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
bring back James the Second which is by the Law of the Land made Treason against the present King and Queen and if the Historian think himself so bound I suppose he is as faulty in not endeavouring the Restoration of the one as he hath been too Industrious to exclude the other besides those Oaths bound us not only to the defence of the King as if the Government were excluded but expresly to withstand all such as should offer any violence to any of His Majesty's Subjects much more to the whole frame of our Government which too many without any Lawful Commission did with great violence and injustice and we were sworn to defend to our power all Jurisdictions Priviledges c. granted or belonging to the King's Highness not such as were neither granted or belonging as the Claim and Exercise of an Arbitrary Power and dispensing with Fundamental Laws and altering the established Religion as many other actions of the late King were and lastly I suppose that by the plain letter of the Oath of Allegiance which says That neither the Pope of himself nor by any other means with any other hath power to annoy the King's Countries License any to bear Arms raise Tumults or offer any violence or hurt to His Majesty's State or Government or any of his Subjects All which things the Pope by any means or in conjunction with any other the King himself not being excepted hath no power to do by this Oath but having so done the Oath binds the Subjects rather to resist than to assist and doth certainly permit the Subjects if not oblige them to defend themselves against all Opposers In a promissory Oath the matter whereof doth respect things future that matter is subject to change and uncertainty and so is the Obligation also which ceaseth with the matter for then it may not be in the power of the person to perform what he swore to and really intended rebus sic stantibus and no Man is bound to do an impossible thing nor is any Oath so absolute when it is made that it may not admit of some tacite Conditions So Bishop Sanderson in his Praelect 7. § 7. There is Solutio vinculi per cessationem materiae aut mutationem aliquam notabilem factam circa causam Juramenti principalem When the state of things is so changed from the time of swearing to that of fulfilling that if at the time of taking the Oath that change which afterward followed had been fore-seen the person would not have taken such an Oath Thus when Solomon promised Bathsheba to grant her Request and she desired that Adonijah might Marry Abishag one of King David's Concubines which was a kind of Treason for any one to attempt except the Successor Solomon notwithstanding his Solemn Promise instead of performing it swore that Adonijah should dye yet Solomon brake not his Promise because there was a tacite Condition that Adonijah should ask nothing that was unlawful Thus in the Oaths above mentioned we swore to defend the King's Person and the Privilidges and Prerogatives granted and belonging to the Crown this tacite Exception is plainly to be understood that if the King should attempt to subject his Kingdom to a Foreign Power and leaving us in Confusion should put himself under the Power of the French King which is diminutio Capitis a kind of Civil Death and by his Arms seek to destroy the Community and Government which by those very Oaths we were bound to defend the Obligation of those Oaths doth cease upon his attempting such things which if they had been fore-seen and expressed in those Oaths the Subjects would never have taken them Now although some Divines in their occasional Discourses of Government particularly of this of England seem to make it Absolute and indefesable and inseparable from the person of the Prince yet when they come to consider particular cases which they could not foresee or for the odiousness of them and the almost impossibility of happening they omitted the same Divines do agree to the Heads above-mentioned and make Exceptions to their own General Rules as will appear in what followeth hereafter In the mean time I doubt not but the Reader hath observed that as well Divines when they Treat of Law-matters and Moot-cases as Lawyers when they handle Points and Controversies in Divinity are guilty of many Blunders as particularly the Authors of the Erudition who affirm that the Proclamations of the King are as binding as a Law and Bishop Bancroft who told King James in the presence of Cook and other Lawyers That the King might call and Judge any Cause personally in his Chamber But of this we need no other instance than the present Historian who after so great a Deliverance as he must confess the Nation hath had and of which such ungrateful Murmurers as the Historian are unworthy to partake After that the Great Assembly of the Nation have declared their Judgments by their Oaths and many thousands of the Clergy joyned with them presumes after an Histrionical manner to bring them on the Stage and represent them as Rebels Traytors and perjured Persons not without Reflections on their present Majesties as Usurpers to say no worse is a most uncharitable if not an unrighteous deed seeing he stands in a manner Solus contra omnes Had he differed