at Arms were not obliged to fight for the one or against the other in this Juncture their Duty was to stand still and wait for the salvation of God which they did and God wrought Deliverance for them as he did for David and they sate down peaceably every Man under his own Vine as free from sin as from danger Rumpatur quisquis rumpitur Invidia Now to remove the Prejudices which the Historian hath insinuated into the minds of some to make them of his own Opinion that such of our Clergy as have taken the late Oath are as wicked as he represents them And to state the present Case aright I shall premise these things to consideration There are Two Extream Opinions which some Men have espoused concerning Monarchy The First Sort hold I. That Monarchy is Jure Divino which would infer that all other Species of Government are unlawful II. That the Monarch hath such an indelible Character of Majesty and Soveraignty inherent in his Person as cannot be erazed or dissolved but by his Death III. That every Supreme Monarch hath an Absolute and Arbitrary Power over his Subjects independent on the People and paramount to all Laws which he hath Power to dispense with as he shall think fit and that the Laws are only Acts of Grace and Condescentions granted by the King. And consequently IV. That though at his Coronation he have Sworn to maintain such Laws yet he is not obliged by his Oath when he shall see cause to do otherwise The Second Sort would depress the Majesty of Kings too low And they hold I. That the Original of all Power is from the People and that they may resume it on Male-Administration The Papists hold That there is such a Power in the Pope who in Case of Heresie may depose one Prince and set up another in Ordine ad Spiritualia And some of the Presbyterial Perswasion affirm the same Power to be in their Synods That Democracy or the Government of the People by a Common-wealth is more eligible than that of Monarchy The Church of England walks in a middle way between these and holds That though the King be not strictly Jure Divina i e. so as to make other Species of Government unlawful yet is he the Minister of God and not of the People though the Power be conveyed Medias Populo That he is in all Causes and over all Persons both Ecclesiastical and Civil Supreme Governor That though he be Supreme yet he is not Absolute to do whatever he shall please That Kings are generally limited either by certain Laws and Agreements with their People or those Ends for which Government was appointed by God. That the Parliament of England have part of the Legislative Power without whose concurrence no Acts of the King do bind the Subject That Kings are bound by those Oaths which they have taken at their Coronation to defend the Religion Laws and Liberties of the People And that our Laws and Oaths are the Measures as well of Government to the King as of Obedience to the People That though the King may dispense with a particular Law pro hic nunc for the Publick welfare wherein Salus populi Supreme Leâ—â— yet he cannot ordinarily dispense with Fundamental Laws to alter Religion and the Species of Government and destroy the Liberties and Priviledges of the People particularly when by Law it is agreed how the Members of Parliament and Officers Militery and Civil ought to be qualified it is not in the Power of the King to dispense with unqualified Members and Officers That although no Degrees of Subjects have Power to co-erce resist or depose the King for Male-administration yet Cases may happen whereby he may exuere personam Regis cease to be King and the Obligation of his Subjects be made void As first in Case of Conquest in a just War when the Conqueror protects the People in their Laws and Liberties and is in a plenary possession especially if the conquered King flies to a professed Enemy of the Nation and seeks to subject or enslave his People to such a Forreign Power 2. In Case of Lunacy and a setled Distraction of Madness which makes him utterly unfit to Govern himself he hath only nomen fine Re no Power of Administration 3. In Case a King obstinately persists to Subvert the Species of Government to alter the Religion to subject his Dominions to the Pope or French King and for want of Power to effect it wholly deserts the Government and not only leaves his People in a state of Anarchy and confusion but he himself enters into a state of War and procures the assistance of Forreign Princes to spoil and destroy the People That no Precept of the Gospel nor any Law of God doth interfere with or annul the Constitutions of a Nation or the general Ends of Government viz. the welfare of the Community for as King James said The King is for the Commonwealth and not the Common-wealth for the King And the End is more Noble and Valuable than the Means That if any Laws be made on an emergent occasion which may prove destructive to the Fundamental Laws and the Publick