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
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
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
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
which was disputable before and undetermin'd was declared to be in the King the Edg of the Sword was turned against a Protestant State to swallow it up if they could is not forgotten And how we were opprest with Royal Aids and vast Paiments to maintain that Sword is felt to this day If the King alone hath the Power of the Sword the Commons of England in Parliament have the Power of the Purse the Sinews of War and Peace as King Ch. I. acknowledged VVhitlock's Memorials Anno 1642. And at the Treaty at Uxbridg 1644 p. 124. Answ to the xix Propos And as long as our Kings advise with their Parliaments about War and Peace as they were wont to do as that Learned Sir Robert Cotton proves in his Treatise on that Argument Anno. 1621. it must be our Fault and God's Judgment upon us if the Sword do hurt us But how God hath vouchsafed us that Mercy in disposing of the Crown and Sword that we shall not fear the Sword nor grudg to pray Tribute to them that are the Ministers of God for Good. 4. All that the worthy Doctor speaks of Fanatick Notions and Assertions and of the War between the King and Parliament belongs not to this present Case any further than the Common Reason of both is concerned in them 5. Those Cases in which both Grotius and Barclay affirm that a King may be resisted are with the Doctor but imaginary Cases which for the ill Consequences of Misunderstanding them are not to be supposed 6. He at large shews what security the People of England have for their Liberties and Religion so that they need not fear any Extremities to drive them to take up Arms. 7. There is something that comes near our Case in p. 517. First That the Agreement of the whole Body of the People or the chief and greater part thereof can give no sufficient Authority for such an enterprise as taking Arms against the Soveraign when oppressed by him because saith he the whole Community are Subjects as well as the particular Persons thereof And with especial respect to this Kingdom I have observed that the Laws declare it unlawful for the two Houses of Parliament though jointly to take Arms against the King. Here are some Mistakes delivered by the worthy Doctor What a Community is 1. He saith that the Community are Subjects A Community as such is the Subject of a Common-Wealth in a state of Freedom not formed into a Government The Majestas Realis is in the Community and the Community is one Person in Fiction of Law and is Persona conjuncta as the Civilians speak So Reverend Mr. Lawson Answer to Hobs p. 21. Polit. Sacra Civilis A Community is the Matter of a Common-Wealth c. 15 206. A Community contains in it virtually all the Forms and Degrees of Government and Governours that arise out of it A Community as such is no Subject But if the Doctor mean by a Community all the Common People subjected by their own Consent to a Soveraign or Governor then they are Subjects indeed as contradistinguished from Superiors But if all or the greater part of the People by which I do not understand the Vulgar Peers and Commons perceive the Constitution to be in apparent hazard of being destroyed what they act in the necessary defence of the Government and Fundamental Laws and for their preservation they do not act as meer Subjects but as one Party in Covenant and Contract with him who threatneth to bring them to Confusion by destroying their Government 2. It doth not follow that because both Houses cannot take Arms against the Soveraign therefore the whole People or the greatest part of the People among whom we include the wisest and the best Part and the Nobility of all Degrees cannot in such a Case as ours lately was take Arms For tho a Parliament be entrusted to act for the People in those Affairs to which they are called and summoned yet not with all the Rights and Liberties of the People But now here is an extraordinary Convention and the Representatives of the Commons in it have an extraordinary Trust even that of forming us again and settling us upon the best Foundation And for this Reason though this Convention wanted the usual Call by the King 's Writ it is one of the greatest Conventions that ever was and its Acts of greater Authority in the extent of it than any ordinary Parliament and therefore the People of England are concluded by them in what they do The Nation was generally sensible of approaching Ruin they knew the King had left his Government and willingly and freely elected their Representatives to do the best in their Wisdom for the Kingdom 's good And the Constitution and Government is not changed only the Persons of our Supreme Governors 3. Parliaments and their Powers have been much decried and debased especially of late Years But though every Individual be a Subject and the whole Body stile themselves