through a doubting Conscience he should have by the Apostle's Rule Rom. 14.22 kept his perswasion to himself and with all Humility and Modesty sought satisfaction and not have published his Opinion against the more mature Judgment not only of our own Nation but of all Christian Princes who do approve of our present Settlement And if my Account fail me not there is not one of an hundred that consent with him and before the Six Months be expired there may not be more then one of that hundred that will stand off and then our Historian may stand alone as Tom of Ten Thousands The PREFACE Considered THE first Paragraph of the Epistle which shews that the Doctrine of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience are founded in Scripture c. is admitted as Orthodox and the Doctrine of the Church of England but being delivered in general Rules they admit of some Exceptions and carry with them certain tacite Conditions and Qualifications which in case of great alterations would appear to be necessary and justifiable And I suppose that if such a case as ours now is had been thought of or proposed that Declaration viz. That it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms c. would certainly be excepted or provided against as in the Case of Edward the Fifth when Richard Duke of Gloucester seized on his Person raised War and granting Commissions in the King's Name it might have been lawful for the then Queen Elizabeth having the Broad Seal brought to her by the Archbishop of York to raise an Army to rescue the King from the Usurper's Power notwithstanding he had raised an Army
THE HISTORIAN VNMASK'D OR SOME REFLECTIONS On the Late HISTORY OF Passive-Obedience THE HISTORIAN VNMASK'D OR SOME REFLECTIONS On the late HISTORY OF Passive-Obedience WHEREIN The DOCTRINE of Passive-Obedience and Non-Resistance Is truly Stated and Asserted By one of those DIVINES whom the Historian hath Reflected upon in that Book And late Author of the Resolution of several Queries concerning Submission to the present Government As also of an Answer to all the Popular Objections against the taking the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties Licensed and Entred according to Order LONDON Printed and are to be Sold by Richard Baldwin in the Old-Bailey 1689. SOME REFLECTIONS On the late HISTORY OF Passive-Obedience TWO great Advantages the Established Church of England hath gain'd by those severe Tryals which in the late King's Reign it was severely exercised with The first is that she hath delivered her self from the Imputation and Jealousie of being too much affected to Popery of which she manifested so great an Abhorrence even when Popery was in its Ascendant and made too near an approach to the Throne And the Controversie was managed with so much Learning and Success that she hath acquired deservedly the Title of More than Conqueror The next is the Calumny of her being of a Persecuting Spirit which not only her readiness and bounty for the Relief of such Protestants as were under Persecution though in many things they differed from her perswasions but her exposing her self to suffer for the Protestant Religion all those Afflictions which were actually executed on some and intended against all the Members of that Church hath well-nigh silenced And lest she should fall under that Woe which our Saviour hath denounced against those of whom all Men shall speak well Luke 6.26 A late Historian hath represented the greatest part of that Church as a Generation of Men that have renounced their first Principles of Loyalty and acted contrary to their Solemn Oaths and Declarations Whether the Author be a Papist or some such Journy-man of theirs I shall not enquire but that he hath done a very acceptable work to them is very manifest for if all those Persons which he names and consequently all others that have taken the Oath of Allegiance to our present Soveraigns be Apostates from their Loyal Principles and Publick Declarations and Oaths we can never upbraid the Papists with their Equivocations Dispensations of Oaths and Plots and Conspiracies against our Princes Now though I doubt not among so many learned Men of more Abilities and Advantages than my self who are concern'd in these Reflections of the Historian will vindicate themselves and their Brethren yet I think my self particularly obliged having already asserted that to be our Duty which he imputes as our Crime to wipe off that filth which he hath endeavoured to fasten on us It was an excellent Defence which the Noble Earl of Ossory made in the House of Lords for his Renowned Father the Duke of Ormond against the unworthy Reflections of the E. of S. First saith that Noble Earl I will tell you what my Father hath done He hath faithfully served the Crownwith his Life and Fortunes in all Conditions as well Adverse as Prosperous He acted for him at home and suffered with him abroad he endured the loss and sequestration of his Estate for many years without any reparation by beneficial Offices And now I will tell what my Father hath not done My Father did not advise the shutting up of the Exchequer he did not contrive the breaking of the Triple League nor did my Father encourage the seizing of the