Welfare such Laws are not obligatory by reason of a previous obligation for the preservation of our selves and of the Community These are the leading Rules which we of the Church of England have followed and which we hope will in the judgment of all sober Men excuse us from those black Characters of Time-Servers Apostates c. which the Historian would brand us with only for transferring our Allegiance from the late King upon whom the Jesuits had practised their Power of Transubstantiating and made him of a King to be No-King to the present King and Queen wherein only for ought I yet see the Historian differs from us for as to the Authorities and Reasons by him alledged we are very near of the same mind And because he says in the conclusion of his Preface That he should be sorry that he hath lost his Labour viz If we be not perswaded to deny and withdraw our Allegiance from King William and Queen Mary I do assure him I am as sorry that his Labour should be lost as he himself can be and to think with how much greater sorrow he may be overwhelmed if his Labour be not lost For what can follow if his Design should take the desired effect i. e. If the late King should return with full Power to execute his whole pleasure in such an arbitrary manner as he began but the total Destruction of our Religion Laws and Liberties in which Case if the Historian be yet a Protestant he must turn Apostate and declare for an arbitrary independant Power in the late King or prepare himself to suffer whatever that King and his Instruments shall think fit to inflict on him which will be no cause of Joy to him though his Labour be very successful Wherefore I desire him to consider whether
atque ipso jure sive ipso facto Rex esse desiit l. 6. c. 23. In the next Paragraph he tells us Of studying the Laws of Providence and of considering the indispensible Obligations of taking up the Cross but when Providence hath in a signal manner without any unlawful Acts of our own delivered us from the Cross a little study will inform us that we ought not to draw it down on our backs again and to murmur against our Deliverers as the Israelites did against Moses and Aaron who brought them out of the House of Bondage and their cruel Oppressors As for the Opinions of the Gnosticks and Machiavel I suppose that learned Person whom the Author names hath sufficiently condemned them and so do all those Reverend Persons whom this Author hath accused explode the wild Opinions of Hobs Milton and Cressey and have acted in a direct Opposition to them And therefore he hopes in vain That no Man can imagine he intends any disturbance by his Writing for what could be intend by charging such a number of the Church of England as Apostates from their own Principles and guilty of Perjury only for taking the Oath of Allegiance to the present King and Queen There needs a better Apology than he hath yet made for himself to clear him from that Crime whereof his Conscience doth accuse him viz. that devilish Office of Accusing his Brethren for what tho' he truly relate the Opinions of those great Men his mis-applying of them and calling them to a Recantation and intimating that they are the greatest Incendiaries from whom we may justly fear greater Judgments is as great a Reproach as the most malicious Jesuite could cast on them for though the Preaching up the necessity of Suffering and the unlawfulness of Resisting be not a Doctrine likely to disturb the present Government yet when that Doctrine is applyed to the Person of King James and because we did not for his sake that would have destroyed us resist him that came to save us and as the Jews did Crucifie our Saviour to make way for those Romanists that will destroy us and our Nation This is the sole ground of all his Clamour against us but we are not such Children as to be affrighted by such Clamours we keep steady to our Principles and yielded both Active and Passive Obedience to the late King until he made it morally impossible for us to Obey him any longer and now that God hath set over us more gentle Governours by the same Methods that from the beginning he did set Rulers over all other Nations that is Mediante Populo which I could never yet see disproved we think our selves still bound to yield them that Obedience without which our Author says no Government can subsist If we compare what this Author designs by his Collections with that which the Jesuits and other Papists have written it will evidently appear that he intends to make the late King as Absolute in all Causes and over all Persons in his Dominions as ever they intended the Pope should be i. e. to be Infallible to be the Supream Judge of all Controversies to declare what is Good and what is Evil what is Vertue and what is Vice. And as hath been observed of Finch he attributes all the Divine Perfections to the King viz. Soveraignty Omnipotence Omniscience Majesty Infinity Vbiquity