the King's Subjects yet as a Parliament they have a part in the Legislation and therefore an essential part of Dominion in them and as making Laws they are above themselves as obeying Laws 8. The Doctor instanceth in one Case p. 542. Whether if a Supreme Governor should according to his own Pleasure and contrary to the established Laws and his Subjects Property actually engage upon the destroying and ruining a considerable part of his People they might not defend themselves by Arms yet this is packt up among Notions and not to be supposed But p. 544. If ever any such strange Case as is proposed should happen in the World I confess it would have its great Difficulties and quotes Grotius that in this ultimo necessitatis praesidio as the last Refuge Defence is not to be condemned provided the Care of the Common Good be preserved And if this be true it must be upon this Ground that such attempts of ruining do ipso facto exclude a disclaiming the governing those Persons as Subjects and consequently of being their Prince or King. And then the Expressions of our Publick Declaration and Acknowledgment would still be secured that it is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King. That is at last the Doctor confesseth such a King to be no King. Whether this be not the Case or much like to that we were in I refer it to all that know the Motions of the late King. Did he not act to the destruction of Property He might as justly have filled all our Churches with Popish Priests yea and our Houses with Inhabitants as some Colledges in the Universities Did he not go as far and as fast as he could to destroy our Religion which is our dearest Property And what would have become of our Liberties if a pack'd Parliament could have been made and the Popish Lords have sate in the House of Lords And what of our Persons and Lives if we had not
been delivered by an extraordinary Providence And I will add but this under this Head That all the Gentlemen that I have discoursed with who took up Arms profess they would never have taken Arms against the King ruling by Law as he was bound to do but look'd upon him as no King i. e. no Legal King of England in the exercise of his Power and that there was no other way left for them to preserve themselves our Laws and Religion K. But this doth still stick with me that we declared or swore That it was unlawful to take up Arms upon any Pretence whatsoever therefore not upon this Pretence or for this Cause or any other real or Imaginary either this or any that can be imagined possible T. The evil Design of framing that Oath to bring the Nation tamely under Arbitrary Power and Popery I must say less upon this Head than I have to say I am extreamly deceived 1. If Popery was not design'd to be either made the topping Profession of the Nation or so far countenanced and upheld that it would be in a fair way to be restored as the Religion of the Court and Country when that Act was made 2. This could never be but by the Arbitrary Power of the King. 3. To set up and maintain that the sole Power of the Militia is put into the Hand of the King. 4. The War of the Parliament against the King is made Rebellion by Law. 5. All those things had been insufficient to serve the Design of introducing Popery which could not come in but by Arbitrary Power unless an Oath be devised and imposed to tie the Hearts and Hands of the Subject from thinking to act or acting against the Armed Force of Arbitrary Power And lastly no word was large enough to comprehend all possible Causes or Reasons of Opposition but whatsoever Do the Pope's Creatures what they they will we are tied up by upon any Pretence whatsoever to look upon our Miseries coming on and passively to lie down at the Feet of Popish Majesty i. e. cruel Tyranny and thereby become Vassals to the Triple Crown The Sense of the Declaration of Non-resistance Sir I have subscribed the Declaration of my Consent to that which was required as a formal Oath of all Officers Civil and Military thinking it was but Reason and Duty to give the King as a lawful Governor security in his Throne But the sense I had of it was to this purpose I do believe it is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever or from any Cause or Reason pretended for Subjects to take Arms against the King my lawful Soveraign for to such a King we are subjected and that I do abhor that traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are legally commissioned by him See if you please an Enquiry into the Oath required of all the Non-Con by an Act made at Oxford by that wise and worthy Man Mr John Corbet all other Commissions that are not legal being really none of the Commissions of the King of England who is bound to govern according to Law in the legal pursuance of legal Commissions and that I will not at any time endeavour any alteration of Government either in Church or State by any unlawful ways And more than this no King that means the good of