Smirna Fleeâ— he never hâ—â—e Arms against his Soveraign or was found in any Plot or Conspiracy against the Crown The like Defence I shall make against the virulent Accusations of the Historian and shall first instance in what they have done They have Preached up Loyalty on all occasions against the Principles and Practices of Papists and Fanaticks they have suffered Sequestrations and Imprisonment for their Loyalty in the days of Charles the First they have defeated the Plots and Attempts of all dis-affected Persons in the Reigns of Charles and James the Second They have stoutly withstood the united strength of Papists and Sectaries which conspired their Ruine They suffered under the late King for refusing to Obey him in things unlawful and never failed to Obey him according to the Laws they prayed for him and in humble manner Petitioned him and gave him such wholsome Counsel as might make him Happy both here and hereafter And now let me tell you what they have not done They have not Preached up an Arbitrary and Absolute Power in their Prince to dispence with the Laws established They have not encouraged a standing Army nor Addressed their Thanks for a Toleration and Indulgence of Papists and Sectaries They have not promised Obedience without a Reserve they have not taken Arms under him to fight for Popery and Slavery nor yet to resist him or expose him to his Enemies Yet these are the things which the Historian expects we should have done and submitted our Religion Laws and Liberties yea our very Lives to those who were prepared to devour them all All this the Historian expected as the necessary Consequences of our Doctrine of Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience though neither Parker nor Cartwright would ever have inferred such a conclusion from those premises nor were ever intended by those Doctrines as by the mature determinations of some of those Reverend Divines which he hath quoted will hereafter appear If therefore our not doing those things above-mentioned be the Crimes which are laid to our charge we shall plead Guilty and use the like Defence for our selves as St. Paul did Act. 23.6 when he was smitten contrary to Law Men and brethren concerning the resurrection of the dead are we called in question For our Deliverance from so great a Death as was prepared for us was a Miracle next to the Resurrection of the Dead and was not done but by God's own power And the wonderful Providence of God in contriving our Deliverance so as at the same time to fall into no sin and to be delivered from all danger Is the Lord's doing and marvellous in our eyes It was a great straight that David was in when being persecuted by Saul he fled to Achish and being kindly entertained by him and made Captain of his Guards he offered to fight for him against Saul whereby he was engaged either to fight against Saul or to betray Achish his Benefactor But by the Providence of God the Lords of the Philistines having conceived a jealousie that David would betray them prevailed with Achish to dismiss him and so he retired to his own City Ziglag 〈◊〉 and secured it against his Enemies Much like this was the Case to which the Clergy of England were reduced They were terrified and oppressed by their Prince the present King undertakes their Protection and Deliverance they being no Men
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
Ch. 13. the Temporalty give this Reason for their Subsidy Besides the great and perpetual Honour which it hath pleased God to give Your Majesty abroad in making You the principal Support of all Just and Religious Causes against Vsurpers besides the great Succours in France and Flanders which we conceive to be most Honourable in regard of the Ancient League the Justice and Equity of the Causes c. And in the 39. Eliz. c. 27. They say This Land is become since Your Majesties days both a Port and Haven of Refuge for distressed States and Kingdoms and a Rock and Bulwark of Opposition against the Tyranny and Ambitious Attempts of Mighty Vsurping Potentates And 43 Eliz. c. 17. The Clergy say Who hath or should have a livelier sense or better remembrance of Your Majesties Princely Courage and Constancy in advancing and protecting the free Profession of the Gospel within and without Your Majesties Dominions than Your Clergy Now who can doubt but they would have acted the same things for their own Preservation which they did in the behalf o◠others and to which they encouraged others against their oppressing Princes And it is observed that the Assistance of the Hollanders cost this Nation 15000 l. per Annum and the encouraging of a Rebellion in others is as much as if we were engaged in it our selves and then the Nation that assisted Queen Elizabeth in promoting the Wars in Scotland and Holland and King Charles the First in the Wars against the French King in behalf of the Rochellers were guilty which is Durus Sermo because as Grotius says l. 2. c. 25. n. 4. He that doth not repel an Injury from his Confederates if he can is as much in fault as he that doth the Injury And he commends Constantine for making War on Maxentius and Licinius who persecuted such of their own Subjects as were Christians only for their Religion