believe the French League for introducing of Popery and Arbitrary Government is worse than an Infidel Object But the King forsook the Land because his Subjects had first forsaken him contrary to their Duty Ans The peoples duty was to be governed according to the Law which is the measure of their Obedience and they being sensible that the King's design was to subvert the Laws and to that end had armed Irish and English Papists contrary to Law they could not joyn with such men in such a design The Papists themselves alway opposed their Kings in the reigns of King John Henry the Third and others that would have submitted the Kingdom to the Pope And if the Subjects had fought for the King in this Cause they had fought for the Pope and for Slavery against the Crown and Dignity of the King against their Religion and Liberties and against the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which bound them pro posse as far as they were able to resist the Usurpations of the Pope by what means soever they should be introduced In brief let this Dilemma be considered either the King was forced to flye or else he deserted the Government willingly if he was forced then there was a Conquest and the Conqueror had right to what by lawful Arms he did obtain if he fled willingly then there was a renouncing of the Government that is an Abdication and so the Crown became void and our Allegiance to the late King ceased Object But the Subjects of England entred into an Association with the Prince and though they fought not yet were in Arms. Ans The Magna Charta granted by King John as well as the Law of Nature and confirmed by many Parliaments doth warrant such an Association for preserving their Lives Laws and Liberties when they are in imminent danger and such was the Case of England at that time Object If Subjects have Power to resist their Princes why then did the Primitive Martyrs cast away their Lives died Abner as a fool dieth Ans They had no Laws for establishing their Religion no Votes in choosing the Senators the Laws were against them and their Religion obliged them to submit to the present Powers who had an Absolute Command over them and if these Christians had such Oaths from their Emperors as we have it might be well questioned whether they would not have held him to the performance Object If we may not resist a King acting contrary to the Laws of God and Nature then neither when he acts contrary to the Laws of the Land. Answ The Laws of the Land do grant to Subjects more particular Rights and Liberties than the Law of God doth and the Law of God doth not destroy the Civil Constitutions of a Land which the People may claim and defend it is therefore observable that Queen Mary did not put any to Death for their Religion untill she had procured a Parliament that made void the Laws made on behalf of the Protestants and had reinforced the ancient Laws which were made in times of Popery and procured new ones against Protestants as Hereticks It is a strange account which Ecclesiastical Histories gives of the Primitive Christians that they were Candidati Martyris offered themselves to their Persecutors not only when they were accused and brought before Magistrates but when the Inimicum vulgus invaded them and they might have resisted such as had no Authority against them it was a Rule with Tertul. Quodcunque non licet in Imperatorem nec in quenquam licet By which Rule it was as unlawful to resist a Robber or Murtherer as the Emperor and in his opinion if the Emperor had been a Christian he might not have resisted any violent person but he was a Montanist and had his Errors as in matters of Doctrine so also of Fact as in his Account that the number of Christians were sufficient to have vanquished the whole Roman Empire that it was not lawful to fly in times of Persecution to which end he wrote a Tract De fuga c. which was contrary to our Saviours direction to his Disciples Matth. 10.23 And in truth if it be not lawful to resist a Persecutor neither is it lawful to fly when we are summoned to appear before a persecuting Magistrate for that is determined to be a kind of Resistance But the true Cause of the Non-resistance of the Primitve Christians was that which Tertul. observes Nos externi sumus We are Aliens from the Common-wealth of Rome they had no Laws no Votes in choosing the Senators but were accounted of as Out laws and Enemies to the Government by their Religion it was with them as with such Protestants as live under the Tyranny of the Pope who being apprehended and cast into the Inquisition had neither Power nor Right to defend themselves but it was their duty to give Testimony to the Truth by laying down their Lives for it They were under an Arbitrary Power in the nature of Slaves and Vassels and lookt on as Enemies to the Roman State being of a Religion contrary to what was established but we are Freemen that have our Religion and Properties established by Law and such as act contrary to the Government resist the Ordinance of God and oppose it and may be resisted And the Oaths by which we are obliged bind us primarily to the Government and to the Governours for the sake thereof and if the Government be not Arbitrary neither is our Allegiance due to one that would govern Arbitrarily So that suffering for the Faith of Christ is a distinct