or not appears by his first departure and returning again and then by departing still under his own Guards a second time when he was by contrary Winds driven into Feversham he still resolved to quit the Land So that if the late King had thought his carrying would have promoted his Interest he would have staid but being guided by better hopes of compassing his designs abroad it follows that he voluntarily and I may say maliciously deserted us destroying the Writs for calling a Parliament concealing the Broad-Seal leaving us under the power of an Army of Irish Papists whom he ordered to be Disbanded without Pay whereby he probably thought we would have crumbled into several Factions and sought it out among ourselves All men count those actions voluntary which were in their power to do or not to do and though after deliberation the will be for a while in equilibrio yet when other Reasons and Circumstances are added to make the Scales turn the Resolution and Actions that follow are our choice 2dly If it had been the present King's Design or Will to have hindred the late King's departure he might have done it and perhaps it might have been for his Interest to have so done but by not doing it he manifested that it was not his will to restrain him but the late King's choice for there was a Treaty offered and accepted by the late King who sent his Commissioners to treat with the Prince but being as by the event it appears resolved on his departure he tarried not for the return of his Commissioners and though he had appointed to meet his own Council in the Morning yet he deserted them in the Night before to which it is said he had engaged himself by Oath to the Queen So that all these pretences of his being willing to remain in his Kingdom were but to facilitate what he was more peremptorily resolved to do i. e. to forsake it So that tho' the consequents of his own Actions which were undoubtedly wilful as his raising a standing Army which revolted from him his abrogating the Laws submitting the Kingdom to the Pope and all those Grievances summ'd up by the Lords and Commons Feb. 12. brought a necessity on him to depart yet seeing that necessity was the effect of his own Voluntary Actions it must be imputed to his will and choice as the cause of it And doubtless the King deserted the Nation on some such deliberations as these He had followed such evil and rash Counsels as had involved him in unextricable Troubles his Counsellors were not able to defend him or themselves and by flight shifted for themselves The Army in which he confided forsook him the Affections of the People were generally alienated from him so that the only Refuge that was left him was his trusty Confederate the King of France to whom he chose to commit himself rather than to submit to a Treaty Object But it may be Objected That the Lords and Commons were too hasty in declaring that the late King had Abdicated his Kingdoms and that they ought to have treated with him and proposed such Terms as might have secured their Religion Laws and Liberties to which if he had consented all our Grievances might have been redressed Answ To this it is answered That the Parliament by their Votes against the Bill of Exclusion had done as much as in them lay to engage him to a Faithful Execution of the Trust reposed in him viz. To Govern according to the Established Laws And his Promise to the Privy-Council immediately on his Brother's Death did manifest what then was or at least ought to have been his Resolution for he declared That he would make it his Endeavour to preserve the Government both in Church and State as it was then established That he knew the Principles of the Church of England were for Monarchy and that the Members of it had shewed themselves good and Loyal Subjects therefore he would always take care to defend and support it I know said he that the Laws of England are sufficient to make the King as great a Monarch as I can wish and as I shall never depart from the just Rights and Prerogatives of the Crown so I shall never invade any man's Property I have often adventured my Life heretofore in Defence of this Nation and I shall still go as far as any Man in preserving it in all its just Rights and Liberties These were Solemn Promises to the performance whereof not only his Honour of which he boasted that he never had broken his Word with any Man but his real Interest should have obliged him I cannot omit that Observation of Job Chap. 34. ver 30. That God in his righteous Judgment will not that an Hypocrite Reign lest the People be ensnared These were Divine Sentences in the King's Lips but his Actions declared what was in his Heart namely to pull down and destroy all that he had promised to preserve and defend with his very Life to which the hope of salvation being then a resolved Papist so pre-ingaged him that in the perswasion wherein he then was his conscience must tell him he must perish eternally if he should perform his promises God only knows how to treat with such Princes It was not in the wisdom or power of men to confine such an Angel of light for if by a Treaty the late King under the circumstances to which he was reduced should have yielded to all the demands of his Subjects his Allies abroad might whenever they had an opportunity to assist him have made all void on pretence that he was under force all the time of such Treaty And if he had been re-admitted with that freedom honor and power which became a King of England who could not foresee that as long as the Jesuits had the guidance of his Conscience he would a second time have renewed his Promises of establishing our Religion Laws and Liberties only until he found another opportunity to destroy them to which the Name of a King and his Presence among his Subjects and the Subtil Counsels and Devilish Arts of the Jesuits the Credulity of some and the Discontents of many others for under the best Governments there will be Malecontents would have made plausible pretences and arguments for disturbance of our peace which our too powerful Neighbour the King of France hath for a long time had incouragement from the late King to do and only waited for an opportunity and now declares he will endeavour to effect by open War. Thus Coleman's Letter to Sir William Throgmorton Febr. 1. 1673 / 4. You well know that when the Duke comes to be Master of our Affairs the King of France will have reason to promise himself all things that he can desire And in another Letter to L' Cheese that his Royal Highness was convinced that his interest and the King of France 's were the same and if his Royal Highness would endeavour to dissolve
the Parliament the King of France would assist him with his Power and Purse to have such a new one as would be for their purpose which was the subduing of a pestelent Heresie that had domineer'd over a great part of the Northern World a long time of which there were never such hopes of success since the death of Queen Mary God having given us a Prince who is become I may say to a Miracle zealous of being the Author and Instrument of so glorious a Work. See the Collection of Letters p. 118. So that by what was designed by the Duke and French King and hath since been jointly and vigorously acted we have full assurance of a League with France for our utter ruin and they are Fools or Mad-men that having such clear light and experience to guide them will suffer themselves to be blindfolded a second time and be led to destruction So that what Joab said to David is much more applicable in our Case Thou lovedst thine enemies and hatedst thy friends for thou hast declared this day that thou regardest neither the Prince nor his Servants for this day I perceive that if the King had prevailed and all they had died then it had pleased thee well So fond was David of his Absolom 2 Sam. 19.6 It is not necessary that abdication of an Office should alway be an act of the will. Lentulus is said to abdicate the Consulship because he could hold