Whether if a Supreme Governor should according to his own Pleasure and contrary to the established Laws and his Subjects Property actually engage upon the destroying and ruining a considerable part of his People they might not defend themselves by Arms yet this is packt up among Notions and not to be supposed But p. 544. If ever any such strange Case as is proposed should happen in the World I confess it would have its great Difficulties and quotes Grotius that in this ultimo necessitatis praesidio as the last Refuge Defence is not to be condemned provided the Care of the Common Good be preserved And if this be true it must be upon this Ground that such attempts of ruining do ipso facto exclude a disclaiming the governing those Persons as Subjects and consequently of being their Prince or King. And then the Expressions of our Publick Declaration and Acknowledgment would still be secured that it is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King. That is at last the Doctor confesseth such a King to be no King. Whether this be not the Case or much like to that we were in I refer it to all that know the Motions of the late King. Did he not act to the destruction of Property He might as justly have filled all our Churches with Popish Priests yea and our Houses with Inhabitants as some Colledges in the Universities Did he not go as far and as fast as he could to destroy our Religion which is our dearest Property And what would have become of our Liberties if a pack'd Parliament could have been made and the Popish Lords have sate in the House of Lords And what of our Persons and Lives if we had not
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 Eâ—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
moderate temperate more or less by the arbitrament of the Nobles or People The Roman Emperor was Arbitrary and Absolute had Power of Life and Death Wherefore the Christians could with no Pretence or Colour restrain the Violence of those Times or prohibit those Injuries by which they were vexed But the Princes of those Nations which thou Bellarmine dost mention have certain Bounds set them which when they exceed the Nobles think it is lawful for them to repel unjust Force and shake off the Yoke by which they are opprest contrary to Right and Law. And then defends the Cause of the Protestants in Holland and France And in this there is a difference between these Churches and the Primitive which was subject to the meer pleasure of the Emperor without the least Title to any Law of their own But when they were armed with publick Right under Constantine they were not only kill'd as before but did kill and having overcome Licinius and the Tyrants they eased their Necks of the Yoke of Persecution And in such a way or for a like reason hath our Church done c. p. 152. I know there is another sort of Friends to the Church of England but I think these now named as worthy of the Name as they and more to the Honour of it And these shall suffice I do forbear to turn to Foreign Divines that have been in reputation in the Church of England because I will not be further troublesome to you As for the Judicium Vniversitatis Oxoniensis It goes upon those Suppositions and handles those Matters which are alien to our present Case and therefore I forbear looking into it K. But that which sticks with me is my Oath of Allegiance T. Why did you not assist the Person of the King to the utmost of your Power to drive out the Invader and to ruin your Church and Kingdom Why did you oppose him in his Declaration of Indulgence But I spare you Only a few Questions more and adone It is plain the King did voluntarily put himself out of the Exercise of his Authority and Possession of his Kingdoms Is it to be thought that the Kingdom would be without a King during his pleasure or did he not really think that in the Vacancy the Kingdom would choose another If he thought they would fill the Vacancy then why did he give way to it If you say there was a Necessity for him to depart in point of Honour and Safety I know not what his Reasons were but be they never so many or great in his Opinion I go upon Matter of Fact. The Throne being voided by his own Act must it not be filled and did he not think and foresee it would then why did he not prevent it why did he give way to it If he made way for a Successor Allegiance is not enjoined during the King's natural Life he made himself a Dead King in his natural Life-time and Allegiance is due to him no longer than he is King. Suppose he should put himself into a Monastery or Colledge of Jesuites or go to Rome or in Pilgrimage and put Himself out of capacity to govern the Kingdom doth the Bond of a my Allegiance hold and continue in force upon me He is a uncapable of ruling us in France as in any of those places therefore I see no reason but to conclude my Bond of Allegiance is cancell'd and dissolved K. But two Kings at a time in being What! two Suns in One Firmament T. Sir I know but one King and one Queen both joined in the same Regality Your Sun is set he put out his own Light. Be not so fond of