Orange And they do pray the said Prince and Princess of Orange do accept the same accordingly And that the Oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all Persons of whom the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by Law instead of them and that the said Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy may be Abrogated A. B. Do sincerely Promise and Swear that I will be Faithful and bear true Allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary So help me GOD c. I A. B. Do Swear That I do from my Heart Abhor Detest and Abjure as Impious and Heretical this Damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be Deposed or Murdered by the Subjects or any other whatsoever And I do Declare That no Foreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm So help me GOD c. Now if in the Judgment of the Great Counsel after mature Deliberation these evident Matters of Fact did amount to a just Cause to pronounce the Crown Void I cannot perceive what in Justice they could do otherwise then to lodge it where it is the present Circumstances in which the Nation was requiring a speedy Settlement For which end it was provided after the Vacancy of the Roman Empire the Electors were to agree in the Choice of another within thirty Days or else to be allowed only Bread and Water until they had agreed If it be objected That the Crown ought to be set only on the Queen it may be thus answered That there is as little Deviation made as possibly could be and that the present King might have claimed it by Conquest with as much reason as either William called the Conqueror or Henry the Seventh but he had also a better Title than either of those being nearer in Bloud then either of them and the Title of his Lady being undoubtedly the next in Succession but by a suspected Child was endeavoured to be excluded ought to be as happily it is vindicated by her Royal Consort whereupon the Administration of the Government being by general Consent conferred on him during Life it is no more than what he might have claimed nor less than what they could have granted And therefore there is no cause can be given why we should not transfer our Allegiance to him at least in conjunction with the Queen in the case of Henry the Seventh the Nation did so before his marrying the Queen in whom the right Title was and much rather may we when the Queen's Title is acknowledged and the Test of all publick Acts and Writs are in both their Names so that during the joynt Lives of the King and Queen supposing that King James hath forfeited the Crown our Allegiance is undoubtedly due as by the new Oath is required But if yet any man should scruple the taking this Oath as not being satisfied that the right of Title is in the present King I say that this is more than appears to be required either by the Letter of the Oath or the intention of the Authority that imposed it And first as to the intention of the Legislator let it be considered what other intent they could have in laying aside the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance wherein the right Title of the Prince in being was so punctually asserted to make room for this wherein the assertory part is wholly omitted but to prevent the objection of such as should pretend this too nice scruple of Conscience to which there being in the Nation so many Pretenders to a Liberty of Conscience which cannot be forced I do rationally believe that the present Authority had a respect in penning the Oath so cautiously for the Oath doth not say as without gross Nonsence it can be supposed I do promise that King William and Queen Mary are lawful King and Queen c. but only that I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary which may be done supposing that King William is only King de Facto and Queen Mary de Jure as in the Case of Henry the Seventh before mentioned And as to the Letter of the Oath though the Comparison be odious yet the Resolution of Bishop Sanderson in the case of subscribing the Engagement may determine such scrupulous Consciences the words of the Engagement are I do promise to be True and Faithful to the Common-wealth of England as it is now Established without King or Lords The words of the present Oath are I do sincerely Promise and Swear that I will be Faithful and bear true Allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary Where first observe that the Swearing doth no more add an Obligation to the Matter sworn to in the Oath than the Promise and Subscription doth to the Matter of the Engagement Secondly The Ingagement was for altering of the Species of the Government from that which was most Noble to that which was most Ignoble and indeed to an individuum vagum there being then no Government established Thirdly The King then in being had in no case made a Desertion or Forfeiture of his Crown but endeavoured with the hazard of his Life to vindicate his just Title Fourthly The Invader then was a Subject and a notorious Usurper who by fraud and force had driven him from his right All which considerations made a great difference between the legality of taking this Oath and subscribing that Ingagement But here I must premise that I do not insist on this Instance as if I thought the present King and