it no longer having been one of the Conspirators with Gatiline And Silla abdicated the dictatorship thinking to find a better opportunity be to revenged on his enemies And Dioclesian left the Empire because he could not effect his will against the Christians These were mixt actions partly through constraint and partly voluntary yet were accounted abdications And our King had involved us in so many miseries that nothing but his desertion of us or our opposing of him could deliver us God prevented the latter and the King granted the former Pufendorf de interregno p. 272. determines that if a King abdicates the peace of his Kingdom and be of an hostile mind or departs from the Rules of governing which he expresseth thus Modum habendi potestatem immutare that then the ground of the Subjects obedience is made void And in the Digests l. 49. Tital 15. de Capt. we have this Maxim Qui fuget ad eos cum quibus nulla est amicitia à fide suscepta transfugit and that the late King hath so done is an evident truth And it is as true that to desert a Government rather than to keep it on just and legal terms is to abdicate it for an abdication may be as expresly signified by real deeds as by any form of words whatsoever As to the League with France for making King James as Absolute as King Lewis and inable him notwithstanding his Oaths and Publick Declarations to the contrary to extirpate the Protestant Religion there wants not sufficient evidence of the endeavours of the Court of France for many years together by correspondence with the late K. while he was Duke of York and assum'd on him the chief administration of Publick Affairs Nor of a too fond if not a willing compliance of Charles the Second to that end Some wise men have thought that the great Revenues granted to the Crown the declaring the Militia to be wholly in the King the binding up not only the Subjects but the Parliament by Oaths and Declarations not to resist the King or those that were commissioned by him on any pretence or cause whatsoever by vertue whereof an hundred Irish or French might have come into the House of Parliament and out all their Throats and they not have dared to draw a Sword in their own defence all which things were against or as far besides the Laws of the Land as of Reason and Common Prudence for doubtless had it been proposed whether those Laws might have been so interpreted they would speedily have made an alteration in them All these I say have been observed by wise men to have been the designs of such as designed to introduce an Arbitrary Government and facilitate the bringing in of Popery though they that acted did not intend to serve the ends either of France or the Crown of England so far On this Errand was the Dutchess of Orleance some years since sent into England to assure Charles the Second of the Assistance of the King of France in reducing the Parliament to the King's pleasure to this end were Tolerations and Indulgences granted French Whores admitted with great power and pomp and all things so well prepared though more slowly and secretly in the Reign of Charles the Second that there wanted nothing but James the Second's ascending the Throne to give a Consummatum est to that design of bringing in both Popery and Slavery upon us And that being effected too soon alas for England then notwithstanding the Coronation-Oath the many Publick Protestations to maintain the Church of England and the Protestant Religion and of whose Loyalty he was well satisfied and that he never desired to be more great and happy than he might be by the established Laws yet all these were forgotten and trampled under foot Jesuits and Papists being admitted at Court and into the Privy-Council the King's Conscience submitted to their Conduct the Pope's Nuncio publickly entertained and feasted at the Guild-hall an Embassador sent to Rome Popish Bishops set up with power of Jurisdiction Protestant Bishops put into the Tower the Nobles closetted and such as would not comply to betray their Religion and Country were turn'd out of all the chief Offices by Sea and Land and others put into their room and in all places of Judicature Judges and Juries were adapted for the prosecution of that design there wanted only a complying Parliament and to that end Quo Warranto's were issued out against the Charters and alterations made in them fit for that design Addresses were procured for taking off the Test and Penal Laws i. e. for introducing of Popery by Law an Army of Irish Papists brought in and another prepared in France So that our destruction was much nearer than we believed Monsieur D'Avaux Embassador for the King of France in Holland in his Memorial told the Estates that the Friendship and Alliance between his Master and the King of England did oblige him to assist the King of England and to look on the first act of Hostility by Sea or Land as a Rupture of Peace Coleman's Letters spake to the same effect and the event hath demonstrated the truth of all that was thought to be but groundless fears and jealousies for on the approach of the Prince of Orange these dark mists vanish'd the Nation awaked out of their deep slumber and resum'd their ancient valour and resolution to defend their Religion Laws and Liberties against Popery and Arbitrary Government which seized on us as an armed man. And he that doth not now
Homage and Fealty required of every Lord from his Tenants hath the same expressions as the present Oath yet this Oath was not intended to assert the Lord's Title in point of right nor did it oblige the Tenant in case the Lord should forfeit alienate or be disseiz'd 4. An actual Obedience is sufficient to secure the Government and therefore we cannot presume that it requires more it doth not look backward to what is past but respect only the future time 5. If these reasons make not the case clear yet they render it doubtful and then this Maxim takes place Contra eum qui a pertius potuit loqui facienda interpretatio But of this more hath been said in Bishop Sanderson's Resolution of the Case of the Ingagement against which if it be objected That there is more included in the word Allegiance than in those of being true and faithful I answer There seems to be less required by that word for Allegiance signifies Obedience according to Law and not in illegal cases in which there is no Obedience due because there is no authority to require it Concerning the Lawfulness of Self-Defence 1. If the English people are so far at the Prince's disposal as to have no right to defend their Lives against his illegal Assaults then they are in the state of Slaves and Captives but we are not in such a state but Freemen and Proprietors as the Magna Charta and the Petition of Right do evidence 2. If to preserve our lives c. we may not use a defence then we prefer the means before the end but this is absurd therefore the first is so And if any Government do deprive us of that priviledge which Nature grants us it were better to have continued in a state of Nature and Anarchy then to come under such a Government 3. The Laws cannot be so interpreted as to be illusory but to bound the King's power and to give the people Rights and yet to suffer him to destroy all at his pleasure is a meer illusion of the Laws 4. What hath been publickly done and never been censur'd in the most setled times may be presumed lawful but the Defence of the Peoples Rights as in the Barons Wars was never publickly censured but the matters contended for were confirmed by several Charters ratified by dreadful Imprecations and vindicated by the expence of the Lives of the Nobles and People therefore it may be presumed to be lawful 5. What is permitted by the Law of God and Nature and is not forbidden by the Law of the Land is lawful but Self-defence is permitted c. and is not forbidden by the Law of the Land therefore it is lawful Object The Declaration that says It is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms c. forbids it Ans General