his Subjects can desire and this a peaceable Subject may conscientiously give if the King require it for his Satisfaction But now if a King act contrary to the Laws not by a particular Act or Acts only by which many private Subjects are injured or opprest but to the changing the Fundamental Government and overturning it then when the Cause is not a pretended Cause framed by Jealousy or uncharitable Suspitions of the King and his Ministers whether the Body and Majority of the Kingdom may not in an Extremity appeal to the supreme determination of God by the Sword and vindicate the Right which they have to their Religion and Liberties is a Case wherein it appears even by Dr. Falkener that the King is no King and by Consequence the People which before were Subjects to the King while he acted as King in a legal manner are no further subject and so the Oath is not violated but stands good The word Whatsoever is intended in the largest sense and is so used in the Canons of 1640. and the Writings of several Men When a King goes about to set up a new Form of Government contrary to the Rights of the People the People as a Party in Contract and Covenant and still willing to perform their part take Arms as a Party to maintain their Rights which are invaded and do not rebel as Subjects So that the People of England are considerable as a Party in a legal Contract with the King as Subjects as well as Dr. Ealkener But then I ask Whether the King of England may act and do beyond and contrary to the Laws of his Government not in some particular Instances to the particular Injury of some private Persons but against the Foundations of the Government and Interest Peace Welfare Property Liberty and Safety of the whole Protestant and greatest part of his Subjects be to be deemed the lawful King of England as he was or would be held and reputed to be if he ruled as a sworn King of England And then Whether the People of England are by the Laws subjected to an Arbitrary Jesuited King or to a Regular and Regulated King Whether the Subjects of England are bound to whatsoever a King pleaseth to do set up and command or to those things only which are commanded them by Law If the Laws be the Rule and Measure of their Obedience and those Laws no other than what were made by their own implied Consents then the Subjects of England have not in this Extraordinary Action broken the Bonds of their Subjection but acted for their own Preservation as a People that were never bound to an Arbitrary Absolute King. If the Parliament that enacted that Law that prescribes this Oath did intend to bind all those Persons enjoined to take it to an unlimited Obedience to all manner of Arbitrary Commissions and Commands whatsoever of the King then they allowed to the King scope enough to run out into all Excess of Arbitrariness and did by that betray the Kingdom to the Will of a King be he Papist or Tyrant Did they intend to bind themselves and their Posterity from taking Arms even when a King shall go about to change the Legal Religion and change the Government If they did not then in this Case the Oath bindeth not That they did not seems plain by the Oath which was for the preservation of the Government and against the alteration of it But this we cannot think to be in their Minds though there was a great number in Favour and Pension to serve the secret Designs of the Court
1. In taking away Counsel and Power from the One and 2. raising a mighty Spirit of Courage and Conduct in the often despised Prince of Orange and that State and turning the Spirits of this great People like one Man to oppose Popery and Slavery K. But Providence is dark and an uncertain Guide look to the Rule the Law of God and Man. T. Such apparent Providences are to be adored as Supreme Decisions of Cases reserved in the Divine Power Is not writing against the King's Will Resistance 2. I ask by what Law did so many Learned Men oppose Popery and the King's Will with their Learned Pens Had they Law for it shew it Was not that a Ressistance and a provoking one too For ought I know by the same Reason a Souldier may take his Sword who cannot dispute and write in this Cause as justly as a Scholar or a Divine may take his Pen and oppose I grant a Disparity in the Instrument and way of Resistance but the Reason or Motives of the one and the other the same But as the one doth it to maintain the Truth of God to confute Idolatry and Errors and to save Souls so doth the other and more than the Scholar doth for he labours to save Life and Estate Liberty and Property and the Protestant Religion abroad from being persecuted out of the World whereas the Scholar by his Disputes doth irritate and defends the Cause but not the Persons that are in danger And why may not a Peer of England and a Gentleman use all his Power Wisdom and Interest in such a Case as well as a Scholar use his Reason and his Books The Disputant is not passive but doth resist in his way and is it not then