Perpetuity Justice Truth and Clemency and all these to be inseparable from his Person So that he is the very Hobbs of this Age whose Principles he would have all Men to espouse as himself hath done who in his Book de Cive c. 12. § 1 2. says That the Rules of good and evil just and unjust honest and dishonest are the Civil Laws and therefore whatever the Law Commands is to be accounted good and valid and that it is a wicked speech that Kings are not to be obeyed unless they Command Just things That before Empires were established there was nothing just or unjust which are Relatives to a Command that Emperors make things just which they command to be done and unjust what they forbid that private Men who assume the cognizance of good and evil do aspire to be like Kings which cannot consist with the safety of Government These seem to be the Articles of our Author's as well as of Hobbs his Creed Now let the Author review all the Writings of those learned Men whom he hath defamed and see whether he can Collect any such Problems out of them whether they ever declared that the King of England hath as Extensive and Absolute Power as either the Turk or the Pope or that the Person of the Prince had such an indelible Character of Majesty on him as could by no means be erazed Have any of them said that he could not be conquered in a just War or that on such a Conquest we were bound to pay him our Allegiance still and by no means transfer it to any other Have they said that the King might submit his Dominions to the Pope or the French King or that in so doing his Subjects were bound to assist him even to the utter destruction of the established Religion and the Fundamental Laws and Liberties of the Nation That it was in the King's Power to alter the Succession and set up a Suppositious Child to the Exclusion of his own Children and Lawful Successors King James never declared that he would assume to himself such an excess of Power though he declared that he was an Absolute Prince and would be obeyed without a Reserve as this Author hath for him who hath exceeded in this his Design all those flattering and fulsome Addresses which any the most infatuated Fanaticks presented to him But to go on did any of the Church of England say that it was not in the Power of the King exuere Regis personam to cease to be a King and either for his Religion or some other cause betake himself to a Cloyster and live as a Recluse leaving the Administration of the Government to a Successor Or if he were a Mad-man and bent on the Ruine of his People that no Restraint ought to be laid on him In such cases you might have required a Recantation of their Errors but when they never acknowledged more Power or Authority to be his due than what the Laws gave him when they never withdrew their Obedience Active or Passive until they were left in a state of Nature and Confusion and could never expect that he would return to them again or not without a Foreign Power that would make them and their successive Generations as unhappy in respect of things Spiritual and Eternal as in things Temporal what have they done to deserve those black Characters which the Author stigmatizeth them with which they do better deserve who would give the Powers of the World a kind of Omnipotence to do all that they will and to exceed the Devil himself who hath his Bonds and
force of his Authority ceaseth also And as to the Law of Nature for Self-preservation cannot be dispensed with saith that Bishop by any Humane Power 1. Because God is the Author of it 2. Because this Law for the preservation of the Common Welfare is as necessary to the support of Societies as Nourishment is for support of their Bodies 3. Because Natural Laws are the Dictates of Natural Reason and no Man hath power to alter Reason which is an Image of the Divine Wisdom and therefore unalterable And concerning the Obligation of the King's Oath this learned Bishop gives his Opinion quite contrary to what our Historian contends for l. 3. p. 144. of his Cases he says Kings are bound by Natural Justice and Equity without Oaths to do what they swear for they are not Kings unless they Govern and they cannot expect Obedience unless they tell the Measures by which they will be obeyed which are the Laws and these are the Will of the Prince If Kings are not bound to Govern the People by Laws why are they made By what else can they be Governed by the Will of the Prince the Laws are so which are Published that wise Men may walk by them and that the Prince may not Govern as Fools and Lyons by Chance or Violence and unreasonable Passions Ea quae placuerunt servanda saith the Law De Pactis And p. 143. Whatsoever the Prince hath Sworn to to all that he is obliged not only as a single Person but as a King for though he be above the Laws yet he is not above himself nor above his Oath because he is under God and cannot dispense with his Oath and