Prohibitions must not be extended to such extraordinary Cases as would have been expresly excepted if they had been expresly proposed And they who united into Government and made Laws to preserve their Lives would never have consented to give one man power to cut all their Throats 6. Treason includes Felony and Felony Malice propense but self-defence implies no propense Malice therefore it is neither Fellony nor Treason Consider these Maxims Quod quisque obtutelam corporis sui fecerit jure fecisse videtur quando copiam sibi Judicis qui jus reddat non habet vim vi repellere omnia jura permittunt a jure civile approbatur modenamen inculpatae tutelae So Grotius Si corpus impetatur vi presente cum periculo vitae non aliter vitabili tunc bellum est licitum etiam cum interfectionem periculum inferentis ratio Natura quemque sibi commendat jus est cuilibet se defendendi contra immanem saecutiam So Barcl cont Monarchom l. 3. c. 8. Non sunt expectanda verbera sed vel terrorem armorum sufficere vel minas Of the King's Abrenunciation 1. To destroy the Government is to renounce and disclaim it for Animus perdendi retinendi non consistunt Nolle habere is the same with Renunciare but King James attempted to destroy the Government for to destroy the Essence and Form of a Government and alter its species is to destroy it 2. If the defence be lawful in the People and the Invasion in the Prince then the loss of the Crown or Right to govern doth legally follow But the Defence and Invasion c. therefore the loss of the Crown and Right of Goverment is ceased and consequently so is our Allegiance 3. To forsake a Kingdom and leave it in a state of Nature is to disclaim it but the late King did so therefore he disclaimed it The Major is clear because Government is necessary by an Antecedent Necessity to a particular Person 's being made a Governour and therefore rather than to continue a disbanded Multitude a particular Man's Right or Title must cease The Minor is clear because he suspended the Laws stopt their course carrying away the Broad Seal discharging the Judges and then withdrew leaving us in confusion If it be objected that he was forced to withdraw Answ It was what by many voluntary Acts he had drawn on himself and the last Act partakes of the Nature of those Actions from whence it flowed Object It will be a very great Scandal to the Nation and Church of England to disclaim their lawful King without Treating with him and seeking Reconciliation upon redress of their Grievances Ans The Clergy and Nobles did often Treat by way of Petition and humble Advice but were rejected with Contempt The Prince of Orange began to Treat with the late King's Commissioners who were returning with an Answer but the King left the City the day before and ever since hath put himself out of a Condition to Treat having given up himself to the Conduct of such as are Irreconcileable Enemies to our Nation and Religion None were more fit to Treat with the King than a free Parliament which as the King had made impossible by his Method so if it had been duly called and chosen yet a force would have been pretended while the Prince of Orange had any Army in the Nation And what if the King had complied as Christiern the Second King of Denmark who after his desertion was received again upon renewing his Oath and subscribing to Conditions who not only brake them all but inviting the Nobles and their Children to a Feast caused them all to be slain The King of France shews what Faith may given to the solemn and repeated Acts of Ambitious Princes and the observance of the Coronation Oaths and many publick Declarations by our King. 2. As to the case of Scandal I know not any sort of Christians that can justly be scandalized at such proceedings or condemn that practice in others which they allow in themselves As for the Papists the principles of their Religion oblige them not to endure a Prince of a different perswasion who
he was a very wise man and well acquainted with the Constitution of the Roman Government for by the Lew Regia granted by the Senate to Augustus it was declared Quicquid per Epistolum statuit cognoscons decrevit aut pro edictum perpalaâ—it Lâ—â— esto And Cicero De Legibus Regio Imperio duo sunto Militiae summum jus habento nemini parento So Dion of Augustus That he was free and of Absolute Authority both over himself and over the Laws for the Emperour is a Living Law and commands as much by word as the Law doth by writing But we are not under the Laws of the Romans Turks or Tartars And if God should for our sins now or had he in the late King's raign permitted the French King to invade us with his Dragoons I doubt not but we might Vim vi repellere resist his Tyranny and Usurpation And as to the Protestants under Q. Mary none of them were put to death until she had procured a Parliament to make Laws against them and then it was their Duty to submit And we are bound with all thankfulness to bless God who prevented the late King from procuring such a Parliament and such Sanguinary Laws which he had well nigh effected to the Extirpation of our Religion Laws and Liberties and fastning those heavy Yoaks of Popery and Slavery on us and the Posterities that were to succeed us This was the Lord's doing and as it is marvellous in our eyes so it ought with all humble thankfulness to be acknowledg'd and accepted But it is objected from Sir E. Cooke That the Regal Authority is so inherent in the person of the King that no separation can be made so that as long as he lives our Allegiance is due to him and to no other Ans Whatever that great Lawyer says the Law says otherwise for even while a rightful Prince is in possession the Law makes a difference between his private and his publick Capacity and as while the King acts by the Laws we owe him our Obedience so in those things wherein he acts arbitrarily by his own Will contrary to Law our Allegiance is not due in such cases Object We are sworn to the King and to his lawful Heirs and Successors now as the King while he lives can have no Heir to whom in his life time we owe our sworn Allegiance so when he dies there can be no lawful Successor but the Heir if there be any that survives Ans In the sence of the Oath there can be no Heir till the death of the King and in our case there is no obligation due from our Oaths to the Heir until he or she be actually King or Queen of England as our Law expounds itself And when the King dies in a natural or civil and political sence by deserting his Government and going over to an avowed Enemy to the Nation their Religion and Liberties or hath submitted his Kingdom to the Usurpations of the Pope and so renders himself not only as useless as if he were buried in a Cloyster but as destructive as an open Enemy there is in such cases a Demise made of the Crown and it descends to the Heir 2ly In this case if he that is not the next Heir by Bloud be by the unanimous consent of the people as well as by the good liking of the lawful Heir chosen and admitted into the actual possession of the Government all Rights that were due to the Heir become due to such a Successor in the eye of the Law So Bracton determins it Heredis verbo omnes significari successores si verbis non sint expressi So Littleton in his Tenures Title of Homage Sect. 85. Allegiance is due to every one in possession that becomes King and to no other Judge Popham in his Reports f. 16 17. mentions a Case to this purpose Richard the Third granted certain Priviledges to the City of Glocester with a Salvo to his Heirs in Q. Elizabeth's reign it was questioned whether the Salvo did pass to her she being not Heir to King Richard but Successor onely and all the Judges did resolve that the Salvo did pass to the Queen Grotius l. 2. c. 9. s 8 9. If a King dye without Issue in an Hereditary Kingdom the Empire remains in the Body of the People who may create another and limit him the People being sui Juris Now in such a case a Convention of the People duly assembled in their