unlawful to contradict as well in its kind as to contra-act Is it lawful for me to defend my Inheritance by Law from the King's Incroachment You 'l say it is And why is it not lawful for a Kingdom to defend their Inheritance in Religion and Laws by the Sword when there is no other way left There 's a Treason against a Government as well as against a Governor Every free-Man of England hath a share in the benefit of the Fundamental Constitution and ought to be aiding and assisting in his place to defend it from pernicious Changes K. But is it fit the people should judg T. That kind of Passive-Obedience ill stated and ill timed also is blind Obedience The Wise and Great and Good Men of the Kingdom are competent Judges of Fact and Law also And a share is due to them in the Legislative also and a share is due to them in the Judicial and Executive Power And if they clearly see through right Mediums that they are in danger of being denied their Right I ask you What Law doth forbid them to vindicate their Right and defend the Government There is no Law of England that doth forbid the Kingdom to preserve its Legislative Power and Hereditary Right to a great share in the Government And their lying still in such a Case as ours had been to suffer the ruin of the Ancient Establishment and the erection of a New after a Jesuital Model There is no positive Law that forbids all Endeavours even by Force against Force in Extremity when Right cannot be had without it and if the King be but one of the three Estates of the Kingdom as K. Charles the First seems to me clearly to assert Answ to the XIX Propos p. 12 13 18 19 21. of the first Edit making himself One and the Houses of Lords and Commons the other Two and not as some others who make the Temporal Lords one the Spiritual the other and the Commons the third Then the Lords and Commons have two parts in the Legislation and Government and if they have not a supposed Right which they never gave up nor was ever taken from them nor parted with to preserve and vindicate their Rights and Liberties and that by Force or forcible Attempts when other ways have been used to no purpose and when Arbitrary Power strikes at the Root of the Constitution then if they have no inherent Right to maintain their Right to their Liberties and Religion they have no right to the things themselves but owe them altogether to the meer Grace and hold them at the meer Will of the King if so then he is an Absolute Soveraign and may at pleasure make us absolute passive Slaves But the Monarchy of England is a regulated limited Monarchy we have a legal Right to our Liberties Properties and Religion and the Lords and Commons never parted with their Fundamental Rights therefore they may vindicate them by their Power and Force in Extremity and apparent Danger K. But the Primitive Christians did not resist Tyrants and Persecutors though they had Force and Armies as Tertullian and others declare T. The Case of the Primitive Christians in nothing to Ours Christians as Christians have no Weapons but Christian no more than Subjects as Subjects have a right to Arms and to make Resistance And they were then in the state of meer Christianity Had they a right of Election to be Senators Had they a legal establishment of their Religion Was their Consent demanded by Heralds to have such a Man for their Emperor Did the Emperor swear at his Inauguration to govern by Laws in the making of which they had a share Dr. Falkener arguing against Subjects taking Arms against the King shews we need not fear to be driven to it for we have the security of good and wholsom Laws fixed with us by general accord of King Lords and Commons And it is a great Priviledg in this Realm that both Civil Rights and Matters of Religion are established by our Laws and that no Law can be made or repealed nor publick Monies raised but by the Consent of the Commons c. B. 2. p. 378. Had the Condition of the Primitive Christians been like ours we have no reason to think but they would have vindicated their own Right as had our Condition been the same with theirs I hope through Grace we should have put on the Crown of ☜ Martyrdom as they did The Question is not Whether it be lawful for Subjects to take Arms against their King when they have their Rights and Religion established by Laws and those preserved but whether a Kingdom the Peers Gentry and Body of it may not vindicate their Legal Rights both Sacred and Civil by open Force in conjunction with a free Protestant Prince who hath a Right in the Kingdom to preserve when there is an apparent Necessity either so to do or suffer and intollerable kind of Government to come upon them Our Case put home And that at such a time when their Passive Stupidity Dulness Compliance or Cowardise would ruin their Posterity and extreamly hazard every Protestant State and Kingdom to a speedy ruin and desolation whom we ought to our power to preserve
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