your late King as if you had lost your Mistress and were resolved never to have another for you must have another King and Queen too as it happens we have by the wonderful Providence and Gift of God to these Kingdoms since you and I began our discourse Come Sir let me play a little upon you I will not hurt you Were you so truly and perfectly Loyal to K. Charles the 2d as not to wish for James while you look'd upon Him as the Rising Sun that was to Crown your Ambition with Preferments and Happy Days K. Charles went out with little Mourning and James came up with greatest Admiration You were like Persian Idolaters at his Ascent Do not mourn too much at his Ecclipse It was his own Free-will and we had no reason to resist his Will in going away and thereby making room for such a Succession as is to the hearty Joy of the serious part of the Nation and the universal Joy of all Protestants in Europe Four Years ago a gloomy Look was by innuendo a sign of a disloyal Heart there was a great deal of dissembled cheerfulnes I hope Doctor you will never be presented nor troubled for a discontented Look nor indicted for a little fit of Sulleness Come Doctor satisfy your self with St. Paul's wholesome Doctrine The Powers that be are ordained of God I believe more than those you hanker after and hear what a Great Friend of the Church of England and Advocate for her Ceremonies I mean the truly worthy Admirer of Free-Grace and Calvin's Friend the old Bishop Morton of Duresm speaks Are they then Once established then whatsoever the Government be they are of God God owneth them they may not be disturbed For as Silver whilst it is meer Plate if it be tendred for Exchange may be either taken or not by the Party to whom it is offered but if it once receive the King's Stamp and be coined it is Currant Mony and may not be refused Or as Acts of Parliament whilst they are but voted are but only Consents but after they have the King 's Royal Assent they become Statutes which may not be transgressed So it is in Governments as soon as it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Created by Man as St. Peter calleth it becometh thus St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God's Ordinance Ser◠at York before the King 1639 and may not be resisted Now Sir Our Chosen King and Queen are Created by Man a Convention that had greater Power and Trust committed to them than any Parliament before them since this Government was first moulded The late Convention of greater Authority than any ordinary Parliament and are the Ordinance of God therefore scatter the clouds and look up Receive them as from God and be subject for the Lord's sake and their own And to move you from a weighty motive the present World Had your King been let alone a while and you so honest as to refuse to read his Declaration you had been a Doctor without Preferment and therefore come the worst that can come by a Comprehension you may have at least one Living and if you must preach twice you will have I hope peace to study to make two Sermons or otherwise to edify the Souls of Men in the Afternoon as well as the
second Letter to Le Cheese We have here a mighty Work upon our Hands no less than the Conversion of the three Kingdoms and by that perhaps the subduing of a Pestilent Heresy which has domineer'd over a great part of the Northern World a long time there were never such hopes of Success since the Death of Queen Mary as now in our days when God hath given us a Prince who is become may I say a Miracle zealous of being the Author and Instrument of so glorious a Work Collect. of Letters p. 118. Now ordinary Reason will hence advance the probability of all kind of mutual Engagements between these two Princes to promote the Catholick Interest by Dragooning us either to turn Papists or turn out of the Land. Pray Sir can you disprove the Story as you call it of the French League either by detecting the Imposture or by demonstrating the unreasonableness of the thing Or is it sufficient that their being both entirely devoted to the innocent and harmless Society of the Jesuits to unite them in the same Heavenly and Spiritual Interest and Designs as would make such a League incredible and unsupposable 3. Thè Story of the Prince of Wales whose Right to the Crown is so clear to some of your Seminaries that it is as certain as an Article of Faith is not laid asleep nor past away in silence We have read the Observations made upon him in the Memorial and upon the Queen's Progress with him We give credit to the Letter of Father Petre to La Chese As to the Queen's being with Child that Great Concern goes on as well as we could with c. you will agree with me most Reverend Father that we have done a great thing by introducing Mrs. Cellier to the Queen this Woman is totally devoted to our Society A rare Midwife of a Plot to dig a Baby out of a Meal-Tub The zealous Catholicks lay already two to one that it will be a Prince he must be a Prince or as good never be with Child But that which is pretty indeed in the Reverend Father is That the King 's Secret Council think