of the Supreme Authority in this Kingdom From these and other such easie Observations any impartial unprejudiced person will certainly conclude that our English Government according to its Essential Constitution is a mixture of Three Forms of Government for he observes a Monarchy in the King an Aristocracy in the Peers and a Democracy in the Commons all which share it that Part of the Sovereignty which consists in making Laws And though our Government be called a Monarchy because That Kind is predominant in the Constitution according to the known Rule That the Denomination is to be taken from the Excelling Part the King having not only a share in the Nomothetick Power but also the whole Executive Power committed to Him yet we cannot but conclude from the foregoing Observations That our Monarchy is not Absolute and Unlimited that the Law is the stated Rule and Measure of our Government and that the Law cannot be made altered or annulled by the sole Pleasure of the King but as it is the first determinate Rule by which the King is to Govern and the People to Obey so it is to be made or chang'd only by the Consent of Both in a Parliament I might confirm all this by transcribing out of Books several Testimonies which occur in the Declarations of Parliaments in the Writings of Judges and others Learned in the Law but as these would make a Letter too tedious so they are unnecessary to an unprejudic'd Considerer and by others would be suspected of partiality to the People of whom they are a part I shall therefore only add the Testimony of King Charles the I. who of all men had most reason to study understand and assert the Rights of the English Monarchy He freely declares in his Answer to the Nineteen Propositions p. 96. That there being Three Kinds of Government among Men. Absolute Monarchy Arislocracy and Democracy and all these having their particular Conveniences and Inconveniences the Experience and Wisdom of our Ancestors hath so moulded This out of a mixture of These as to give to this Kingdom as far as Human Prudence can provide the Conveniences of all Three without the Inconveniences of any One. He also in the same Answer affirms That in this Kingdom the Laws are jointly made by a King by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons He likewise affirms in his Declaration from Newmarket That the Law is the Measure of his Power And in another Declaration to the Ministers and Freeholders of the County of York he acknowledgeth That his Prerogatives are built upon the Law of the Land. From these and other such Passages which frequently occur in the Writings of the King who so earnestly disputed for the Rights of the Crown we may be abundantly convinc'd that the English Monarchy is not unmixt or unlimited and cannot therefore enough admire the lewd presumption of others who have dar'd to attempt a change in our English Government who prefer the extremes of Tyranny and Slavery to the just temperament of our English Constitution who have labour'd to tempt our Kings into an affectation of absolute and arbitrary Power and have miserably overlay'd the Consciences of their Fellow-subjects with a boundless unlimited dread of a boundless unlimited Power 3. There are also great mistakes about the measures of our Obedience and Submission which are necessary to be removed before our Consciences can make a free and impartial determination of the Case before us We have been told it often and with great earnestness that we are bound in Conscience to yield an active Obedience to the King in all cases not countermanded by God and to resist him in no case whatsoever If indeed the two foregoing Errors had stood the proof this would have follow'd by necessary consequence for if a Monarch be jure Divino he must be absolute and if he be so there is no case not excepted by God in which we must not obey him and none at all in which we may resist him but then we may make this advantage from the connexion which these Errors have one to another That if one of them be refuted the rest much necessarily fall with it and if according to the English Principles premis'd our Government be founded on the Constitutions of this Country and according to those Constitutions be mixt and limited then there may be some cases in which it may be lawful for us not to obey the King and not unlawful to resist him For tho it may be true that we are bound to obey actively whatever is commanded by the Legislative Power of the Kingdom and is not repugnant to any Law of God yet we cannot assert so much with respect to the King only because he having not the whole Legislative Power an Act of his private Will is destitute of that Authority which can derive an obligation upon Conscience altho therefore a King may require things not inconsistent with the Law of God yet if they are beyond that Authority which the Constitutions of England have assign'd to him his Subjects are not bound in conscience to obey those Commands and tho in some cases they may comply by a