Representatives is the most August Assembly even beyond a Parliament for to be able to make a King is more than to be a King and as the Original of Majesty is fundamentally in the people a Parliament hath a great dependance on the King being his Subjects the Convention is Absolute and Independent it makes bounds for the Monarch and whereas one Parliament may repeal the Acts of another a Parliament cannot alter the fundamental Constitutions of a Convention when it first constitutes a Monarchy And this hath been the most ancient manner in cases of great Necessity the people assembled in a Folke mote in the several Counties and chose their Wittena Gemote or Meeting of Wisemen Object The King was forced to leave his Kingdom his Subjects failing to assist him against the Invaders Ans The question that comes here to be considered iâ— Whether the Kings departure were voluntary or forced It is certain that the actions of reasonable men are generally influenced by the proposed end for Omnes beati esse volunt nec possunt velle contrarium as all men desire to be happy so they cannot will any thing which they conceive to have a tendency to the contrary These two are generally the Originals of Humane actions viz. Necessity and Choice and Necessity is either that which we draw on ourselves or is imposed on us by others Pharaoh's Oppression of Israel was at first voluntary while he hardned his heart against the Command of God but when God gave him up to that hardness of heart though the execution of what he did became necessary yet the principle that led him to it was voluntarily espoused 'T is a Rule given by Rainaudus a good Casuist Modo preluceat notitia absit coactio intervenit voluntarium Where the understanding is satisfied concerning any design and there be no force to withhold the prosecution of it there our actions are voluntary The end which the late King had long endeavoured and with too much success had by many means well nigh effected was to make Popery the established Religion of the Nation He declared his desire that all his Subjects were of the same perswasion with himself and his actions tended to make them such and doubtless he was not willing to have all his labours frustrated when therefore he was reduced to some straits being such as he wilfully brought on himself he could not properly be said to act by constraint But this was not the King's case that he did deliberate whether to go
the Election of Sheriffs and anciently the disposing of the Militia and many great Offices both by Sea and Land and the Judicial part was left to the King confined by certain Methods the King in Person not being able to decide the least Cause 3. I thus except against the Minor. The subjection required in the Text is due to the King's Person for the sake of the Power and therefore is not to be extended farther than the Power wherewith he is invested and with a Salvo to that part of the Power which is vested in another so that we owed no such subjection to King James as did derogate from anothers Right beyond the extent of his own Power which was not absolute but limited by Law. And let this be considered from the Objection Those actions which will produce mischeivous consequences should not be ingaged in without most clear evidence of being our duty But to refuse Submission to the present Government will produce c. therefore they are not to be ingaged in without most clear evidence which as things now stand cannot be accounted clear and undubetable in relation to King James Object 2. The King can do no wrong and therefore is not to be dealt with as a Malefactor Ans As to your Maxim The King can do no wrong if it be understood of the King 's private or personal capacity it may be thus retorted The King can do no wrong but he that oppresseth ravisheth or murders an innocent person doth wrong therefore he is not King i. e. in such actions he is not to be considered as a King. But this Maxim as many others is to be understood of the King 's political capacity in which respect the Law is his Will and the execution of the Laws are his Actions in which sence he can neither do wrong nor suffer wrong nor ever dyes The true sence of the Maxim is this as Sir Edw. Cooke Id potest quod jure potest and this he says is the King 's greatest priviledge which makes him like unto God who cannot act but agreeably to the eternal Rules of Justice but the King acting by his own Will against Law may do wrong and Judgment hath been given against him for unjust and illegal Actions And doubtless King John and Henry the Third that would have subjected the Kingdom to the Pope as King James also would cannot be exempted from doing wrong though as it was necessary he must use many Instruments therein Ahab did wrong Naboth in taking away his Vineyard as well as his Instruments that did act under colour of Law. Object 3. That King that is not accountable to his people for any wrong done is not by them Coercible into a private estate but the King of England is not accountable c. therefore he is not Coercible Ans The Argument is besides the Business for the People of England do not Coerce the King to a private Estate but if he attempt to alter the Government and Religion and enslave and destroy the People they may use the remedy which the Law of Nature allows Moderamen inculpatae tutelae The Law not having appointed a legal remedy against the unjust oppressions of Princes doth not render it sinful to use the remedies allowed by the Law of Nature for the Laws grew up gradually and legal remedies were introduc'd occasionally before the institution of which remedies it was not sinful to use extraordinary remedies as to kill se defendendo to pull down Houses in case of Fire c. 2. The Law provides remedies for cases within its own compass but not for cases that may happen when the Law itself shall be subverted it is unreasonable to expect from written Laws any directions how Subjects must behave themselves when the authority of the Laws ceaseth If our Laws have not provided for the cases of the King's Lunacy Extinction of the Royal Line wilful Desertion doubtfulness of Title c. but leave us to the general Rules of Prudence and Discretion the same may be affirmed in the present case 3. What is not prohibited is lawful the cases of extraordinary nature are not included in general Prohibitions according to that Maxim Consensus in rebus magni prejudicii ex verbiis quantumvis generalibus non presumitur And Concessione generali nemo presumitur ea concessisse quae in specie vere similiter non esset concessurus And it cannot be presum'd that the Law would consent that the King might at his pleasure destroy their Lives as well as their Laws considering how tender the Laws have been to preserve the Lives and Liberties of the Subjects who have been always accounted a free People Object 4. If the whole Executive Power of the Law is in the King then all Laws to Coerce the King are in effect null because Execution is the life of the Law But the whole Executive Power c. therefore c. To the minor it is already shewn in what cases and respects the Executive Power of the Law is in the People and in other cases the King cannot suspend the Execution of the Laws by his personal Command the Officers being bound by their Oaths as well as Law to the due Execution of them So that if the King in person should make unlawful Entries hinder the Execution of Writs and Judgments break the Peace head a Riot c. Sheriffs and other Officers are bound to suppress and oppose such by their Oaths If it be objected that the case of the King's presence makes an exception I answer Neither the Oaths nor the Laws makes any such exception And ubi Lex non distinguit non est distinguendum Again the Defence made against the King's illegal Assaults is not an act of the Executive Power which is in the King but of Natural Right for in cases where the Law hath not provided a remedy and particularly and expresly prohibited Self-preservation there we may recur to natural and moral Remedies and every man is allowed to be his own Judge in case of imminent danger when there is no time allowed nor any Judge to be appealed to You say that if the King will pervert the great end for which he was appointed and pervert the Laws c. then as Bracton says Datur petitioni locus licet ei fraenum ponere i. e. as you expound it to curb him by Petitions with holding Taxes and questioning his Ministers there is no ense recidendum in our Law. Ans To curb by Petition is to bind with Ropes of Sand to question Ministers if the Executive Power be in the King is to no purpose and so to with-hold Taxes if the King in the head of an Army may compel them nor yet is there any need of deposing or cutting off for Henry 3. was not so dealt with If a King mix himself with Outlaws and Cut-throats against which we may and in some cases are bound to rise and expose himself to Casualties the people cannot