Promises in those Cases wherein he is bound Although the King be above the Laws that is in Cases extraordinary and Matters of Penalty yet is he so under all the Laws of the Kingdom to which he hath Sworn that although he cannot be punished by them yet he sins if he break them And p. 149. he says The Prerogative of Kings is by Law and Kings are so far above the Laws as the Laws themselves have given them leave And p. 143. The great Laws of the Kingdom do oblige all Princes tho' they be Supreme The Laws of the Medes and Persians were above their Princes as appears in Daniel And such are the Golden Bull of the Empire the Saler and Pragmatical Sanctions in France the Magna Charta and Petition of Right in England c. And whereas the Historian doth urge at large the Doctrine of our Church in the Articles Homilies Liturgy and Canons c. it may be observed that there is no distinction in any of those of a King de Jure and de Facto but as by that Law of 11 Henry 7. did require Allegiance to the King de Facto so did the Subjects under Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth pay their Obedience to both successively although one of those Queens was not Legitimate and if we pay our Allegiance to our present Soveraigns we do not transgress either her Doctrine or Practice unless it could be proved that we had resisted the late King And therefore our Historian reflects too severely on Dr. W who said That Passive Obedience in the narrow sence we take it in was not so much as thought on when these Homilies were Published those Homilies being aimed against the Vsurpations of the Church of Rome to which they never intended Obedience And when as our Historian observes That as well evil as good Kings do Reign by God's Ordinance and that it is a perillous thing to permit Subjects to judge which Prince is wise and godly and his Government good and which otherwise it may be supposed they intended our Obedience should be payed to the present King. But because the Laws are the Measures as well of the Princes Power as the Subjects Obedience I shall therefore act the part of an Historian so far as to give you an account of our Laws in both these Cases And I shall begin it with our Magna Charta which hath been confirmed by Parliaments in every Age since it was first made wherein the King grants That neither He nor his Heirs shall procure or do any thing whereby the Liberties therein granted shall be infringed and if any such thing be procured it shall be of no force And in the Original Grant yet preserved and in the hands of the Bishop of Salisbury it is provided That in case the King should violate any part of the Charter and refuse to rectifie what was done amiss it should be lawful for the Barons and People of England to distress him by all the ways they could think on such as the seizing his Castles Lands and Possessions c. Bracton hath been often quoted who says l. 1. c. 17. The King hath for his Superiors God and the Law by which he is made King as also his Court the Earls and Barons who when they see him exorbitant may restrain him And l. 1. c. 2. The Laws of England being approved and confirmed by the King's Oath cannot be altered And c. 17. Let Kings therefore temper their Power by the Law which is the Bridle of Power And c. 8. The King in receiving Judgment may be equalled with the meanest Subject L. 2. c. 24. The Crown of the King is to do Justice and Judgment and to preserve Peace without which he cannot subsist i. e. As in the Laws of King Edward c. 17. The King is constituted for the Liberty of the People which if he do not Nee nomen Regis in eo constabit And that by the word Heir all Successors are meant though not expressed in words Fortescue fol. 27. says From that Power which flows from the People it is not lawful for him to Lord it over them by any other Power that is a Political not a Regal Power And fol. 32. The King is set up for the Safeguard of the Laws of his People The Sword called Curtein was given to the Counts Palatine of Chester to this end Vt Regem si aberret habeat potestatem coercendi saith Matth. Paris p. 563. The Parliament in Richard the Second's Case did refer to an Ancient Statute whereby it was provided That if the King through a foolish obstinacy and contempt of his People or any other irregular way should alienate himself from his People and would not Govern by the Laws of his Kingdom made by the Lords of his Kingdom but should exercise his own Will from thenceforth it was lawful for them with the consent of the People to depose him from the Crown This Law it seems was embezelled by that King for in the Twenty Fourth Article against him it was alledged That he had caused the Records and Rolls concerning the State of the Government to be crazed and imbezelled to the great detriment of the People The Author of the Mirrour says p. 8. speaking of the Rise of the English Monarchy That when Forty Princes chose