thing from suffering for the frame of the Government for if I may not resist I am overcome and yield consent to a change of the Government i. e. to an Arbitrary and Illegal Power contrary to the Constitution under wich I live and so promote the ends of an Oppressing and Usurping Governour and I cannot expect with comfort a Reward from God for casting away my own Life and endangering the Lives of many others when a Government is duely established God approves of it as his Ordinance and the People ought by all lawful means to preserve it for the Gospel of Christ doth no more destroy the priviledges of the People than of the Prince but if the Prince would destroy the Rights of the People they may contest them for in vain are Laws made and Liberties granted if they may not be defended And this may serve to answer the Objection concerning the behaviour of the Primitive Christians who as Bishop Abbot observed when they were armed with publick Laws and Priviledges under Constantine did not submit as when they lived under Dioclesian and Licinius but fought in their own Defence and would rather kill than be killed From the Death of Nero the Christians until Constantines Reign thought it a great happiness to injoy their Religion with Persecution they served the present Emperours fought their Battles and took the Military Oaths though the Emperor made
themselves As many Voices do make a Harmony which no one could do This Argument is like that of Socrates who would perswade Alcibiades to adventure himself in the Assembly of the People saying If thou dost contemn them singly thou need'st not to fear them altogether But seeing Empire doth consist in the Subjects Concessions of Non-resistance and of their Strength and Wealth at the dispose of the Emperour these are the Seeds of Majesty which lying hid and dispersed in single persons do by a combination and agreement exert themselves and produce a Majesty I cannot conceive how a wise Christian King can delight to hear what some Flatterers may suggest That God hath transferred on him that right of Government which by the Creation was only in himself and thence infer such things as rob God of his Authority to exalt the King and would make men doubt whether God had not abdicated all his Authority and left it to Kings and Kings conceive that they may do what they please impunely But suppose a company of Banditti grow so numerous as to set up an Emperour of their own and depose their lawful Prince doth God transfer the Majesty of this on that other And the most of Kings owe their rise to Conquests And it is not impossible but that the Father of a Family may have so numerous an Off-spring that they may constitute their common Father to be their King Doth this act transfer such a Majesty on him or if be appoint a Successour or the several Families set up another than such a one as was appointed by him perhaps a younger Brother or a Servant which is not against any Law of Nature doth God bestow such a Majesty on the Successour This is such a Metempsychosis of Majesty as no wise man will desire a farther disproof of seeing that whensoever a Kingdom doth become void it is left to the People to confer the Government by their consent and submission to his Successour So that this Author had no such notion of a Divine Majesty residing in the person of a King as imprinted an indelible Character on him which could not by any Vice or Miscariage of his own be obliterated Such Polititians as write of the Majesty of Governours do distinguish it into real and personal and affirm the real Majesty to be in the People who had the power to constitute what form of Government they pleased whether Monarchy or any other and in case the Governours in the Form constituted do fail of Heirs or Successours the restoring of the Government revolves on the Community What is held on Condition may be forfeited and on the Forfeiture returns to them that gave it Those Soveraigns that are limited by Law and have not the whole Legislative Power but are bound by Oaths to govern according to Law may forfeit Tyranni in Exertitio do decidere Jure suo Hereditario And if a King of England who hath Regnum Pactionatum makes himself an Absolute Prince he makes himself no King of England because he alters the Species of Government Puffendorph de Jure Naturae c. p. 1008. But this Sanctity none but such as are Absolute Kings do enjoy not such as are under the Power of the People nor such as desert the Government or abdicate the Kingdom against whom when they act things very injurious whatever is lawful against a private person is lawful against them As also if a King that is constituted by his People would alienate his Kingdom or alter the Form of Government it is evident that he not only cannot do it but if he continue to effect it by force the People may resist him by force Another difficult question is what is and what is not lawful in case of an unlawful Invasion Here observe that the Invasion by the Prince of Orange was not as to him unlawful and therefore much more may be due to him than to unlawful Invadors What obligation may the commands of such have being in possession of the Kingdom because force may compel a necessity of external Obedience but not of such an obligation of Conscience that if the Subject obey not he shall be guilty of Sin in this