A FULL ANSWER To all the Popular Objections That have yet Appear'd For not Taking the Oath of ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR PRESENT MAJESTIES Particularly offer'd to the Consideration of all such of the DIVINES OF THE Church of ENGLAND And Others as are yet UNSATISFIED SHEWING Both from Scripture and the Laws of the Land the Reasonableness thereof and the Ruining Consequences both to the Nation and Themselves if not Complied with By a Divine of the Church of ENGLAND and Author of a late Treatise entituled A Resolution of certain Queries concerning Submission to the Present Government Licensed and Entred according to Order London Printed and are to be sold by R. Baldwin in the Old-Bailey 1689. A full ANSWER To all the Popular Objections That have yet Appear'd For not Taking the Oath of Allegiance TO THEIR Present MAJESTIES c. A REQUEST TO ALL Such as are yet Unresolved IN THE Case of Allegiance THere are few Men so ancient or wise who may not still improve their Judgments and be made sensible of their Errors and without shame do that which St. Augustin did to his great reputation make their Retractations The effects of the Prejudices and Prepossessions of the Mind are like those of the Disease of the Body called the Jaundice which represents things black or yellow according to its own distemper only that of the Mind is far more incurable than that of the Body It is with Men as with new Vessels whatever strong Liquors are first infused to them they still retain a smack and savour of them No Tyranny is with more difficulty cast off than the Prejudice and Prepossessions of such Principles by which we have been in our first Education captivated and dogmatized No less than a Miracle could divert St. Paul from that furious temper wherein he had been educated as a Pharisee To evidence the truth hereof I shall only instance in some learned and pious Men that have been educated in the Church of Rome who having been instructed from their youth that they ought to believe as the Church believes that their Church is guided by an Infallible Spirit that the Pope is Christ's Vicar and Plenipotentiary are prepared to receive and believe all the Dictates of that Church though contrary to the Scriptures to Reason and Sence with equal veneration as the written Word Hence it is that they swallow the Doctrines of the Popes Supremacy to depose one Prince and set up another as he shall see cause of his Infallibility in coining new Articles of Faith forbidding what Christ commanded and commanding what Christ forbid of Transubstantiation and Worshipping of Wafers and Images and offering more Prayers to the Virgin Mary than to God and their Saviour and some of them esteem her Milk of equal vertue with Christ's Blood and it is unaccountable how deaf they are to all those charming Arguments which from Scriture Reason and Sence have been irrefragably urged against them Now though the grandeur of that Church and the interest of some Men therein may thus captivate many yet I cannot nor can my Brethren impute this blind obedience and implicit belief of learned Men and such as are piously inclined to any thing more than to the prejudices of their Education And we cannot but think it their duty to search the Scriptures to consult their own Reason and the Arguments of such sober learned and pious Men as differ from them in such Doctrines Nor is it impossible but we who have been educated in the Church and Kingdom of England may have our Judgments captivated by some false Opinions and Principles concerning the Power of our Kings and the Allegiance of Subjects for the rectifying of which it is necessary to reflect on those times wherein we had our Education which I suppose was with many others as with my self about the Year 41 but with the most of my Brethren since that time whereof I shall give this brief account It is evident to all Men of sober principles that have had any true relation of the rise and progress of those unhappy Divisions and Wars that they were begun and continued by a factious and discontented Party under the vain pretences of the great danger that threatned our Religion and Liberties which War abating some groundless Fears and Jealousies occasioned by some unusual Acts of that best of Kings and the best are not free from all faults to which the iniquity of those times that reduced him to great exigence had necessitated him had no other cause but the ambition of some the discontent of others and the hopes of the Jesuits on one side and of other Sects on the other side to raise themselves by the ruine of the established Church to which that blessed Prince was so devoted as well as to the welfare of his Subjects both in respect to the Laws and Liberties that he sacrificed his Life for their preservation as by the event through the great mercy of God it proved to be for though that bloody War wrought great confusion and destruction both before and after the death of the Royal Martyr yet the dissention of his enemies occasioned the discovery of each others wicked designs and practices which are still in remembrance and abundantly justifie that gracious King as do also many gracious condescentions and overtures for peace against all their assaults and usurpations Wherefore when after divers confused revolutions it pleased God by a Miracle of Mercy to recal the Royal Family and to establish the King on his Throne the Church in its Rights and the People in their Liberties it is no wonder if some transports of Loyalty and Joy did carry the People to some degree of excess for the people had now before their eyes a lively Image of Charles the First in the meekness and mercifulness of Charles the Second And whereas the Parliaments under Charles the First had abridged him of a necessary Revenue that under Charles the Second granted him even above his desires and as event proved more then was consistent with the welfare of the Nation neither was the Clergy backward in their expressions of Loyalty who with Mephiboseth 2 Sam. 19.30 were content not only to part with some of their just Possessions to those that had usurped them but ready to say Yea let them take all for as much as my Lord the King is come again in peace to his own house And now it was that the Parliament prudently considering what Miseries the Nation endured by the fall of the Crown made it their chief work to re-adorn and fix that by inlarging the Revenue making new Statutes to secure the King's person against traiterous Conspiracies and requiring the people to declare that it was not lawful on any pretence whatsoever c. And divers things and persons did tempt the King to think himself an absolute Prince Finch an ancient Lawyer did attribute to the King all the Divine Perfections viz 1. That of Soveraignty All Lands being held