of whose Opinion in this case I have mentioned more from his l. 2. c. 25. n. 8. which sheweth notwithstanding what our Historian says to the contrary that in the Judgment of our Nation as well Clergy as Laity there may be a Restraint laid on such Princes as would destroy the Religion Laws and Liberties of a People And notwithstanding the former Declarations of the University of Oxford when an alteration of our Government was designed and vigorously carried on condemning many Heterodox Opinions yet upon mature Consideration of the Revolutions that have lately happened they have since taken up new Measures with almost a general consent upon that alteration of Affairs which they could not fore-see and therefore not determine of But I shall not presume to plead their Cause they are of sufficient Age and Abilities to answer for themselves In the mean time I see no cause why the Historian should so signalize himself for his great Loyalty above others when as David pronounced of Abner 1 Sam. 26.16 That he was worthy to dye because he had not kept his Master more carefully but slept when his Spear and his Cruse was taken from him so might the late King if ever he should return charge him with a Male defensus for not discovering the Traiterous Conspiracy against him and to his power assisting his Person according to his Oath for I suppose his Sword would not discern whether he were a Guelfe or a Gibelline or take any notice of his Loyal History which was so unseasonably published 4thly There are only these two things remaining at which such as refuse the present Oath of Allegiance do stumble The first is the Example of the Primitive Christians The second is their former Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance As to the first the Primitive Christians lived under such Heathen Emperors as has had an Absolute and Arbitrary Power whose Edicts had the force of Laws and so they differed from us who have our Religion establish'd by Law Now their Religion being contrary to those Edicts for worshipping other Gods did expose them by their very Profession to Persecution It doth not appear that they were under any Oaths to their Heathen Persecutors but they were under the Precepts of the Gospel not to resist them and they chose to dye rather than to resist but then it may be observed that though they fought for their Emperors against other Pagan Princes they refused to fight for them against their Christian Brethren as Grotius l. 1. c. 1. § 9. quoteth St. Ambrose who saith That the Apostate Julian had many Christian Souldiers under him who when he commanded them to fight against the Common Enemies of their Country they obeyed him but when to fight against Christians then they acknowledged none but the Emperor of Heaven And in Tertullian's time they thought it unlawful to list themselves after Baptism under Pagan Princes and one Maximilian an African suffered Martyrdom for refusing to fight under the Emperor ob spretam Militiam De Corona c. 11. They prayed for and obeyed their present Emperors but were not curious to enquire after their Titles though some came to the Empire by Murther of their Predecessors and usurping on such as had better Titles and when any of those Emperors were deposed or taken Prisoners they were not sollicitous to endeavour their Restoration as when Valerian was taken by the Persians and cruelly handled yet Non omnino repetitus est agreeable to that Sentence of Nicetas Choniates nec Imperatorem qui absit quaerendum nec qui adsit pellendum esse and it is observed that of Thirty Emperors in those Primitive times at least Twenty of them were Usurped upon Deposed Captivated or Slain with the Sword without any reluctancy or great concern of the Christians who thought of no farther Obligation than to the Emperors in being according to that of our Saviour to render to the Caesar that was in being though a Persecutor and Usurper the things that were Caesar's which is the sense that Grotius gives on that place De Jure belli c. 4. § 20. In re controversa judicium sibi privatus sumere non debet sed possessionem sequi sic tributum solvi Caesari Christus jubet Matth. 22.20 quia in possessione erat Imperii nummus ejus imaginem habuit and so the Primitive Christians understood that of the Apostle Rom. 13. The powers that be viz. in possession are ordained of God and their practice was accordingly as hath been shewn And from these practices of the Primitive Christians the Historian cannot find any number of the Clergy of the Church of England to have deviated As to the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which is the second Objection against the present Clergy the Obligation by them hath sufficiently been declared void by the late King himself but much more satisfactorily by others that have written on that Subject Those Oaths were very seasonable and sacred but each of them bound us only to our power not to what is impossible for us to do viz. to fight to