Queen were only so de facto for I am rationally and fully perswaded that they are rightfully King and Queen of England c. as ever any of their Predecessors were That learned Casuist gives a higher and stricter or a lower and laxer sence of the Engagement the lower and laxer sence he thus expresseth Whereas for the present the Supreme Power under which I am is actually possessed by the House of Commons without King or House of Lords I promise that as long as I live under their protection I will not contrive or attempt any act of Hostility against them but living quietly and peaceably will endeavour faithfully in my Place and Calling to do what every good Member of a Common-wealth ought to do for the safety of my Country and preservation of Civil Society therein And our Casuits says p. 106. There want not greater probabilities of reason to induce us to believe that this sense is to be accounted the immediate and declared intent of the imposers who though they might have a more secret reserved and ultimate intent the ingager is not concerned in it the Equivocation if any lieth on the Imposers score not on the Subscribers Because 1. Many both Divines and Lawyers took it which they would not have done in another sense 2.
sense of the Lords and Commons in the following Declaration viz. The Declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled at Westminister presented to their Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Orange at White-hall the 13th of February 1688 / 9. WHereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of divers Evil Counsellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to Subvert and Extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom By Assuming and Exercising a Power of Dispensing with and Suspending Laws and the Execution of Laws without Consent of Parliament By Committing and Prosecuting divers worthy Prelates for humbly Petitioning to be excused from Concurring to the said Assumed Power By issuing and causing to be executed a Commission under the Great Seal for Erecting a Court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes By Levying Money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of Prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was Granted by Parliament By Raising and Keeping a Standing Army within this Kingdom in the time of Peace without Consent of Parliament and Quartering Souldiers contrary to Law. By causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be Disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law. By Violating the Freedom of Election of Members to serve in Parliament By Prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for Matters and Causes cognizable only in Parliament and by divers other Arbitrary and Illegal Courses And whereas of late Years partial corrupt and unqualified Persons have been returned and served on Juries in Tryals and particularly divers Jurors in Tryals of High Treason which were not Free-holders And excessive Bail hath been required of Persons committed in Criminal Cases to elude the benefit of the Laws made for the Liberty of the Subject And excessive Fines have been imposed and illegal and cruel Punishments inflicted And several Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgment against the persons upon whom the same was to be levied All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known Laws and Statutes and Freedom of this Realm And whereas the said late King James the Second having Abdicated the Government and the Throne being thereby Vacant His Highness the Prince of Orange whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the Glorious Instrument of Delivering this Kingdom from Popery and Arbitrary Power did by the Advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal Persons of the Commons cause Letters to be written to the Lords Spiritul and Temporal being Protestants and other Letters to the several Counties Cities Universities Boroughs and Cinque ports for the choosing of such Persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament to Meet and Sit at Westminister upon the 22d day of January in this Year 1688 in order to such an Establishment as that their Religion Laws and Liberties might not again be in danger of being Subverted Upon which Letters Elections have been accordingly made And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now Assembled in a Full and Free Representative of this Nation taking into their most serious Considerations the best Means for attaining the ends aforesaid Do in the first place as their Ancestors in like Cases have usually done for the Vindicating and Asserting of their Ancient Rights and Liberties Declare That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regal Authority without Consent of Parliament is Illegal That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regal Authority as it has been assumed and exercised of late is Illegal That the Commission for Erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of like nature are Illegal and Pernicious That Levying of Money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parliament or for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be Granted is Illegal That it is the Right of the Subject to Petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegal That the Raising or Keeping a Standing Army within the Kingdom in time of Peace unless it be with Consent of Parliament is against Law. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Condition and as allowed by Law. That Election of Members of Parliament ought to be free That the Freedom of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or place out of Parliament That excessive Bail ought not to be required or excessive Fines imposed nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted That Jurors ought to be duly Impannelled and Returned and Jurors which pass upon Men in Tryals for High Treason ought to be Free-holders That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Convicton are Illegal and Void And that for Redress of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserving of the Laws Parliaments ought to be held frequently And they do Claim Demand and Insist upon all and singular the Premises as their undoubted Right and Liberty And that no Declarations Judgments Doings or Proceedings to the prejudice of the People in any of the said Premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into Consequence or Example To which Demand of their Rights they are particularly incouraged by the Declaration of his Highness the Prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full Redress and Remedy therein Having therefore an intire Confidence that his said Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect the Deliverance so far advanced by him and will still preserve them from the Violation of their Rights which they have here Asserted and from all other Attempts upon their Religion Laws and Liberties The said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons Assembled at Westminster Do Resolve That William and Mary Prince and Princess of Orange be and be Declared King and Queen of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereto belonging To hold the Crown and Royal Dignity of the said Kingdoms and Dominions to them the said Prince and Princess during their Lives and the Life of the Survivor of them And that the sole and full Exercise of the Regal Power be only in and exercised by him the said Prince of Orange in the names of the said Prince and Princess during their joynt Lives And after their Deceases the said Crown and Royal Dignity of the said Kingdoms and Dominions to be to the Heirs of the Body of the said Princess And for default of such Issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the Heirs of her Body And for default of such Issue to the Heirs of the Body of the said Prince of
Because if the Imposers had intended to bind to more they might have easily framed the words so as not to be capable of this lower construction 3. Because it is usual for new Governors to abstain from harsh proceedings even against those whom they know to be disaffected to their Government Remissius imperanti melius paretur therefore the Bishops resolution is that when the Imposer chuseth words capable of a double sense it is neither necessary nor expedient that the Promiser do doubt which sense the Imposer doth mean but may in prudence and without violation to his conscience make his advantage of the ambiguity and take it in the laxer sense because since the Faith that is to be given is intended to the behoof of him to whom it is given it concerns him to take care that his meaning be expressed in such words as may manifest his intent which if he neglect the promiser is not bound to lay a greater obligation on himself than he needs to do and though the imposer might intend more under his ambiguous terms yet the promiser is not bound to take notice of it The Reader if concerned may see more in that Case but I think this sufficient and pertinent to the present Case As to the Original of Supreme Power and the Majesty resulting from thence to the person of the King I shall here subjoyn two excellent Discourses of the learned Civilian Pufendorf Of the Original of Supreme Power THat Supreme Empire may have its effect there is required first such natural Strength as may enforce the Subject to obey his Commands and secondly a Title or Authority by which he may enjoyn what is to be done or omitted both these do flow from those Contracts by which Societies are formed for although no man can naturally transfund his strength into another yet that person may possess the strength of others to whose will they are obliged to apply their strength without resistance or disobeying his command and when all do thus submit their wills to the will of one he then hath sufficient power to compel them to Obedience Thus Livy l. 2. c. 59. The Power of Empire consists in the consent of them that are to obey and this Contract gives a clear Title by which the Empire is lawfully constituted by a willing Submission of the Subjects and not by Violence this is the immediate cause from whence Supreme Power as a Moral Quality doth result And evident it is that sound Reason did dictate on the multiplication of Mankind that their Honour Peace and Safety could not subsist without Societies which neither could well be without a Supreme Power Hence it is that the Higher Powers are said to be appointed of