it was in his power and was perswaded by his Men to have taken it away to whom he thus answers 1 Sam. 26.10 The Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to die or he shall descend into battle and perish i.e. he will assault me and may perish in that attempt which he wilfully attempting may be slain and then I shall be innocent but if I should slay him in cold Bloud and with an intention to destroy him I should be guilty nor was David affrighted from joyning himself with the King of Achish in a Battle against Saul in which Battle Saul perished which was more than his self-defence that so Saul's Army might be weakned or diverted from the pursuit of him Whence it follows that although we hold the King's Person be inviolable yet if he shall unjustly expose himself in a War to destroy his Subjects they may justly raise an Army to defend themselves and though the King should casually perish they are innocent The Blessing pronounc'd by Amasas on David shews Gods approbation of his intended Defence 1 Chron. 12 18. It follows also that a Prince in such a case as David was may joyn himself with the Enemies of his oppressing Soveraign which doubtless will hold in the case of our present King's uniting himself with the confederate Protestant Princes in Defence of their Religion Laws and Liberties which are in danger Albericus Gentilis Professor of Civil Law in Oxford under Queen Eliz. distinguisheth of a threefold lawful Defence 1. Necessary 2. Profitable 3. Honest and says He is necessitated against whom an Enemy comes Armed or prepares Arms on which the War against Methridates was accounted just because of his preparations which their Adversaries accounted a more real Declaration of War than any words Pia arma quibus nulla nisae in armis relinquitur spes He who 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 it is also more safe and easie to prevent a future than to redress a present Evil. Turpius ejicitur quam non admittitur Hostis We presently slay a Serpent at sight not staying till he hurt us and suffer not noxious Weeds or Thorns to grow up but grub them up by the roots while they are young if we expect the first stroke it may kill or disable us Venjenti occurrite morbo is good advice to a body politick as well as natural If our Adversary have declared his will and is preparing a power to hurt us we may not carry to receive the first blow but anticipate the evil as Gladiators are wont to do Yea it hath been always practised to put a stop to the ambition of great Monarchs who have unjustly invaded one Man's Dominions lest he should attempt the like upon others and hence the Princes of Christendom have been careful to preserve an equal balance between growing Empires Posse nocere sat est quodque potest alios perdere perde prior We may as justly remove impendent evils as those that are actually befallen us The whole World is but one great City and tho some part of Mankind is nearer than others yet our Charity should extend to all Si non homini tamen humanitati Thus Baldus and both Civilians and Canonists determine That it is a fault to omit the defence of another but of ourselves a treachery Siracides Eccl. 4. Free him to whom injury is done out of the hand of the Injurious Constantine says We ought to account of the injuries done to others as our own And if this be the duty of private men much more of Princes and if in the other cases much more in the case of Religion Thus Justine answered the Persians That he ought to defend the Christians whom they would compel to forsake their Religion Thus Constantine helped the Christians that were oppressed by Maxentius and Q. Elizabeth assisted the Hollanders against the Spaniards who sought not only to destroy the Protestant Religion there but having broken down that Pale of Europe as Lipsius called it they should have extended their Tyranny farther Dr. Ferne pleading the Cause of King Charles the First 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 of the King's blows and to restrain his hands and rescue their innocent Brethren out of his hands as the People did Jonathan from the hands of Saul And if a King should joyn with Robbers or Pirates by Land or Sea the Subjects might lawfully defend themselves tho' the King were in their company It is well known that the Emperour the Pope and almost all the Princes in Christendom do joyn to prevent the ambitious Designs of the King of France insomuch that they will rather assist England and Holland than suffer them to fall into the hands of the French and if Popish Princes agree in this for the preservation of their Dominions from an ambitious and aspiring Monarch tho' of their own Religion much more may a Protestant Prince for the recovery of his own Right and for the preservation of the just Rights Laws Liberties and Religion of his Allies and Confederates Aeneas Sylvius If a King contemn the Laws and Subjects all to his Lust will not the States in such a case depose him and chuse another who shall swear to govern by Law as reason tells us it ought to be Aquinas speaking of deposing Tyrants says They are not guilty who do it though obliged to them by Oath for he deserves the People should not trust him who transgresseth the Duty of a King. Object The people of Israel might as well judge David to have abdicated his Kingdom as the people of England King James for great complaints were made against David by Absolom concerning the Male-administration of Government and his Adultery and Murther are in the Sacred Record besides upon the approach of Absolom's Army he fled out of the Land. 2 Sam. 19.9 Ans As to David's personal miscarriages they were done in secret scarce two or three made privy to those designs whence that expression in Ps 51. Against thee only have I sinned intimating that it was not known to his people So Nathan told him 2 Sam. 12.12 Thou didst it secretly but I will do this before all Israel And Uriah being dead and his Wife consenting there was none against whom David had sinned as some do Comment but these personal sins did not make him obnoxious to the censures of his people As for the Administration of the Kingdom it was a forged Accusation of Absolom to steal the hearts of the people from his Father for the Holy Ghost beareth witness to the contrary Ps 78. ult He fed them according to the integrity of his heart and ruled them prudently with all his power And Absolom's Conspiracy was secret and a sudden surprize the men that followed him went
in the simplicity of their hearts not knowing the intended Rebellion Besides the War against David was most unnaturally raised by Absolom his Son and Subject moved by his declared Ambition 2 Sam. 15.4 O that I were made judge in the land And altho' it be said that David fled out of the Land that was only for the convenience of his Army that came to his succour 2 Sam. 17.24 whom he conducted over Jordan to Mahanaim a fortified City on the Borders that had Walls and Gates nor did his people desert him for he had a numerous Army and great Commanders Captains over Thousands and over Hundreds and with him were the Priests that carried the Ark for whose safety David was especially careful and the Wood of Ephraim where Absolom was slain and his Army defeated was near to Jordan and that part of the River very narrow for David and his men speedily past it over in Boats. And yet the people had a notion of setting Absolom on the Throne in David's absence that they might have Justice administred for 2 Sam. 19.10 They had anointed Absolom and Hushai among the rest saluted him saying God save the King 2 Sam. 16.16 Yet David retained the hearts of his Subjects for 2 Sam. 19.9 All the people were at strife throughout all the tribes of Israel saying The King saved us from the hands of the Philistines and delivered us from our enemies and now he is fled before Absolom And Zadok and Abiathar the Priests prevailed with Amasa to turn the hearts of all the men of Judah to King David and as one man they invited him and all his Servants to return Object If God send a wicked Prince for the punishment of the sins of a people it is their duty to submit to the punishment of their iniquities as our Church Homelies instruct us in these words Homely the first against Disobedience