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
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
the Parliament the King of France would assist him with his Power and Purse to have such a new one as would be for their purpose which was the subduing of a pestelent Heresie that had domineer'd over a great part of the Northern World a long time of which there were never such hopes of success since the death of Queen Mary God having given us a Prince who is become I may say to a Miracle zealous of being the Author and Instrument of so glorious a Work. See the Collection of Letters p. 118. So that by what was designed by the Duke and French King and hath since been jointly and vigorously acted we have full assurance of a League with France for our utter ruin and they are Fools or Mad-men that having such clear light and experience to guide them will suffer themselves to be blindfolded a second time and be led to destruction So that what Joab said to David is much more applicable in our Case Thou lovedst thine enemies and hatedst thy friends for thou hast declared this day that thou regardest neither the Prince nor his Servants for this day I perceive that if the King had prevailed and all they had died then it had pleased thee well So fond was David of his Absolom 2 Sam. 19.6 It is not necessary that abdication of an Office should alway be an act of the will. Lentulus is said to abdicate the Consulship because he could hold it no longer having been one of the Conspirators with Gatiline And Silla abdicated the dictatorship thinking to find a better opportunity be to revenged on his enemies And Dioclesian left the Empire because he could not effect his will against the Christians These were mixt actions partly through constraint and partly voluntary yet were accounted abdications And our King had involved us in so many miseries that nothing but his desertion of us or our opposing of him could deliver us God prevented the latter and the King granted the former Pufendorf de interregno p. 272. determines that if a King abdicates the peace of his Kingdom and be of an hostile mind or departs from the Rules of governing which he expresseth thus Modum habendi potestatem immutare that then the ground of the Subjects obedience is made void And in the Digests l. 49. Tital 15. de Capt. we have this Maxim Qui fuget ad eos cum quibus nulla est amicitia à fide suscepta transfugit and that the late King hath so done is an evident truth And it is as true that to desert a Government rather than to keep it on just and legal terms is to abdicate it for an abdication may be as expresly signified by real deeds as by any form of words whatsoever As to the League with France for making King James as Absolute as King Lewis and inable him notwithstanding his Oaths and Publick Declarations to the contrary to extirpate the Protestant Religion there wants not sufficient evidence of the endeavours of the Court of France for many years together by correspondence with the late K. while he was Duke of York and assum'd on him the chief administration of Publick Affairs Nor of a too fond if not a willing compliance of Charles the Second to that end Some wise men have thought that the great Revenues granted to the Crown the declaring the Militia to be wholly in the King the binding up not only the Subjects but the Parliament by Oaths and Declarations not to resist the King or those that were commissioned by him on any pretence or cause whatsoever by vertue whereof an hundred Irish or French might have come into the House of Parliament and out all their Throats and they not have dared to draw a Sword in their own defence all which things were against or as far besides the Laws of the Land as of Reason and Common Prudence for doubtless had it been proposed whether those Laws might have been so interpreted they would speedily have made an alteration in them All these I say have been observed by wise men to have been the designs of such as designed to introduce an Arbitrary Government and facilitate the bringing in of Popery though they that acted did not intend to serve the ends either of France or the Crown of England so far On this Errand was the Dutchess of Orleance some years since sent into England to assure Charles the Second of the Assistance of the King of France in reducing the Parliament to the King's pleasure to this end were Tolerations and Indulgences granted French Whores admitted with great power and pomp and all things so well prepared though more slowly and secretly in the Reign of Charles the Second that there wanted nothing but James the Second's ascending the Throne to give a Consummatum est to that design of bringing in both Popery and Slavery upon us And that being effected too soon alas for England then notwithstanding the Coronation-Oath the many Publick Protestations to maintain the Church of England and the Protestant Religion and of whose Loyalty he was well satisfied and that he never desired to be more great and happy than he might be by the established Laws yet all these were forgotten and trampled under foot Jesuits and Papists being admitted at Court and into the Privy-Council the King's Conscience submitted to their Conduct the Pope's Nuncio publickly entertained and feasted at the Guild-hall an Embassador sent to Rome Popish Bishops set up with power of Jurisdiction Protestant Bishops put into the Tower the Nobles closetted and such as would not comply to betray their Religion and Country were turn'd out of all the chief Offices by Sea and Land and others put into their room and in all places of Judicature Judges and Juries were adapted for the prosecution of that design there wanted only a complying Parliament and to that end Quo Warranto's were issued out against the Charters and alterations made in them fit for that design Addresses were procured for taking off the Test and Penal Laws i. e. for introducing of Popery by Law an Army of Irish Papists brought in and another prepared in France So that our destruction was much nearer than we believed Monsieur D'Avaux Embassador for the King of France in Holland in his Memorial told the Estates that the Friendship and Alliance between his Master and the King of England did oblige him to assist the King of England and to look on the first act of Hostility by Sea or Land as a Rupture of Peace Coleman's Letters spake to the same effect and the event hath demonstrated the truth of all that was thought to be but groundless fears and jealousies for on the approach of the Prince of Orange these dark mists vanish'd the Nation awaked out of their deep slumber and resum'd their ancient valour and resolution to defend their Religion Laws and Liberties against Popery and Arbitrary Government which seized on us as an armed man. And he that doth not now