good to wait for the Queen's Delivery that they may see a Successor who may have need of the whole Protection of the most Christian King to support him maintain his Rights Now what was to become of the King of England Whither was he to be sent after the Birth of this young Successor the Question may be asked of the Friends of that little Prince for was King James to live or not If he was to live notwithstanding the having of a Prince to succeed him then why was not he able to support and protect his Successor and his Rights Or was the King of England to be disabled from supporting his Successor The Princes of Wales were never wont to have Guardians and Protectors out of the English Dominions But this Unfortunate Prince would need Protection from a Foreign Monarch and his whole Protection A skirt of his Protection was not large enough he must have the whole Campaign Cloke of his Protection to Cover him and to support Him and maintain his Rights Why so Well it seems Father Petre was a Fortuneteller of the young friendless injured Prince that he must be carried to France when young and tender and stand in need of the whole Protection of a Great King. 4. You say That which they call the Original Contract was designed for no more than a Popular Flourish Now Doctor how doth this appear that it was no more than a Popular Flourish what a kindness was the King's withdrawing to the Gentlemen of the Convention and Men of their Sentiments had it not been for that they would have had no stress for their opinion of the Vacancy For the French League was but a Story the Prince of Wales was but a Story which they cared not how soon was laid asleep or put to silence And what they call an Original Contract was but a popular Flourish Now Doctor because your Author is a Man that leads because he writes and against a whole Convention also I will make some further discovery of this Contract which others of the same Genius make so light of And here I will shew what some of Eminency of the Church of England have written of it These Men will not allow the Kingdom of England to be as much as a Contracted Matron but a Prostitute to Absolute Arbitrary Power Of the Original Contract between the King and People of England I have noted before how Bishop Saunderson doth labour to manifest the Absurdity if not Impossibility of any Contract between King and People But if the People had at any time any Power of Electing their King it is rational enough to conceive that they made Conditions and Terms and would never have consented to their Hurt and Injury There are several ways of acquiring Soveraign Power Dr. Fern whose appearance was eminent against Defensive Arms doth yet acknowledg It is probable indeed that Kings at first were by choice Here as Elsewhere The Resolving of Conscience p. 19. This I speak not as if the Kings of this Land might rule as Conquerors God forbid The King is bound unto all those Laws Grants and Priviledges and that by Oath Whereas Our King is King before he comes to the Coronation which is sooner or later at his pleasure Then it seems Security must be given to the People but always to be in due time in regard of the security his People receive by his taking the Oath and he again mutually from them in which performance there is something like a Covenant all but Forfeiture The King there promises and binds himself by Oath to performance Could they shew us in this Covenant such an Agreement between the King and his People that in case he will not discharge his Trust that it shall be lawful for the States of the Kingdom by Arms to resist and provide for the Safety thereof it were something p. 21. Here is a Covenant and Contract confirmed by Oath which is enough to qualify the Spirits of them who deride or expose it And though there be no Forfeiture mentioned it doth not follow none can be incurred There is a mutual Benevolence Hope and Confidence in the Marriage of the sponsus Regni to the Kingdom it doth not therefore follow the Marriage-Bond cannot be violated Suppose all that swear Fealty to the King do break Faith with him do they not forfeit their Priviledges and Honours yet where is it exprest in the Contract or Capitulation A Government founded upon Contract and Agreement is not so strange a thing in it self as some Men make it to be when there are many Learned Writers that affirm there can be no just and righteous Government but by Election and Consent and that without it Government could not subsist And others hold though Election and Consent be not absolutely necessary to a just Government they