p. 280. For Subjects do deserve through their sins to have an evil Prince and then to rebel against him were double and treble evil by provoking God more to plague them Let us either deserve to have a good Prince or let us patiently suffer and obey such as we deserve and whether the Prince be good or evil let 〈◊〉 according to the Scriptures pray for him for his continuance and increase in Goodness if he be good and for his amendment if he be evil for Reges quando boni muneris est Dei quando mali ex merito populi We may bonos Imperatores 〈◊〉 expeâ—orâ— quoscunque câ—lirare So Taciâ—us says And we ought to indure wicked Princes as we do 〈◊〉 or Scarcity which as of God's sâ—â—ing for there being in Nature a Vicissitude of Earthly things good and evil succeeding each other we must receive evil at the hands of God with as willing a submission as we do good things and the return of good things will satisfy for our calm submission to evils as God blessed the later end of Job by doubling all his injoyments and as after a short persecution in the Marian days the Protestants enjoyed a long tranquility under Q. Elizabeth c. and as none can so none ought to resist the will of God. Ans It must be granted that there is no evil befals a City or a Nation but it is the Lords doing either by his permission or his commission but it is as certain that God not approves of all that he permits to be done in the World and when God doth afflict a people for their sins that which is done justly by himself by way of permission cannot be justified by the Agents for want of a Commission 2ly God may punish a Nation by Fire Famine or Sword yet it is the duty of such as suffer under those Judgments to pray against them and by the known rule Pro quibus orandum pro iis laborandum they may use all lawful endeavours against them If God permit Fire to destroy my Habitation or Robbers to plunder me it is just with God to deal lo with me yet I may and ought to endeavour the quenching of that fire and as I am able to resist those Robbers otherwise it would not be lawful for Christians to fight against those Turks and Tartars which invade Christendom for the destruction of their Religion when in respect to God such Invasions are made for the punishment of their sins viz. their unchristian Divisions and Corruptions of the Doctrine of Christianity And if such a Prince as the King of France meerly for his ambition or for propagating his own Superstition shall invade the Dominions of Protestant Princes or destroy thousands of his own Subjects contrary to his own Edicts may they not defend themselves against such unjust Invasions of their Rights and Religion or at least may they not pray against them or flye from his furious attempts And yet this is a degree of resisting him Yet the Church of England hath not been guilty of these misbehaviours in any of these respects for as long as the late King continued among us we continued to pray for him and the whole Militia were at his command had he thought fit to intrust them We followed the advice of Moses even when we had a Howling Wilderness on the one side and a Red-Sea on the other to stand still i. e. to keep our stations and duties waiting for God's salvation who in due time sent us a Joshua with whom were the Priests of the Lord and the Ark of the Covenant to whom the swelling streams of Jordan gave way and opened a passage and gave us an entrance to our Canaan not only by dry Land but without shedding of Bloud a Blessing greater than that vouchsafed to Israel And should we like Sampson lye still in a dead sleep and not shake off those bonds while we are able by which the Philistines would have bound us and sported themselves in our destruction When St. Peter was imprisoned by Herod Acts 12.7 God sent an Angel at the Prayers of the Church which were made incessantly for him at whose presence his Chains fell off and the first second and third Gates of the Prison were opened and the Angol bid him arise quickly and gird himself and follow him which if St. Peter had not done he had certainly been wanting to his own preservation The same Apology which David made for himself may serve for the oppressed but peaceable Subjects of England 1 Sam. 24.11.12 Moreover my father see the skirt of thy garment in my hand for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe and killed thee not know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in my hands and I have not sinned against thee yet thou himself my soul to take it The Lord judge between me and thee and the Lord avenge me of thee but my hand shall not be upon thee And vers 17. Saul said to David Thou art more righteous than I. As for Tacitus though he were a Heathen yet
believe the French League for introducing of Popery and Arbitrary Government is worse than an Infidel Object But the King forsook the Land because his Subjects had first forsaken him contrary to their Duty Ans The peoples duty was to be governed according to the Law which is the measure of their Obedience and they being sensible that the King's design was to subvert the Laws and to that end had armed Irish and English Papists contrary to Law they could not joyn with such men in such a design The Papists themselves alway opposed their Kings in the reigns of King John Henry the Third and others that would have submitted the Kingdom to the Pope And if the Subjects had fought for the King in this Cause they had fought for the Pope and for Slavery against the Crown and Dignity of the King against their Religion and Liberties and against the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which bound them pro posse as far as they were able to resist the Usurpations of the Pope by what means soever they should be introduced In brief let this Dilemma be considered either the King was forced to flye or else he deserted the Government willingly if he was forced then there was a Conquest and the Conqueror had right to what by lawful Arms he did obtain if he fled willingly then there was a renouncing of the Government that is an Abdication and so the Crown became void and our Allegiance to the late King ceased Object But the Subjects of England entred into an Association with the Prince and though they fought not yet were in Arms. Ans The Magna Charta granted by King John as well as the Law of Nature and confirmed by many Parliaments doth warrant such an Association for preserving their Lives Laws and Liberties when they are in imminent danger and such was the Case of England at that time Object If Subjects have Power to resist their Princes why then did the Primitive Martyrs cast away their Lives died Abner as a fool dieth Ans They had no Laws for establishing their Religion no Votes in choosing the Senators the Laws were against them and their Religion obliged them to submit to the present Powers who had an Absolute Command over them and if these Christians had such Oaths from their Emperors as we have it might be well questioned whether they would not have held him to the performance Object If we may not resist a King acting contrary to the Laws of God and Nature then neither when he acts contrary to the Laws of the Land. Answ The Laws of the Land do grant to Subjects more particular Rights and Liberties than the Law of God doth and the Law of God doth not destroy the Civil Constitutions of a Land which the People may claim and defend it is therefore observable that Queen Mary did not put any to Death for their Religion untill she had procured a Parliament that made void the Laws made on behalf of the Protestants and had reinforced the ancient Laws which were made in times of Popery and procured new ones against Protestants as Hereticks It is a strange account which Ecclesiastical Histories gives of the Primitive Christians that they were Candidati Martyris offered themselves to their Persecutors not only when they were accused and brought before Magistrates but when the Inimicum vulgus invaded them and they might have resisted such as had no Authority against them it was a Rule with Tertul. Quodcunque non licet in Imperatorem nec in quenquam licet By which Rule it was as unlawful to resist a Robber or Murtherer as the Emperor and in his opinion if the Emperor had been a Christian he might not have resisted any violent person but he was a Montanist and had his Errors as in matters of Doctrine so also of Fact as in his Account that the number of Christians were sufficient to have vanquished the whole Roman Empire that it was not lawful to fly in times of Persecution to which end he wrote a Tract De fuga c. which was contrary to our Saviours direction to his Disciples Matth. 