God as being the Author of the Law of Nature for not only those things are said to be of God which he doth institute immediately without the intervention of any Humane Act but those also which men by the conduct of right reason as the condition of times and places do require have received in reference to that obligation which lies on them from God 1 Tim. 2.2 That they may lead a quiet and peaceable life c. Hence God in the Scripture approves of Empire as his Institution and by strict Laws establisheth its Sanctity and Veneration Thus Baecler on Grotius l. 1. c. 3. s 6. The Supreme Power is not to be attributed only to the acts of Men but the command of God and the Law of Nature or to such acts of Men as are agreeable to the Law of Nature for he that commanded Society commanded the Order of Society whereof Empire is the soul The true sence whereof is this that the Divine Command doth exert it self by the dictates of Reason whereby Men understood that their peace and welfare which is the end of the Law of Nature cannot subsist without Civil Society nor that without a Supreme Power As to the fifth Commandment injoyning Obedience to Governours that doth not exclude those second Causes by which their Power is produced as the Precept against theft excludes not the Original of Dominion Governours are said to be God's Vicegerents in this sence that because the bare respect of the Law of Nature and its Author did not effect the Peace and Order of Mankind that end is perfected by the efficacy of Civil Empire for that a Society may obtain its end God appointed by the Law of Nature the Order of Commanding and Obeying in which by God's will and the dictates of Nature there must be a Supremacy depending on none but God. But whether this Supremacy should be committed to one or more and by what particular means the state of the Government be constituted this is meerly a Humane act So Grotius l. 1. c. 4. s 7. That men agreed to live in Society not by any express Command of God but of their own accord yet not without the will of God and the dictates of Reason whence arose Civil Power which St. Peter calls the Ordinance of Man 1 Pet. 2.13 Though this might suffice as to the rise of Civil Authority and the Veneration due to it yet some ascribe it to a higher Institution as Hornius de Civit. l. 2. c. 1. That it is so immediately from God that no act of Man contributes to it So that where a free People do choose their King they only design the person on whom there is a Majesty immediately conferred by God as in free Cities the Magistrate is elected by Suffrage of the Chamber but his power derived from the Supreme Governour But this Assertion though it have a fair reception among many doth wholly destroy all the fundamental Laws that are agreed on between the Prince and People for the administration of Government for by this there is a Majesty ascribed only to Kings but denied to free Common-wealths whereas there is the same Supremacy over the Subjects in every Commonwealth Whereas therefore he makes God the only cause of Majesty who immediately on the Election of the People infuseth that Majesty into the King wherein he conceives this Majesty to be a Physical quality as they do who hold that Government is God's Ordinance so intirely that no Creature doth contribute any thing to its Institution which bewrays a gross ignorance of things Moral As for his demand How an extraordinary Splendor should shine forth in him that is advanced to the Throne from an obscure condition unless it came from God let it be considered by them who know not to discern shadows from substances His Argument from God's special Care over Princes proves nothing God having the same care of others and many Kings have perished by Poysons and Treasons His chief Argument is this That seeing neither any individual Person nor the Multitude have this Majesty in themselves they cannot confer it on the King. Ans That a Moral quality such as Empire is may be produced in another by the agreement of them who had it not formally in
the Election of Sheriffs and anciently the disposing of the Militia and many great Offices both by Sea and Land and the Judicial part was left to the King confined by certain Methods the King in Person not being able to decide the least Cause 3. I thus except against the Minor. The subjection required in the Text is due to the King's Person for the sake of the Power and therefore is not to be extended farther than the Power wherewith he is invested and with a Salvo to that part of the Power which is vested in another so that we owed no such subjection to King James as did derogate from anothers Right beyond the extent of his own Power which was not absolute but limited by Law. And let this be considered from the Objection Those actions which will produce mischeivous consequences should not be ingaged in without most clear evidence of being our duty But to refuse Submission to the present Government will produce c. therefore they are not to be ingaged in without most clear evidence which as things now stand cannot be accounted clear and undubetable in relation to King James Object 2. The King can do no wrong and therefore is not to be dealt with as a Malefactor Ans As to your Maxim The King can do no wrong if