say it is to a stable and permanent Government Arnisaeus Relectionis politicae L. 2. c. 2. Sect. 6. And de facto William the First who did not found his Authority upon Conquest after he had wasted Sussex Kent and other Counties until he came to Boarcham where Arch-Bishop Aldred and Wulstan of Worcester Clito Edgar the Earles Edwin and Morcar and Noblemen out of London with many others came to Him and giving Hostages they yielded to Him and swore Allegiance Cum quibus et ipse foedus pepigit With whom He himself made a Covenant Floren Wigorniensis And when he and his Normans put the State into a Convulsion by their Oppressions several of the Saxon chief Nobility took Arms to defend their Ancient Laws as having learned of their Ancestors aut Libertatem aut Mortem Liberty or Death Argumentum Antinormanicum p. 26. * There is another notable Compact related to be made between William and Stigand A. B. of Canterbury Egelsine Abbot of St. Austins Canterb. and the Kentish men who armed themselves against William and being ready to engage a Parley is desired The Ambassadors of the Kentish-men were commanded to tell William to this purpose Most Renowned Duke The Men of Kent do meet thee they will be thy Friends and will obey thy Power if thou grant their just Demands as those that contend to preserve the Liberty received from their Ancestors and their Country Laws and Customs and that will not be brought under Servitude which they have not tried and been used to nor bear new Laws They can bear Royal Power but cannot bear Domination Receive the Kentish-men with undiminished and untouched Liberty reserved Manners and Vsages their Ancient Laws receive them not as Servants but Subjects well affected to thee But if thou strive to take away their Liberty and Immunity of their Laws thou shalt take away their Lives at once for they chuse rather to fight at the hazard of Battel with thee and to fall in the Field under the power of certain Enemies than in the Court under uncertain Laws For although the other English can suffer Servitude yet Liberty is the Property of the Men of Kent The King disturbed with this Speech and other Difficulties took Counsel for many Reasons non necessitate magis quà m voluntate he granted that they should live after their Ancient Laws Itaque inter Gulielmum Cantios initum foedus fuit obsides utrinque dat Antiquitas Britannicae p. 108. Here 's an Original Contract with the Arch-bishop and Abbot and Kingdom of Kent If you say It was lawful for them to resist an Invader and a Conqueror Consider he claimed to the Kingdom by an Hereditary Right as Kinsman and Heir by Gift to Edward the Confessor as right Heir to the Crown by Succession as his Successors and Sons also allâ—dg who were chosen to the Crown out of the order of natural descent See several Charters quoted to prove this Argumentum Antinormanicum p. 19 c. And whereas it were to be wish'd that there had been a continual intire Confidence preserved between Kings and their Subjects and that there had never been any Forfeiture made or Question about it yet there are forfeitures too often made and though a People should not be hasty to take the Advantage of the King's Weakness yet there 's a time when they ought to shew that there is and must be a Power in a Common-wealth to save it self from Ruin. And they cannot answer it to God themselâ—es nor Posterity if they shall suffer a King despirited and disabled by God to recover Strength when they saw how it had been imploy'd if Divine Providence had not disarm'd Him. 5. The Gentleman goes on to teach us that a Parliament and a Convention are two different things the latter for want of the King's Writs and Concurrence having no share in the Legislative Power This is as much as to say What have the Convention to do with the Affairs that lay before them Well let it be granted that there is a difference between the Convention and the Parliament I do humbly conceive with reverence to those Awful Assemblies That the Convention being called in an Extraordinary Case for an Extraordinary Work were trusted with an Extraordinary Great Power by the Community of England The Real Majesty is in the Community of England The Form of Government was dissolved It is true the Community was not reduced to the Original and pure state of Liberty to frame a new Structure new from the Foundation because there were Heirs in pretence in view and in expectation And therefore they were obliged in Conscience to do right to them that had the most undoubted Right But the Settlement of the Government in the Person or Persons was in them They were the Highest Power to determine the Pretence of the Nominal Prince of Wales The Order Limitation and Settlement of the Succession was in them And though they had not the Formality of a Parliament because of the Defect of a King they wanted not an Original Power to give under God and for God Life and Form to the Government it self The Legislative Power is the King the House of Lords and House of Commons The Business of the Convention was not to make particular Laws and they did not exercise a Legislative Power but they were put upon it how to re-establish the Government as near as possibly they could according to the Ancient Constitution And in that respect being to constitute and declare the Persons who were to have a part in the regular enacting of Laws they had not a less but a greater Power than is ordinarily exerted in Parliament They were not advising how to draw up a new Form or Constitution there were Ancient Land-marks to bound them and the Model of the Building was in their Eye and there were