Case to avoid a greater evil a man may be by force constrained to do what else he would abhor which if we can by any means we ought to avoid But what if the Invador having by force and evil arts got the possession yet pretends he hath a right to it and behaves himself as a good Prince in this case it seems very probable that he who is thus in possession ought to be accounted a lawful Prince as long as there is no other that can challenge a better right for this is agreeable to reason Where the power of the Possessour doth prevail and he behaves himself as a good Prince every man should rather regard the publick Welfare rather than expose it to perpetual Troubles and Revolutions for the sake of an uncertain Governour therefore when the People give consent to such an Invader at least tacitly they are really bound to yeild them Obedience for thus it is known the first Caesars obtained the Empire yet St. Paul Rom. 13. attributes a lawful Authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them and that we ought to obey them for Conscience sake And our Saviour commands us to give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar 's when none else could claim a better right And the Senate and People of Rome had deserted their ancient right for fear and want of strength than as allowing that Dominion To which purpose was that Statute of Henry the 7th which provided that none that obeyed the King de facto in being should be for that cause molested or troubled by any process of Law or Act of Parliament And that of Nicetas Coniates is to the same purpose That neither the Emperour that deserts is to be sought nor he which is present to be expelled even as in an Hereditary Kingdom where there are two or more Competitors while the Contest depends and is not determined by Treaty or Arms it is most safe to obey him that is in possession To this also agrees that Defence of Cassius that sided with Niger against Severus as Zephiline Epit. Dionis and Zonarus Tom. 2. relate it I neither knew you nor Niger but being found in those parts did not oppose you but Julian and seeing I endeavoured the same thing as you did I have not offended you no not in this that I did not afterward come over to you for neither would you have any of your Friends to go over to him But what is to be done when any one usurps the right of a lawful Prince that is expelled What shall a good Subject do as long as the lawful Prince is in being to whom he seems to owe Obedience In this case it is determinable that matters may be reduced to such a pass that it may not only be lawful but a duty to
prevent that the fault is his own The Murder of Edw. 2. and Rich. 2. was done by private Assassines disown'd by Parliament and punished or if that Age exceeded the limits of Self-defence it will not prejudice such as defend themselves with moderation And in vain are Rights granted and purchased if they may not by any means be defended As to the instance of Marriage the Indissolubility of that no way infers the Indissolubility of the relation between King and people for first Marriage itself in some cases admits a Divorce as in case of Adultery Impotency a vinculo and in cases of Cruelty a mensa toro and in case of Desertion after certain time the Law allows another Marriage 2. The Indissolubility of Marriage springs not from its being a Contract but from a positive Law of God super-added So that unless you can shew the like positive Precept for the Indissolubility of the relation between King and people the argument holds not 3. There ariseth another difference from the nature of the thing a Nation cannot want a present Governour so that if the King will not attend the Government there is an absolute necessity of seeking another which is not so in the case of Marriage for a deserted Woman is not so suddenly destroyed as a deserted Kingdom will be As to the Argument from our own and other Writers concerning Non-resistance c. I answer as formerly That general Rules reach not the particular cases which could not be foreseen or provided against And 2. It may be said without offence that good Divines are not alway good Lawyers and the Law is the measure of our Obedience as appears by the Authors of the Erudition and Bishop Bancroft the former makes the King's Proclamations as binding as a Law the later told King James in the presence of Cooke and other Lawyers that the King might call any Cause and judge it personally in his Chamber And there have been as eminent men in the Church of a contrary opinion Bishop Jewel Bilson Abbot and the Convocation in Q. Elizabeth's reign who contributed to the War which she undertook in behalf of the Hollanders which have been often quoted in the present Case and do all approve of a Defensive War in case of imminent Danger and Destruction contrary to the established Laws As to Dr. Sanderson's Judgment approved by the University i. e. That the Right of Subjection springs from the Right of Protection and the King's neglect of his Office doth not free the Peoples Consciences from the Bonds of Allegiance Ans 1. That besides the Right of Protection an actual Administration of Government is absolutely necessary to prevent Confusion and Anarchy 2. A neglect to perform Duty amounts not to the case in hand viz. visible Attempts to ruine and destroy the people