this Author is far more exorbitant who would have the whole Nation submit to the Arbitrary Power of King James to alter our Religion Laws and Liberties and to kill ravish and ruine the whole Community and submit all to the Pope or French King which things the Nation in darkest times of Popery have resisted even to Bloud And this without ridiculing is the Doctrine of the Bow-string which the Author would introduce into this Nation It is therefore just and necessary that such General Rules and Maximes whether Divine or Political should be received with some restrictions else as Dr. Barrow says They would clash with Reason and Experience And therefore many formal Prohibitions are to be received only as sober Cautions and so are general Oaths and Laws made on emergent occasions in dangerous times which at other times may themselves prove dangerous and destructive As appears in that Exception of the Jews to the General Rule concerning the Sabbath Periculum vitae tollit Sabbatum and both in Law and Equity Omnia dicta quantumvis universalia equitatem admittunt interpretem And it is not so much the letter of the Law as the intention of the Law-Giver which makes the Law Ratio legis intentio Legislatoris Dominatur verbis tanquam anima corpori And Verba inserviunt intentioni tanquam fini Now it could never be the intention of God in the Scripture to set up such an Order of Governours and invest them with such an uncontroulable Power as to subver the Ends of Government or of the Legislators in our Nation to make any one such Law as should destroy all those other Fundamental Laws which with mature deliberation had been anciently Established for their preservation for both in Civil and Canon Law this is a sure Rule Ex verbis quantumvis generalibus nemo praesumitur velle sibi magnum praejudicium Such as that Law which declares It is not lawful on any Pretence whatsoever c. by which the late King might have sent a number of Irish or French Papists into Both Houses and have cut the Throats of the Legislators The Casuists therefore give many Exceptions to such General Rules Ex impossibili inhumanâ durâ c. And Baldus says Clausula de plenitudine potestatis semper intelligenda est de potestate bona laudabili So that the Calumny of Changlings and Weather-Glasses imputed to such as have written for Non-Resistance is malitious the change is not in their Doctrine which they did and resolve still to adhere to as long as the King kept his station and they were in a capacity to observe it and that of Seneca is a sufficient Apology for them l. 2. c. 16. n. 27. Eadem mihi Praesta idem sum If the late King had continued in the same Condition as he was we should have yielded him the same submission as we did tho' many were cruelly dealt with that is we should have prayed for him as our King we should have petitioned him and as some of our Bishops did have given him good Advice to prevent the ruining of himself and that he would have called a Free Parliament which doubtless would have provided much better for him than he hath done for himself by those destructive Counsels which he chose to follow but we would not have lifted up a hand against him nor abridged him of any of those Rights Priviledges and Preheminences which by Law belonged to his Crown and Dignity Nor can the Author that upbraids the Clergy for their Doctrine instance in any one of those Writers who did transgress that Doctrine by resisting the King while he continued in his Kingdom And as Seneca says A wise Man cannot be said to change his Resolution when things are changed from what they were at the time when he resolved Tum fidem fallam si omnia eadem sint me permittente si mutentur fidem meam liberat And those other limitations given by Bishop Sanderson are applicable to this Case Si Deus promiserit quoad licet Rebus sic stantibus salva potestatis Superioris p. 216. de Consc A Subject is not bound ordinarily to obey a Law that is very grievous to the destruction of himself and Family And p. 202. when the subject matter of an Oath ceaseth the Obligation also ceaseth Cessante causa cessat Lex says Grotius This may suffice to shew that such as the Author hath branded so malitiously as if whatever they said or did was to gratifie their ambitious or covetous Appetites as if their Honesty like Quick-silver in a Weather-Glass rose higher or sunk lower as the Day proved clear or cloudy as the greatest Hypocrites and Time-Servers in the World who sacrificed their Consciences to their Desires of growing Rich and Powerful while had the Times been contrary to them they would have owned other principles and that all their former Declarations have been only pretence and juggle and that they have been Loyal no longer than they could get by it Hoc Ithacus vellet magno mercantur Atridae His next Paragraph says The Doctrine of Non-Resistance cannot be unseasonable since no Government can be safe without it Mens Passions inclining them to think well of themselves and to make Complaints of hard usage even when they are most gently treated And it were well for the Author if he be not found to be one of that sort of Complainers As for those whom he hath so causlesly defamed they still resolve to retain their first Principles of Non-Resistance to the present Governors because as he says No Government can be safe without it We therefore leave him in the Company of Parsons and his Party railing at the most gentle and admirable Government now Established under King William and Queen Mary