Ancient Laws and Customs both Common and Statute in Force but there wanted an Administrator a Soveraign to look to the Administration and executive Part. And the ordinary Methods were broken by another who was obliged to observe them They had as exact a respect to the Ancient Methods as possibly could be had in observing the number of Representatives and giving notice to the Electors to chuse their Representatives and Trustees And they had the Authority of Laws and Necessity both for what they did The Laws by virtue of which they acted were Customs immemorial to meet and consult about the Publick Good the Good of the Whole being the great End of Society and Government The Law of Nature was sufficient to call them together And the urgent Law of Necessity laid upon them this Duty which was not of their own making as is visible to all clear-sighted Men. As great things have been done in the Days of our Fathers out of the ordinary Rules that were never thought to be ill done Instance is given not in Hen. the 7th but in the Nomination and Proclamation of King James the
First One Answer to this Demand may be That Queen Elizabeth's wise Council did foresee that this was an effectual if not the only way to prevent greater Mischiefs and Effusion of Blood which in all probability had followed if this Course had not been taken And in an Extraordinary Case some Extraordinary Thing tending to the Publick Good may lawfully be done Lawson Pol. S. Civil p. 87. Our Convention will merit an honourable Memorial of all Generations for what they have done in our extraordinary Danger and Confusion We are in a way to Happiness if Unthankfulness and Murmuring doth not cast us back And such Papers as these will not at all help us towards Peace and Quietness I have no mind to deal any further with him I am sorry for him that he hath given such just Provocation to Authority as he hath by many Passages in it Sir I thank you for any thing you communicate to me Now let me put into your Hand a Rational Moderate and Convincing Paper The lawfulness of taking the New Oaths asserted K. I should be glad to be satisfied in the Point of Allegiance to King James the 2d My Conscience is not at ease and I am afraid I shall offend one way or other T. I am glad Our King Queen and Parliament are so moderate and patient with Our new Dissenters and Seminaries There are two sorts we would wish at ease in their own Minds and for their own Sakes Allegiance not due to the late King. and of many that are jealous of some strange Mutations among us But can we expect so great a Deliverance without any signs of Danger Man is a sullen morose Creature if he be not pleased But now God with a holy Reverence be it acknowledged is pleasing Himself whether you be pleased or not How long shall it be before he have your good-will to advance his own Glory He hath patiently been gratifying you many Years even to the giving you the King you preferr'd before all things You have tried him grew afraid of him talk'd boldly of him and acted too to displease him and towards his removal also And now what 's the matter what would you have Can you neither be well with him nor well without him How many of you acted as if you believ'd him to be no King that the Obligation was dissolved between you and Him This ingenuous moderate Gentleman presseth that handsomely and home enough May I be so bold to say something upon this tender Argument of Allegiance What though many of you knew what Designs were laid and conceal'd them from the King did neither argue against them nor estrange your selves from the Conspirators preach'd not one piece of a Sermon against them but went with them or sent to them assisted countenanced wellcom'd them Home subscribed the Association voted for Members of the Convention or joined being chosen And yet now recoile All this and Conscience stand in a Man's way and put him not only to a stand but make him retreat in disorder and fear And tenderness of Conscience is to be kindly used and for Oaths in particular in an Age wherein they have been common to a Sin and slighted to a high provocation of the Holy God. I cannot stay long upon this But in short 1. I grant that Allegiance is due to the Person of a King and not only to his Crown and Dignity but then that Person that possesseth that Crown and Dignity is not considered absolutely in his Natural Capacity but in his Political as vested with the Crown and Dignities of a King. 2. The Person of a King as King in the lawful possession of the Crown is intrusted with the Administration of the Government according to the Laws of the Kingdom which he is bound to God and the Kingdom by Promise and Oath to observe And he ought to give himself to the actual exercise of that Trust and Authority which he hath 3. The Soveraign of England is only Soveraign for Administration according to the Laws made by the joint Powen of the two Houses of Parliament with him 4. The natural Person to whom we are Subjects and are obliged to be true and faithful to as true Subjects How can he watch for our Good if he be not secure from Danger from us and of our Subjection and Obedience as ready to serve him who is the Minister of God for good to us The Person I say to whom we owe Allegiance is that Person endowed with Authority and Majesty for the Ends of his Office. 