which he should preserve wherein the King doth not abuse his power but acts beyond and without his lawful power 3. The people defending themselves in cases of extream necessity differs from the discharging of them from their Allegiance which the Doctor urgeth yet the discharge of them from their Allegiance may follow if the King will leave them to a state of Nature and Confusion or subject them to such Enemies as seek to destroy them Object 5. The King never dyes therefore when the Right passeth from the King it was immediately to be devolved on the Princess of Orange Ans 1. The descent of the Crown is limitable by the Supreme Authority of the Kingdom as appears first by practice frequently in King Henry the 8th's days and in the Marriage of Q. Mary with King Philip of Spain and in the crowning of Henry the 7th 2. It consists with reason the Right of Succession being but a Humane Constitution is alterable by a Humane Constitution If the Order of Succession had been a Divine Right it must have been so in all Nations and unalterable Nil magis naturale quam quo modo aliquid constituitur eodem dissoluitur And it appears 3. By the Act of Parliament 13 Eliz and whereas the Recognition of King James is pleaded as a bar to that Act. Ans Doth the Recognition say that henceforth the Succession should be as the Laws of Medes and Persians unalterable No they had another intent viz. To silence the Disputes that had been concerning King James his Title upon a Statute enabling Henry the 8th to settle the Succession which Settlement for not observing the forms prescribed by that Statute became void and so there was some cause for making the Recognition And whereas it 's said that the Act 13 Eliz. was made to serve a present turn viz. to secure Q. Elizabeth against the pretences of the Queen of Scots it is clear that it respects the future Succession by making the penalty of a Praemunire the Sanction of that Law for future Ages As for the Maxim viz. That a contrary declaration of the will of the Lawgiver doth abrogate the former Ans Where is the Contrariety The recognizing K. James his Title which had fallen under disputes is not contrary to that Act and besides it is averred that an Act of Parliament cannot be repealed but by express mention of it and as for the omission of it in the late Statute-Books for it still stands in the ancient Books this was rather done to serve a turn than the Act of Q. Elizabeth Anno 13 as is pretended 2ly The present Settlement is made by the Supreme Authority of the Nation for there is the consent of the right Heir and the People fully represented which are essentially the Supreme Authority the calling by Writs being only a formality and forms cease in cases of necessity because forms were introduc'd for common cases to obviate frauds c. But in cases of necessity and where no fraud is used the forms are not necessary 2. In cases of doubtful Succession the extinction of the Royal Line or Lunacy or as the case of restoring K. Charles the Second it is impossible to use all the Solemnities and yet a just Settlement may be made without them Object 6. The next Doubt is concerning the New Oath whether it be assertory or only promissory Ans First it is apparent that this New Oath leaves out the assertory part in the Oath of Supremacy and the alteration in so considerable a part implies an alteration in the matter of the Oath as to that particular 2ly The Law doth not bind the Vulgar to inquire into the Titles of Kings nor indeed are they capable to judge of Titles for we must swear in Judgment and if it be objected that the Law binds us to assert the rightfulness of the King's Title in the Oath of Supremacy that was only in opposition to the Pope's pretences and usurpations which are notoriously apparent therefore we have no reason to presume that the Legislators intended to bind us by this New Oath to assert the legality of the Title of the Governour The ancient Oaths of
to their Power and beyond it have endeavoured to depose any Prince whom they judge Heretical the not owning of the Pope's Supremacy is thought a sufficient cause for excommunicating first and then deposing such a Prince and incouraging the People to withdraw their Allegiance and take Arms against them witness the Bull of Pope Pius against Queen Eliz. and the approbation of that hellish Powder Plot against King James for the contrivance whereof Garnet was numbred among their Saints at Rome and the deposing of Kings and Emperors of the Romish Communion hath been often practised by the Pope in Germany France and other Countries on frivolous pretences as the History of former and later times doth abundantly manifest And our own Chronicles shew what was practised by the English Nation when it was wholly at the devotion of the Pope in deposing one King and choosing another And God forbid that any Protestant Nation should be guilty of such Principles or Practices as have been received and allowed of by the Romanists Our case is vastly different as is evident by the Declaration of the Lords and Commons the many Grievances therein mentioned and the occasion of a just War given to the present King reduced the late King who had wholly destroyed the Foundation and Species of the Government to desert the Nation and to fly to France for refuge leaving his People in Confusion