to whom all that have taken the Oath of Allegiance are branded as Rebels and perjured Persons which in effect is to say that there is no Allegiance due to them But if the Author were indeed a Protestant of the Established Church or had any regard to the condition of other Protestant Churches abroad he would see a necessity of transferring his Allegiance from him that would wholly extirpate those Churches to one who by God's Blessing is likely to preserve and establish them for the lawfulness whereof I refer him to a Treatise concerning those Oaths written as it is reported by Dr. Whitby As to his upbraiding us with the Writings of Preston Widdrington and others in England and Ireland and Barclay in Scotland some of them lived to act contrary to what they wrote and 't is the manner of those Men to cloak their wicked Designs by contrary pretences to render their Adversaries secure while they carry on their Designs with the least suspition as Watson did who was after all his quodlibets executed for Treason And Barclay clearly expresseth himself That a Prince seeking the ruine of his People is no longer King l. 3. c. 16. p. 212. Se omni principatu exuit
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
says the same of the Empire That Caesar is bound by the Laws And Bodine concerning France Principem contra leges nihil posse rescriptis ejus nullam rationem haberi debere nisi aequitate perinde ac veritati consentanum sint The Historian may be satisfied from these Men that much more than hath been practised by our Nation hath its Approbation in such a Case as we were reduced to But to return home that saying of King James is very memorable That the King is for the Common-wealth and not the Common wealth for the King. Albericus Gentilis Professor of Civil Law saith That he that would keep himself out of danger must meet and prevent it which is a point of greater Wisdom and Courage than to expect it and revenge it If our Adversary have declared his Will and is preparing a Power to hurt us we may not tarry to receive the first blow but anticipate the Evil as Gladiators do Yea it hath been always the Practice to put a stop to the Ambition of great Monarchs who have unjustly invaded one Man's Dominions lest he should attempt others hence the Princes of Christendom have been careful to preserve an equal Pallance between growing Empires Thus Baldus says It is a fault to omit the defence of another but of our selves a treachery And Siracide Eccles 4. Free him to whom Injury is done out of the hand of the injurious And Constantine says We ought to account of the Injuries done to others as our own Thus Justine answered the Persians That he ought to defend the Christians whom they would compel to forsake their Religion And Queen Elizabeth defended the Hollanders against the Spaniards who if they had broken down that Pale of Religion as Lipsius calls it would have extended their Tyranny farther King Charles the First in answer to the Nineteen Propositions says The Lords being trusted with Judicatory Power are an excellent skreen between the Prince and the People by just Judgment to preserve the Law Therefore the Power legally placed in Both Houses is more than sufficient to prevent and restrain the power of Tyranny Dr. Ferne pleading his Cause grants That personal Defence against the sudden Assaults of the King's Messengers if illegal tho' the King be present is lawful even to warding off the King's blows and to restrain him and to preserve the innocent Peter Martyr on Rom. 13. We may not anxiously dispute by what Right or Wrong Princes have obtained their Power but rather make it our business to obey the present Magistrates Judge Vaughan In Cases that depend on Fundamental Principles Millions of Presidents to the contrary are to no purpose Judge Jenkins says We hold only what the Law holds the King's Prerogative and the Peoples Liberties are both determined by Law. And so King Charles the First 's Declaration at York says That his Prerogatives are built on the Laws of the Land And when the Parliament would have him grant an extraordinary Power to some Lords-Lieutenants he tells them If they would have him grant more Power than by the Law of the Land was in him it was fit that the same should by some Law be first vested in him with full Power to transfer the same The same Judge Jenkins speaking of the Oath of Supremacy says We do not swear that the King is above all Laws nor above the safety of the People but his Majesty and we will swear to the contrary The Law and the Safety of the People are the King's Honour and Safety and Strength And when Hobbs extended the Power of the Prince above the Law the Earl of Clarendon answers That in dangerous Circumstances Men are not to resort so much to the Words of Submission as to the Intention of the Law Givers which could not be that the Prince should have Power to take away the Lives of his innocent Subjects nor could such a Submission be ever supposed to be the mind of the Contractors This may serve in answer to the Declaration That it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever c. which was past the House not without great opposition by a mercinary Party of Pensioners and was destructive of