5. If He assume a greater Power than he hath by the Laws and Constitution or endeavour by Arts and Force to change the Government into another form or deprive the Subjects of their Fundamental Rights then though he be the same Natural Person to whom we promised Allegiance he is not the same Moral or Political Person He is not that King to whom we are Subjects but another quite contrary to that Majesty intended by us 6. Allegiance is during the Life of the King if while he lives he continueth to be King. He may forfeit to God And if God disable him or remove him Subjects are discharged for their Allegiance while God hath deposed him He may forfeit to his People if the Kingdom be Regnum pactionatum non absolutum Great Failures come short of Forfeitures And if a King not only cease to rule and defend according to his place but be so far perverted as to set up his Will and strive to carry all before it against the Religion and wellfare of his People they should be slow to Wrath and Revenge or to recover their own Rights by Wars and not at all by Injustice Many Miseries are rather to be endured than the Miseries of War. 7. It conduceth much to satisfy Conscience to understand what Allegiance is Ligantia inde ligiantia Allegiantia vinculum arctius inter subditum Regem invicem connectens The Bond Covenant or Compact by which a King and his Subjects are mutually bound to one another Hunc ad Protectionem justum Regimen illos ad Tributa debitam subjectionem The King is bound to Protection and just Rule and Government the People to pay Tribute and due Subjection The learned Spellman Gloss Dr. Robert Austin who hath taken pains to state it according to the Resolution of the Judges in Calvin's Case gives this description of Allegiance Ligeance is a Quality of Soul whereby were are disposed to bear all Truth and Faith to the Person of the King his Crown and Dignity ready to yield him all true Obedience according to the Laws of Nature of God and the Realm wherein we live Tract of Allegiance not impeach'd by the Parliaments taking Arms. c. 2. 8. Let us revive the Oaths wherein the promise of Fidelity is made and thence also gather something for our direction in this Case And here I will begin 1. The Case is hardest upon them who took
the Oaths since the late King did manifestly act contrary to the Duty of his Place But yet the words of the Oath are expresly made to him believing him to be the Lawful and Rightful King of this Realm Now he is Lawful King who hath a Lawful Right and is no Pretender or Usurper or he is Lawful King who is no Tyrant in Exercise nor Usurper of Power above or contrary to Law. How any Man could understandingly swear his belief of his being Lawful King without such a distinction I cannot conceive And then it is to be considered that he is the lawful King who governs according to Law or at least not contrary to Law in the main and then he being the King recognized by the Subject who swears Allegiance to him if he prove quite contrary How can he who own'd him under a true Notion of him be bound to him when he is corrupted from what he was taken to be He took him for his King who is King by Law and doth not bend himself to overthrow it but when he ceaseth to govern his Subjects as Subjects he disclaims the governing them as Subjects and his own being their King saith Dr. Falkner Chr. Loyalty l. 2. c. 5. p. 544 c. The Relation of an English Subject is to an English not an Absolute King. If one term of the Relation be chang'd or ceased the Obligation of the other Relate and Correlate ceaseth Cessante personâ relata naturali cessat obligatio personalis Cessante relatione vel personâ Civili cessat obligatio talis quâ talis The natural Father dying the relation to him is at an end and the Obligation to Duty is dissolved The moral and political Relation and political Person ceasing to be what he ought to be the Relation and Obligation dies A King is not bound to govern or protect Traitors Nor are Subjects bound to Allegiance and Obedience to him that is not their King. See the Christian Directory Cases Obligation of Vows and Promises p. 703. And Mr. Lawson is short and positive The personal Majesty of a King with us requires subjection whilst he lives and governeth according to Law but upon his Death or Tyranny in Exercise or acting to the Dissolution of the Fundamental Constitution he ceaseth to be a Soveraign and the obligation as to Him ceaseth p. 214. Polit. Sacra Civilis In a word so many ways as Majesty and Soveraignty may be lost so many ways this Obligation may be lost Ibid. 2. All that concerns the Papal pretended Powers of doing Evil in the Oath remains true for ever The only Clause in the Oath in which any can think himself concerned is the Promise I will bear faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors and Him and them will defend to the uttermost of