voluntary Concession yet they are oblig'd to condemn and withstand such proceedings if they increase so far as to threaten a fatal subversion of the Government But how can we defend our selves against any exorbitant Acts of the King 's private Will if disarm'd and fetter'd by the Doctrines of passive Obedience and Nonresistance what may not a King do and a People suffer if no defence may be us'd I do not here forget to consider what submission God hath requir'd to that Supreme Authority which he hath instituted or what honour and reverence we are to pay to those Governors who sustain and administer it nor how impatient men ordinarily are of the yoak of Government and how apt to inlarge their liberty into licentiousness nor how pernicious disorder and confusion must needs be to any Society and therefore I use the utmost Caution I can to steer aright amidst the Rocks on the one hand and the Sands on the other that I may not make shipwrack of a good Conscience I therefore premise and sincerely acknowledg as I have learn'd from St. Paul that Every soul must be subject to the Supreme Authority which God hath instituted and that if he resist he is worthy of condemnation and according to S. Jude that we must not despise dominions or speak evil of dignities and that those untameable Spirits which are impatient of Government are like wild Beasts made to be destroyed I have also learn'd from S. Peter to submit to every ordinance of men for the Lord's sake whether to the King as supreme or to Governors sent by him so as not to disobey or resist them in the use of that Authority which the Constitutions of the Kingdom have assigned to them I have from the same Apostle learned farther to be subject with all fear not
he would be an absolute Monarch which is before disprov'd or else it must be a conditional Right respecting the Office he is to discharge and then the Right in Equity must cease upon the non-performance of the condition Supposing also that a Person 's Right to the Re al Estate be founded on the Civil Constitutions of our Government if he will set himself to subvert those Constitutions he cannot thereby but Vndermine and Destroy his own Right which was superstructed on them And if he obstinately refuse to discharge the Regal Office according to the proper fixt rule of the Law though he still usurp the title of King yet he is become quite another thing such as our English Constitutions assign no Authority to and to which we are not supposed to owe any Allegiance and which we cannot recognize without becoming Accessaries to the most illegal practices and deriving on our selves the heinous guilt of contributing to the ruine of the Government and our Selves And as such a determination of the Case is most consonant to reason so it is most agreeable to the antient principles and practices of England By a Law made in King Edward the Confessor's time it is declared Quod nisi fecerit nec nomen Regis in eo constabit Lamb. de priscis Atglorum legibus p. 142. That if a King doth not perform his Office he shall not retain so much as the name of a King. We read also that * In principio secundi Anni Regni sui cum incorrigibil s superbiâ—e â—â—quitiae esset congregati sunt Proceres Populus totius Regni eun proâ—ida deliberatione à Regno unanimi consensu omnium expellebant Collect. p. 769. c. Sigebert King of the West-Saxons being incorrigibly Proud and Wicked he was in the beginning of the second year of his Reign by the Nobles and the People of the whole Kingdom assembled together upon mature deliâ—eration and by unanimous consent of them all driven out of his Kingdom Thus also King John having broken his Coronation-Oath and endeavour'd by many ways to inslave both the Church and the Realm after many applications and a defensive War waged by the Barons against him it was at last agreed that if he did again return to his former wicked Courses Inter caetera de ejus expresso consensu ita convenit ut si idem Johannes ad flagitia prima rediret ipsi Barones ab ejus fidelitate recederent nunquam ad eum postmodum reversuri Cum autem ille fecit novissima sua pejora prioribus illi de communi Regni Consilio approbations ipsum Regno indignum judicarunt Collect. 1868. c. Chron. W. Thorn. the Barons should be for ever releas'd from all Allegiance to him and when he afterward relaps'd into the same courses they in a general Assembly with the approbation of all the Realm adjudg'd him unworthy to be King. We find also that King Edward the Second for following Evil Counsel and refusing to hearken to good counsel for his pride arrogance for breaking his Coronation Oath De Consilio assensu omnium Praeâ—â—torum Baronum totius Comnunitatis Regui amotus est à Recimiâ—e Regni Apolog. Adami de Orleton Collect. p. 2765. for wasting his Kingdom and being found incorrigible and past all hopes of amendment was by advice and assent of all the Prelates Earles and Barons and of the whole communitie of the Kingdom depos'd from the Government Habent â—r antiquo Statuto de facto non longe retroaciis temporibus experienter quod dolendum est habito Si Rex ex maligno consilio quocunquae vel inepta contamacia aut contemptu seu proterva Voluntate singulari aut quovismodo irregulari fe alienaverit à à populo suo nec voluerit per jura Regni Statuta ac landabiles Ordinationes cum salubri consilio Dominorum Procerum Regni gubernari regulari sed capitose in suis insanis consiliis propriam Voluntatem suam singularem proterve exercere extunc licitum est iis cum communi assensu consensu Populi Regni ipsum Regem de â—egali solio abrogare propinquiorum aliquem de stirpe Regia loco ejus in Regni solio sablimare H. Knighton Collect. 