and made it necessary for them to do what they have done to prevent their utter destruction by those Flames which he having kindled fled from them for his own security Nor can any Protestant Nation be scandalized at our Transactions they having done the same thing on a like occasion Thus the Swedes excluded Sigismond the Third and his Heirs for altering the established Religion by introducing Popery and sending his Son to be educated a Papist for violating his Oath altering the Laws raising Souldiers and exacting Money contrary to Law causing a Nobleman to be assassinated for diswading him from his illegal Practices punishing such as would not receive the Romish Religion and deserting his Country without consent of his People for which causes he was adjudged to have Abdicated his Kingdom and the Nation chose Charles Duke of Sudermannia to succeed him Christiern the Second King of Denmark was so dealt with by his People and what the Hollanders did against the King of Spain and the Scot against Queen Mary is generally known and neither of these can be scandalized at us who have acted more innocently than the best of them Object From the Act of 13 of Q. Eliz. which makes it high Treason during her Reign and forfeiture of Goods ever after in any wise to hold or affirm that an Act of Parliament is not of sufficient Force and Validity to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm and the descent limitation and inheritance thereof It is objected that this Act concerns not the present case seeing what is to be done for the descent and limitation of the Crown is to be done by an Act of Parliament but a Convention is no Parliament and that Act was made only to serve the present Interest of the Queen against the Claims of the Queen of Scots Answ That in the circumstances wherein we were left there was this Remedy left us and no other the late King having immediately before his departure destroyed the Writs for calling a Parliament though he had prepared the Elections for such a one as might serve his purpose And an extraordinary Distemper requires unusual Applications yet this was the most usual and proper means for what could heal our Distractions but an unanimous agreement of the People in choosing a Convention when a Parliament could not be had And who were more able or likely to consult for the common welfare than the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Representatives of the People duly Elected with whom the King having left them in Person left his Authority with them and they became as August an Assembly as ever any Senate of the Ancient Romans when the Empire became void who had the Power to create an Emperor which also had been often practised by the Ancient Britains Nor was it fit that the Nation should continue without a King least every Man should have done what seemed good in his own Eyes as when there was no King in Israel And though a Convention have not the formality of a Parliament yet that being not to be had it hath a greater Power than a Parliament because they act not as Subjects but a free People who may choose their King and make such Laws for Government as shall not be in the Power of the King and Parliament to dissolve without the Dissolution of the Government itself as when the Foundations are destroyed the Fabrick must fall nor was there any one to invalidate the Acts of a free Convention as the King in Parliament might do by his Negative Voice 2. And whereas it is objected that the Act of 13 Eliz. respected only the Title of that Queen and was made to serve the present turn this is contrary to the express Letter of the Act which provides that ever after it should be punishable with forfeiture of Goods in any wise to hold or affirm that an Act of Parliament was not of sufficient force c. So that this Act still continues in force as the reason of it doth viz. to prevent the dangerous disputes concerning the Succession Object But the Convention ought to have set the Crown on the right Heir as the most likely means to prevent all Disputes Answ Quod fieri non debuit factum valet That which ought not to be done in more peaceable times may be warrantably done in case of imminent danger and Necessitas cogit defendit The Affairs of the Nation were involved in so many Intricacies by reason of a Confederacy of the Popish Princes against the Protestants throughout all Europe and the delivering up of Ireland into the Possession of the Papists who also had the Command of the strength of England by Sea and Land that the Courage and Conduct of a Woman though never so well qualified could not be thought competent to wrestle with so many and great difficulties and who more fit to unite so Noble but distorted a Member as the Kingdom of England to the Body of the Protestants than he who by mutual Consent of the Princes of that perswasion was chosen to be their Head who also being of the Bloud Royal and having married the right Heir was by her consent and by the consent of the Princess Anne as well as by the unanimous consent of the Nation chosen to stand as a Skreen between them and the Fury of the French King to defend their Title to the Crown which he had so successfully recovered from a lost condition Or who so fit to wear the Crown as he that won it for himself and the Right Heirs when otherwise they might have