my Power against all Conspiracies and attempts whatsoever The resolution of this Doubt depends upon the former Plots and treacherous Conspiracies are practices unworthy of Christians against the worst of Tyrants The ways of defence must be lawful But who was that King which you promised to defend and to bear Faith to Was it not to your Lawful King in the lawful Exercise of his Authority If you were a Servant to his Arbitrary Will if you had defended him and served him to persecute the true Religion or to remove and corrupt it or to set up Arbitrary Power you were a Traitor against God and your Country Your Oath was a Bond of Iniquity and ought now to be repented of Had you fought for him when he was gone to the Camp to fight against the Kingdom you had been a Traitor to England for whose good only Kings are ordained 3. If you are ensnared with the Opinion of the pretended Prince of Wales's being the next Heir you are to be pitied if you are sincere in your Opinion The great Convention the highest Judges in the Kingdom saw the Depositions in favour of his Royal Birth and Natural Descent and what swaying Presumptions and Reasons are produced and publish'd against him and have rejected him and judged him no lawful Heir And if you had much more to confirm your Opinion of his Birth you ought to acquiesce in their Highest Judgment and Determination And if you believe never so honourably of the late King that he would not impose upon us yet he might be imposed upon But when we consider how Popish Principles corrupt Nature you have no reason to be confident And if you are not forestall'd and partial you have much more reason to believe that our Gracious King and Queen who express uprightness in all that they speak or do that they would abhor to deprive a Right Heir of the Priviledg of his Birth to gain a Kingdom too soon when they were no further distant from it and stood in so little need of it 4. But then if you insist upon it Why did not the undoubted Heir succeed in Order This is one of our marvelous Blessings and we have cause to acknowledg the Wisdom and Goodness of our Queen that she consented to and approved of the Method and Order of the Settlement of the Crown by a wise Act of the Convention to cut off Debates and to shorten the way to a happy Settlement If her Majesty be well pleased and her Royal Highness in a better state than she was in before what Cause have you to be dissatisfied There is no such exactness and niceness to be found in most of our Successions in the Throne Peter Martyr was a very wise and learned good Man and his words are worth our following Nihil anxiè disputandum est quo jure quarè injuriâ Principes adepti sunt suam potestatem Illud potiùs agendum est ut Magistratus praesentes revereamur in Rom. c. 13. v. 1. Let us not anxiously dispute Princes Titles let us rather mind this that we honour and fear the present Magistrates I do not speak this as if I doubted the lawfulness of the present happy happy Settlement but for your sake King James the First spake it I am since come to that Knowledg that an Act of Parliament can do greater Wonders than unite Scotland to England by the Name of Great Britain And that old wise Man Treasurer Burleigh was wont to say He knew not what an Act of Parliament can do in England Speech in Star-Chamber And some great Lawyers in a Parliament of Queen Elizabeth Mr. Yelverton afterwards Speaker and Judg said That to say the Parliament had no Power to determine of the Crown was High Treason And Mr. Mounson said It were horrible to say that the Parliament had no Authority to determine of the Crown Sir S. Dew's Journal p. 164 176. And what cannot a Convention a Representative of the Community do and what Parliament will not confirm what they have done And what good Man will be so cloudy and sullen as not to rejoice for what is done to the unspeakable Comfort of
Protestant Countries and of our own Times and Posterity after us if we sin not away our Mercies These Things thus considered I pray give me leave to come up close to you 1. Do you think in your Conscience that James the Second did govern the Nation according to Law Did he chuse the most of his Judges to do impartial Justice Did he really design a pack'd Parliament for the good of the Protestant the Protestant Religion the Church of England and our Brethren abroad Was his daily augmented Army for our Protection and Defence o◠not Did many Noble Officers and others of his Army believe it Why did not they defend and assist him then And do you hold your self bound in Allegiance to such a King Shew me such a King constituted by our Laws shew me Law for such Allegiance See the words of Sir Henry Spelman above What Legiance binds the King to and upon what condition we promise Allegiance K. But if he break with me I will keep Oath to him and be his Liege Subject T. You will If he then at this time should send an Express to you to come to him and serve him in your Person in your Purse in your Capacity with your Counsel and that against your own Native Country would you go Would you serve him in his Wars against