many ancient Laws and an alteration of the Government making it absolute and in itself null For as Sherringham who learnedly defended Charles the First says Those Laws which are made for the benefit of the Prince and People are Fundamental and Foundations cannot be altered without the Ruine of the whole Building If therefore that Declaration or any other Act is contrary to the Fundamental Laws it is invalid And now we come to that Declaration of the Lords and Commons who as it became the Masters of the Assembly have fixed our Government as a Nail in a sure place They found us as Sheep without a Shepherd and in the midst of many grievous Wolves ready to devour both them and us they considered that the late King had exercised a Power of suspending Laws committed the Bishops for Petitioning to be excused from concurring to that Power That he erected a Court for Ecclesiastical Causes by Commissioners Levied Money without Consent of Parliament kept up a Standing Army disarmed Protestants and armed Papists and Quartered them contrary to Law violated the Elections of Parliament broke the Seal or cast it away and deserted the Government and Kingdom and did thereupon declare that he had abdicated the Kingdom and left the Throne vacant they being assembled in Parliamentary manner did for the Redress of those Grievances other means being denyed them as their Ancestors had done in like Cases declare the Prince and Princes of Orange to be King and Queen of England c. And appointed the present Oath to be taken instead of the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which Methods have been taken in the like Cases by all Nations as well as our own And I know not what Authority or Reason should determine our Judgments if these cannot for let us suppose that the late King at his departure whetherit were forced or voluntary had left behind him in Writing under his own hand a Declaration to the following effect which consisting of undeniable Matter of Fact is no less Authentick We do declare to all the World That the the Church of England as by Law Established hath on all occasions signally manifested all due Loyalty to Our Royal Father and Brother as well as to Our self particularly in opposing the Bill for Excluding Us from the Throne and assisting Us in suppressing the Rebellion of Monmouth for which Reasons we thought fit and just at Our coming to the Crown solemnly to declare Our Royal Intention to support and defend it in all its Rights and confirmed our Declaration by our Coronation-Oath but having wholly devoted Our Self to the Romish Religion and Papal Authority We were absolutely resigned to the Conduct of such as by that Authority were appointed to Counsel and Direct Us who having convinced Us of a Power to
doubt but it was the intention of the Legislators to exclude them out of those Laws which were made with respect to a more particular occasion as the 〈◊〉 face to those Laws plainly sheweth It is notoriously known how hardly the Church was beset by two busie and powerful Factions when those Laws were enacted who though they agree in Principles tending to Rebellion yet that they might undermine the Church they found Patrons and an Interest in Court and Council in the Reign of Charles and James the Second and how opposite soever the Factions were to each other they were still ready to unite against the Church as their Common Enemy in which case it was requisite that the Members of the Church should use all honest means to retain their Superiours in a good Opinion of their undoubted Principles of Loyalty and to press the same Duty on such as were suspected to be of a contrary Mind against whom the Parliament especially intended those Tests and Declarations for who can suppose them such Mad-men as to make a Law upon a particular emergent Occasion as should cassate and destroy all other Laws for the preservation of their Religion Lives and Liberties and to establish Tyranny Popery and Idolatry by Law if the King will have it so for which end he may by the killing letter of that Law when ever he pleaseth bring in what Foreign Forces he pleaseth to eat us up and no Resistance must be made if this Law be strictly understood without any Reserve or Consideration of the Occasion of making the Law and the intention of the Law-givers which undoubtedly was their own and the preservation of the Nation And wise Men think that if there should be such a pack of Law-makers as to serve a turn of their own should have no regard to the over-turning and perverting as well of the Duties we owe to God our Neighbours and our selves as the Ancient Fundamental Laws of the Land that they are utterly void and we should sin more in swearing to keep such Laws than in not observing them The Historian reflects so severely on some Divines as if he came with a Commission from James the Second to execute on them the consequences of the Doctrines of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience they are Arraigned and Condemned as Apostates Traytors and perjured Persons and when time serves they shall not want an Executioner In the mean time he directs a fatal blow at one single and obscure Person but through him wounds all the rest who though they be many Heads