2681. I shall add only one instance more of King Richard the Second to whom his Parliament sent Messengers to declare to him among other things that they find in an antient Statute and it hath been done in fact not long ago that if the King through any evil counsel or foolish contumacy or out of Scorn of some petulant wilfulness or any other irregular way shall alienate himself from his people and shall refuse to be govern'd and guided by the Laws of the Realm and the Statutes and laudable Ordinances thereof together with the wholsome advice of the Lords and great Men of his Realm but persisting headstrong in his own mad counsels shall petulantly prosecute his own private humour that then it shall be lawfull for them with the common assent and consent of the people of the Realm to depose that same King from his Regal Throne and to set up some other of Royal Family in his place The present Case stated These Testimonies which I met with in a late Pamphlet and which I am assur'd from an able hand to be faithfully recited and of an unsuspected credit I have abridg'd and transâ—rib'd to confirm that truth on which the Argument is built that according to our English Constitutions a person may forfeit his Regal Rights and cease de jure to be King and that according to the antient Statutes and irreprovable Vsages of this Country the Nobles and Commons of England may remove such a person from the Government when necessary to prevent a general ruine otherwise inevitable Now that the late King had brought matters to so great an extremity as is in the Argument suppos'd is evident from many instances so recent and notorious that it was lately acknowledg'd by all of us in the lowdest Complaints We saw him attempting to subvert our Parliaments by cortupting their Elections with the meanest arts and using his power to pervert or frustrate their counsels We heard those high strains in which he claim'd an absolute and arbitrary Power our Laws were trampled on in illegal dispensations and the most partial Execution Some were disseised of their Freehold without a trial and levies of Mony were made without and against Law Our Religion and Church which are the best of all those interests which are secured to us by a legal Establishment were so boldly threatned and attacked that we seemed to enjoy them but precariously and to be in danger of seeing them speedily ravish'd from us And when we consider that the late King was instigated and conducted in these exorbitant courses by the Jesuits and the French King who have long since convinced the World that they dare to perpetrate any
all Civil Cases decided by their proper Judges my Conscience ought to acquiesce and if I may be thereby misled into any Error it will be without Guilt before God. And I am also inform'd that by a Statute made 11 Hen. 7. we are legally indemnified in paying our Allegiance to the King in being it we continue faithful therein however infirm his Title may afterwards appear and therefore I cannot see what Danger can affright us from our Allegiance or with what Safety we can refuse it Thirdly I have now given you my Resolution of the chief Difficulties in the Case propounded and the Reasons on which it is built and I can think of nothing more requisite to your Satisfaction except to shew how this Resolution doth consist with all the Obligations which may affect a good Conscience in the present Case which are I suppose chiefly these three viz. the Prescriptions of that Holy Religion we profess the Solemn Oaths we have taken or the Declaration we have subscribed and the avowed Principles and Doctrines of this Church in whose Communion we live 1. As to the first The Rule of our Religion being the Holy Scriptures nothing can be inconsistent with one which is not repugnant to the other and according to the best of my Understanding the principles I have proceeded upon do not disagree with any Sacred Text rightly interpreted The first King of Israel we meet with in the Old Testament is Saul who was advanc'd to the Throne as well by God's Institution as the Peoples Election and who was according to the Peoples desire an absolute Monarch like the other Kings in those Eastern Countries But this thanks be to God is not our Case who live under a mixt Government and a Monarchy limited by the fundamental Constitutions of this Realm And