us If not what signifies your Allegiance If you assist are you not a Traitor to God and your Countrey to whom your Allegiance is due before it is due to the King. Remember your Duty to serve the King is in God and for God and not for Popery against God so the Prayer in the Communion K. But I will not oppose his Return if he should attempt it to recover his own Lawful Inheritance and to rule his People T. If ever he should attempt to return you think it will be by Force don'd ye And do you think it will be to be a Nursing-Father to the Church and a gracious Governour over the People or will it not rather be to Revenge and Conquer and with more Curses from the Pope and Fire in his Bosom against Protestants and Fury for Popery And you will not as much as pray against him nor be delivered from him nor help to preserve our Religion and Country from Popish Tyranny without which you cannot rationally look for him if the way were never so open and easy Will you be ever able to prove a Popish King to be a Lawful King of England when you do then you will have an answer to this Argument That King who according to the Principles of his Religion and consequently the perswasion of his Conscience must endeavour to promote his Own and to root out our Religion and with it our Laws by which it is established is a King inconsistent with his Government and drives contrary to the End of it and by consequence is no King for such a Kingdom But a Popish especially a Jesuited King as they boast him to be is such a King therefore c. And will you assist and serve such a King as bound in Conscience then your Oath is vinculum iniquitatis and by it you cannot assist him but you must do Iniquity or neglect a Duty and violate the Bonds of all other Relations Can the performance of your Oath to James the late King consist with the publick Safety and Welfare of the Church and Kingdom Then non est servandum juramentum cujus Executio cum salute publicâ cum honestate bonis moribus pugnaret You a Doctor I will not English it I have neither Time nor Paper to spare It is a Rule about Oaths among others laid down by the excellent Rivet Explic. Decal Juramenti obligatio qualis Can your late King give you Protection and the Benefit of Laws If not can you think your self bound in Conscience to be his Subject and owe him Allegiance Kings are the Shields of the Earth to give Protection Therefore they are chosen of Men and given of God. That 's the Consideration that moves you to subjection if that cannot be had from Him are you not free That 's the Lige the Ligeance between the King and Subject if he cannot and that by his Fault the Bond is dissolved Who broke first he with the Kingdom or his Subjects with him Si una partium prior juramentum violaverit in re mutuò promissa altera solvitur obligatione Rivet L. cit R. 4. K. But he was Disabled he was forced by his Subjects And therefore it is not his fault that he cannot govern or protect T. He was despirited by him who cutteth off the Spirit of Princes and disabled to a Wonder of Divine Power over him Did he grant what his Subjects desired according to their Right and Duty or hath he ever since his going made an offer to return to govern by Law You know his Mind and his Engagements blind not your self Was the least Violence offered or threatned if he would stay and not begon I know who said it but doth he not wrong our King and Nobles To ease you by a Conclusion Doctor hath God wrought any Deliverance for us If not where are your Senses if he hath why will you not help us to thank God our Saviour And why will you not own Our Instrumental Saviour you will pray him in Grumbling and Withdrawing and Disobedience and omission of Duty Is that the way on 't I must beg pardon for this Liberty and do remember that if God and Man set a King and Queen to bear Rule I believe our King and Queen to be by Divine Designation and Humane Lawful Ordination I owe and hope to pay true Allegiance to them and therefore I owe none to any other King. If our King and Queen give you the Benefit of their Protection the Benefit and Comfort of the true Religion and the Peace of your Country as you may have while they have it you will be obliged in Conscience to pay Allegiance to them and you cannot pay Allegiance to two contrary Supremes if you owe to Our King and Queen you owe it not to Him that was once your King. Sir I have no pique at any particular Person to expose or displease my Design is Charity and to serve the Common-Good And if I have done any acceptable Service to God and any Neighbour I shall be glad Glory to God on High on Earth Peace and good Will towards and among Men. FINIS ERRATA PAge 3. line 5. read afraid P. 6. in T. 2d the Scripture doth constitute no perpetual Form insert no. P. 13. l. 3. dele whom and read who is wonderful in working P. 14. T. 2. dele non and read legibus solutus P. 23. Margin r. Dr. Fern. P. 25. dele Hobs in the Margin and after Pol. Sacr. Civil add c. 15. p. 125. And Answ to Hobs p. 17. begin the next Sentence The Learned Author of the Rights of the Kingdom c. is a different Sentence The