it be understood of the King 's private or personal capacity it may be thus retorted The King can do no wrong but he that oppresseth ravisheth or murders an innocent person doth wrong therefore he is not King i. e. in such actions he is not to be considered as a King. But this Maxim as many others is to be understood of the King 's political capacity in which respect the Law is his Will and the execution of the Laws are his Actions in which sence he can neither do wrong nor suffer wrong nor ever dyes The true sence of the Maxim is this as Sir Edw. Cooke Id potest quod jure potest and this he says is the King 's greatest priviledge which makes him like unto God who cannot act but agreeably to the eternal Rules of Justice but the King acting by his own Will against Law may do wrong and Judgment hath been given against him for unjust and illegal Actions And doubtless King John and Henry the Third that would have subjected the Kingdom to the Pope as King James also would cannot be exempted from doing wrong though as it was necessary he must use many Instruments therein Ahab did wrong Naboth in taking away his Vineyard as well as his Instruments that did act under colour of Law. Object 3. That King that is not accountable to his people for any wrong done is not by them Coercible into a private estate but the King of England is not accountable c. therefore he is not Coercible Ans The Argument is besides the Business for the People of England do not Coerce the King to a private Estate but if he attempt to alter the Government and Religion and enslave and destroy the People they may use the remedy which the Law of Nature allows Moderamen inculpatae tutelae The Law not having appointed a legal remedy against the unjust oppressions of Princes doth not render it sinful to use the remedies allowed by the Law of Nature for the Laws grew up gradually and legal remedies were introduc'd occasionally before the institution of which remedies it was not sinful to use extraordinary remedies as to kill se defendendo to pull down Houses in case of Fire c. 2. The Law provides remedies for cases within its own compass but not for cases that may happen when the Law itself shall be subverted it is unreasonable to expect from written Laws any directions how Subjects must behave themselves when the authority of the Laws ceaseth If our Laws have not provided for the cases of the King's Lunacy Extinction of the Royal Line wilful Desertion doubtfulness of Title c. but leave us to the general Rules of Prudence and Discretion the same may be affirmed in the present case 3. What is not prohibited is lawful the cases of extraordinary nature are not included in general Prohibitions according to that Maxim Consensus in rebus magni prejudicii ex verbiis quantumvis generalibus non presumitur And Concessione generali nemo presumitur ea concessisse quae in specie vere similiter non esset concessurus And it cannot be presum'd that the Law would consent that the King might at his pleasure destroy their Lives as well as their Laws considering how tender the Laws have been to preserve the Lives and Liberties of the Subjects who have been always accounted a free People Object 4. If the whole Executive Power of the Law is in the King then all Laws to Coerce the King are in effect null because Execution is the life of the Law But the whole Executive Power c. therefore c. To the minor it is already shewn in what cases and respects the Executive Power of the Law is in the People and in other cases the King cannot suspend the Execution of the Laws by his personal Command the Officers being bound by their Oaths as well as Law to the due Execution of them So that if the King in person should make unlawful Entries hinder the Execution of Writs and Judgments break the Peace head a Riot c. Sheriffs and other Officers are bound to suppress and oppose such by their Oaths If it be objected that the case of the King's presence makes an exception I answer Neither the Oaths nor the Laws makes any such exception And ubi Lex non distinguit non est distinguendum Again the Defence made against the King's illegal Assaults is not an act of the Executive Power which is in the King but of Natural Right for in cases where the Law hath not provided a remedy and particularly and expresly prohibited Self-preservation there we may recur to natural and moral Remedies and every man is allowed to be his own Judge in case of imminent danger when there is no time allowed nor any Judge to be appealed to You say that if the King will pervert the great end for which he was appointed and pervert the Laws c. then as Bracton says Datur petitioni locus licet ei fraenum ponere i. e. as you expound it to curb him by Petitions with holding Taxes and questioning his Ministers there is no ense recidendum in our Law. Ans To curb by Petition is to bind with Ropes of Sand to question Ministers if the Executive Power be in the King is to no purpose and so to with-hold Taxes if the King in the head of an Army may compel them nor yet is there any need of deposing or cutting off for Henry 3. was not so dealt with If a King mix himself with Outlaws and Cut-throats against which we may and in some cases are bound to rise and expose himself to Casualties the people cannot