yet I cannot but observe how David who is usually prescribed as an eminent Pattern of Loyalty thought it lawful to raise a band of Souldiers for a defensive Resistance against the unjust Persecutions of Saul tho an absolute Prince and surely we may conclude a minori ad majus that such a defensive Resistance cannot be less lawful when apparently necessary to preserve a whole People from imminent Ruine I remember our Lord's determination that his Kingdom is not of this World and as I think We rightly infer from thence that there is no secular Force belonging to his Kingdom for inlarging it's Borders or securing its Intereslts so I can see nothing in these words to hinder but that when any of the Kingdoms of this World is become the Kingdom of Christ by incorporating his Religion among its civil Constitutions then we may use any Expedients for the defence of our Religion which we might use in defending any other Privilodges of our Civil Establishment Our Lord hath taught us to render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar 's and his Apostle that we must render to all Men their Dues Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom Fear to whom Fear and Honour to whom Honour but they have lest us to the Constitutions of our Country to determine what the things of Cesar are what Custom and Tribute is due and when to be paid I have already had occasion to consider the Doctrine of St. Paul and St. Peter concerning our duty of Submission to the Supreme Authority and to those who administer it And upon the general review of the whole he seems to me to do the part of a good Christian as well as of a good Englishman who hath on his Mind an awful regard for the Supreme Authority which is op divine Institution who will not refuse an Active Obedience to the Laws of our Legislators if consistent with the Laws of God who can readily submit to the King and to those that are commission'd by him in the Execution of those Laws who pays the highest Civil Honour to the King as the Supreme Magistrate of the Kingdom who makes the most candid and honourable Constructions he can of all his Princes Actions who can quietly submit to any acts of Government tho they seem very unjust and grievous to his private Interestes and who never thinks a defensive Resistance lawful but when apparently necessary to save a Kingdom from utter Ruin. He that can do all this is a good Proficient in his Religion for he will find it not very easy to Flesh and Blood to go so far But they who are not content with any Notion of Religion which will not expose to ruin the Kingdom that embraceth it do but traduces our holy Religion and expose it to the Contempt and Hatred of the World. 2. Let us next consider how the Resolution I have given will consist with the Oaths we have taken and the Declaration we have Subscribed You will here give me leave to premise that the Forms we have sworn or subscrib'd are not to be taken carelesly according to the meer sound of words but are to be understood according to the Sense which they plainly express and which appears to be intended by our Superiors in impasing them And if we consider our Oaths and Declaration according to this Rule we shall discover that they have brought upon us no new degree of Allegiance or Subjection which was not always due according to the ancient Fundamental Constitutions of this Kingdom that we have hereby lost none of our English Rights and Liberties nor the King inlarg'd his Prerogative beyond what it always was and ought to be and therefore if according to the ancient Constitutions of this Kingdom the Government is mixt and the Monarchy limited so it continues If the Freemen of England were before these Oaths bound to no Active or Passive Obedience beyond what the Law of the Land prescribes they arc bound to no more since and if it was formerly lawful for the People of England in an extreme necessity to remove a King whose Government was became inconsistent with the Publick-Weal and to set up another by whom the publick Interest may be secur'd it is as lawful still notwithstanding these Oaths we have taken or the Declaration we have subscribed And to evince this more satisfactorily let us descend to Particulars 1. The Oath of Supremacy prescribed 1 Eliz. doth plainly appear from the Preamble and Body of the Act and from all the parts of the Oath it self to be intended only for asserting to the Queen a Supremacy over Ecclesiastical Persons and in Ecclesiastical Causes in opposition to the pretentions of the Pope and Court of Rome When therefore it speaks of bearing Faith and true Allegiance to the Queen and her Heirs and lawful Sucessors it is in oppolition to all Foreign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and Authorities and when it speaks of our assisting and defending her Jurisdiction Preheminencies and Authorities it is only of such as have been granted or belonging or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And that no new Power was hereby given to