A FULL ANSWER To all the Popular Objections That have yet Appear'd For not Taking the Oath of ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR PRESENT MAJESTIES Particularly offer'd to the Consideration of all such of the DIVINES OF THE Church of ENGLAND And Others as are yet UNSATISFIED SHEWING Both from Scripture and the Laws of the Land the Reasonableness thereof and the Ruining Consequences both to the Nation and Themselves if not Complied with By a Divine of the Church of ENGLAND and Author of a late Treatise entituled A Resolution of certain Queries concerning Submission to the Present Government Licensed and Entred according to Order London Printed and are to be sold by R. Baldwin in the Old-Bailey 1689. A full ANSWER To all the Popular Objections That have yet Appear'd For not Taking the Oath of Allegiance TO THEIR Present MAJESTIES c. A REQUEST TO ALL Such as are yet Unresolved IN THE Case of Allegiance THere are few Men so ancient or wise who may not still improve their Judgments and be made sensible of their Errors and without shame do that which St. Augustin did to his great reputation make their Retractations The effects of the Prejudices and Prepossessions of the Mind are like those of the Disease of the Body called the Jaundice which represents things black or yellow according to its own distemper only that of the Mind is far more incurable than that of the Body It is with Men as with new Vessels whatever strong Liquors are first infused to them they still retain a smack and savour of them No Tyranny is with more difficulty cast off than the Prejudice and Prepossessions of such Principles by which we have been in our first Education captivated and dogmatized No less than a Miracle could divert St. Paul from that furious temper wherein he had been educated as a Pharisee To evidence the truth hereof I shall only instance in some learned and pious Men that have been educated in the Church of Rome who having been instructed from their youth that they ought to believe as the Church believes that their Church is guided by an Infallible Spirit that the Pope is Christ's Vicar and Plenipotentiary are prepared to receive and believe all the Dictates of that Church though contrary to the Scriptures to Reason and Sence with equal veneration as the written Word Hence it is that they swallow the Doctrines of the Popes Supremacy to depose one Prince and set up another as he shall see cause of his Infallibility in coining new Articles of Faith forbidding what Christ commanded and commanding what Christ forbid of Transubstantiation and Worshipping of Wafers and Images and offering more Prayers to the Virgin Mary than to God and their Saviour and some of them esteem her Milk of equal vertue with Christ's Blood and it is unaccountable how deaf they are to all those charming Arguments which from Scriture Reason and Sence have been irrefragably urged against them Now though the grandeur of that Church and the interest of some Men therein may thus captivate many yet I cannot nor can my Brethren impute this blind obedience and implicit belief of learned Men and such as are piously inclined to any thing more than to the prejudices of their Education And we cannot but think it their duty to search the Scriptures to consult their own Reason and the Arguments of such sober learned and pious Men as differ from them in such Doctrines Nor is it impossible but we who have been educated in the Church and Kingdom of England may have our Judgments captivated by some false Opinions and Principles concerning the Power of our Kings and the Allegiance of Subjects for the rectifying of which it is necessary to reflect on those times wherein we had our Education which I suppose was with many others as with my self about the Year 41 but with the most of my Brethren since that time whereof I shall give this brief account It is evident to all Men of sober principles that have had any true relation of the rise and progress of those unhappy Divisions and Wars that they were begun and continued by a factious and discontented Party under the vain pretences of the great danger that threatned our Religion and Liberties which War abating some groundless Fears and Jealousies occasioned by some unusual Acts of that best of Kings and the best are not free from all faults to which the iniquity of those times that reduced him to great exigence had necessitated him had no other cause but the ambition of some the discontent of others and the hopes of the Jesuits on one side and of other Sects on the other side to raise themselves by the ruine of the established Church to which that blessed Prince was so devoted as well as to the welfare of his Subjects both in respect to the Laws and Liberties that he sacrificed his Life for their preservation as by the event through the great mercy of God it proved to be for though that bloody War wrought great confusion and destruction both before and after the death of the Royal Martyr yet the dissention of his enemies occasioned the discovery of each others wicked designs and practices which are still in remembrance and abundantly justifie that gracious King as do also many gracious condescentions and overtures for peace against all their assaults and usurpations Wherefore when after divers confused revolutions it pleased God by a Miracle of Mercy to recal the Royal Family and to establish the King on his Throne the Church in its Rights and the People in their Liberties it is no wonder if some transports of Loyalty and Joy did carry the People to some degree of excess for the people had now before their eyes a lively Image of Charles the First in the meekness and mercifulness of Charles the Second And whereas the Parliaments under Charles the First had abridged him of a necessary Revenue that under Charles the Second granted him even above his desires and as event proved more then was consistent with the welfare of the Nation neither was the Clergy backward in their expressions of Loyalty who with Mephiboseth 2 Sam. 19.30 were content not only to part with some of their just Possessions to those that had usurped them but ready to say Yea let them take all for as much as my Lord the King is come again in peace to his own house And now it was that the Parliament prudently considering what Miseries the Nation endured by the fall of the Crown made it their chief work to re-adorn and fix that by inlarging the Revenue making new Statutes to secure the King's person against traiterous Conspiracies and requiring the people to declare that it was not lawful on any pretence whatsoever c. And divers things and persons did tempt the King to think himself an absolute Prince Finch an ancient Lawyer did attribute to the King all the Divine Perfections viz 1. That of Soveraignty All Lands being held
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
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
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
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