yet all standing on the same Neck and our Historian thinks he hath got the Advantage which Nero wished for however he thinks he deals friendly with him if as Butchers are wont to use their Swine who scrape them a little before they cut their Throats Mr. Long says he is so well known for his Zeal in this good Cause viz. of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience to all that have seen his Answer to Mr. Johnson and Hunt His no Protestant but Dissenters Plot and other such Treatises that it is wondred that of late he should own himself the Author of the Solution of the Popular Objections c. Answ They who have known Mr. Long ever since the War began against Charles the First know that he hath inviolably practised those Doctrines himself to which in those Writings he perswaded others and shrunk not from them after the Prince of Orange came to Exeter as the present Bishop of Salisbury and several Members of the Church of Exon can attest and continued to Pray for the late King until he received Order for the contrary though he were publickly disturbed for so doing but when he considered that the late King had deserted the Government and left us in Confusion that the States of the Kingdom had admitted their present Majesties to the Throne even then though our Governours were changed he changed not his Opinion of the Doctrine of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience but thought that it ought to be transferred from the Person of the late King to the present King and Queen so that it is no wonder that he owns himself the Author of the Solution of Popular Objections wherein if any thing be urged by him that seems to comply with the Opinion of Mr. Johnson c. it was an Argument ad hominem and in such a case as happened after Mr. Johnson had written and was scarce thought possible to happen and we hope never will more And though he needed not that Apology of St. Austine's making retractations and to confess Errare possum Hereticus esse nolo yet he thinks it much better to do so than with Bellarmine to make such Recognitions as should declare his Obstinacy in a dangerous Error as the Historian doth And as to the particular Quotations from a Sermon of that Authors the Reader may observe that they were aimed at the Popish and Fanatical Doctrines of Resisting and Deposing Lawful Princes for the good of the Kirk and Mother-Church and do not touch a hair of them that did neither Resist nor Depose nor are any way guilty unless their not sighting with Popish and Irish unqualified Miscreants for the utter Destruction of our Church and Religion and the establishing of Popery and Slavery be a Crime of that Magnitude as to be accounted Perjury and Treason which seeing the late King's Souldiers very honourably and worthily refused it could not be expected from those who were to sight under another Banner What remains then but that we study to be quiet and to do our own business not provoking not envying or slandring one another but leaving the Government of the Nation to God and our Superiours make it our business to govern our selves according to the Laws of God and the Land and to follow the things that make for Peace and whereby we may edisie one another and not publish Histories with a design to foment Divisions to alienate the Affections of the People from their present Governours and to run us again into Confusion And although the Author of the History do conceive that either we have been too sinful in not assisting the late King though it were out of our Power or not Passive enough in our Obedience to him yet I shall still think it my Duty to Pray that neither he nor we may sin in resisting Lawful Authority nor suffer under an Unlawful and Arbitrary Power Lead us not into temptation And I hope that all good Protestants will joyn with me not only in this Prayer but in that Thanksgiving of the Royal Prophet Psal 66.8 9 c. O bless our God ye People and make the voice of his praise to be heard which holdeth our Soul in life and suffereth not our feet to be moved for thou O God hast proved us thou hast tryed us as Silver is tryed Thou broughtest us into the Net thou layedst Affliction on our Loyns thou causedst Men to ride over our heads we went through fire and water and thou broughtest us out into a wealthy place I will go into thy House with burnt-offerings I will pay thee my Vows FINIS ADVERTISEMENTS A Resolution of Certain Queries concerning Submission to the Present Government The QUERIES I. Concerning the Original of Government II. What is the Constitution of the Government of England III. What Obligation lies on the King by the Coronation-Oath IV. What Obligation lies on the Subject by the Oaths of Supremacy c. V. Whether if the King Violate his Oath and actually Destroys the Ends of it the Subjects are freed from their Obligation to him VI. Whether the King hath Renounced or Deserted the Government VII Whether on such Desertion the People to preserve themselves from Confusion may admit another and what Method is to be used in such Admission VIII Whether the Settlement now made is a Lawful Establishment and such as with a good Conscience may be Submitted to By a Divine of the Church of England as by Law Establish'd