10.23 And in truth if it be not lawful to resist a Persecutor neither is it lawful to fly when we are summoned to appear before a persecuting Magistrate for that is determined to be a kind of Resistance But the true Cause of the Non-resistance of the Primitve Christians was that which Tertul. observes Nos externi sumus We are Aliens from the Common-wealth of Rome they had no Laws no Votes in choosing the Senators but were accounted of as Out laws and Enemies to the Government by their Religion it was with them as with such Protestants as live under the Tyranny of the Pope who being apprehended and cast into the Inquisition had neither Power nor Right to defend themselves but it was their duty to give Testimony to the Truth by laying down their Lives for it They were under an Arbitrary Power in the nature of Slaves and Vassels and lookt on as Enemies to the Roman State being of a Religion contrary to what was established but we are Freemen that have our Religion and Properties established by Law and such as act contrary to the Government resist the Ordinance of God and oppose it and may be resisted And the Oaths by which we are obliged bind us primarily to the Government and to the Governours for the sake thereof and if the Government be not Arbitrary neither is our Allegiance due to one that would govern Arbitrarily So that suffering for the Faith of Christ is a distinct thing from suffering for the frame of the Government for if I may not resist I am overcome and yield consent to a change of the Government i. e. to an Arbitrary and Illegal Power contrary to the Constitution under wich I live and so promote the ends of an Oppressing and Usurping Governour and I cannot expect with comfort a Reward from God for casting away my own Life and endangering the Lives of many others when a Government is duely established God approves of it as his Ordinance and the People ought by all lawful means to preserve it for the Gospel of Christ doth no more destroy the priviledges of the People than of the Prince but if the Prince would destroy the Rights of the People they may contest them for in vain are Laws made and Liberties granted if they may not be defended And this may serve to answer the Objection concerning the behaviour of the Primitive Christians who as Bishop Abbot observed when they were armed with publick Laws and Priviledges under Constantine did not submit as when they lived under Dioclesian and Licinius but fought in their own Defence and would rather kill than be killed From the Death of Nero the Christians until Constantines Reign thought it a great happiness to injoy their Religion with Persecution they served the present Emperours fought their Battles and took the Military Oaths though the Emperor made
despaired of it It was doubtless a commendable action of the Men of Israel to rescue Jonathan from the Fury of his Father Saul who sought to destroy his life as well as to defeat David of the Crown to which God had appointed him to succeed And it is as commendable in our Nation to commit the defence of the Crown of England to that Heroick Person who hath so wonderfully restored it to the right Line And who can pretend any Injury is done in that case wherein all Parties that are concerned do expresly agree and acquiesce Object But this was not agreeable to the Declaration of the Prince of Orange at his first coming to England Ans 1. The Prince declared That he would refer all Matters in question to the Determination of a Parliament freely Elected which doubtless he would have done had the late King been as willing to confide in the good will of his own People as the Prince was but having not Confidence to abide the Decision of a Parliament he frustrated that end of the Prince Ans 2. One end of the Prince's Invasion was to vindicate the Title of his Lady and that which he also had to the Crown which being by the late King's rashness and precipitation made void it was necessarily devolved on the Convention to supply and in the circumstance wherein we were they could not do otherwise Object The Convention is no Parliament and therefore can make no Laws much less can it dispose of the Crown Ans Though the Convention want the formality of being called by the King 's Writ yet it hath the power and authority of a Parliament and in some cases greater as hath been shewn and may thus farther appear In the 36 of Edward the Third we have this Clause in the Statute That for maintenance of these Acts viz. Magna Charta and others relating thereunto for the Publick Good and for the redress of Publick Greivances which daily happen a Parliament shall be holden every year as was ordained by another Statute viz. 4 Edw. 3. c. 14. These Laws were never yet formally repealed and the reason of a Law continuing it is reason the Law should be still in force especially when it concerns our Magna Charta and other Statutes made to prevent the Mischiefs and Grievances which daily happen And Judge Vaghan in his Reports says That in cases which depend on fundamental Principles millions of Presidents to the contrary are to no purpose So that the neglect of observing such a fundamental Law as maintains our Magna Charta cannot make those Laws void In the Act for Triennial Parliaments made in the Reign of Charles the First it was provided That if the King should fail to call a Parliament according to those Statutes viz. 4 36 Edw. 3. The People should meet without any Writs at all and choose their Parliament-men This Triennial Act of Charles the First was repealed by another Act for Triennial Parliaments at the return of Charles the Second because it was thought that it intrenched on the King's Prerogative to which as the effect shews they were too much devoted wherein yet they took notice That because by ancient Statutes of the Realm made in the Reign of Edw. the Third Parliaments were to be held very often it was enacted That within three years after the determination of that present Parliament Parliaments should not be discontinued above three years at most and should be holden oftner if need required but were omitted from October 1685 to the time that the Convention meâ— i. e. above three years Now if ever there was need for calling a Parliament it was in the case of our late Revolution and seeing the late King did then refuse to call a Parliament it was necessary that the People should for the maintenance of our Magna Charta and other Statutes relating thereunto otherwise we had been left without a remedy in our greatest extremity therefore I conclude that the Convention had the power of a Parliament and from thence that by the Statute 13 Eliz. this present Parliament had the power of limiting the Descent of the Crown which they have devolved on the present King and Queen and that they are legally in the possession of it and all the Laws made by the present Parliament are obligatory to the Subjects Concerning the Declaration That it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to take Arms c. What provocations the late great Indignities which both the Royal Family and all Loyal Families had suffered in the late Rebellion I need not say and what opposition was made by some Parliament-men of both Houses at the passing of the Declaration and by what secret and unsuspected Arts and Insinuations they were moved to pass it but certainly if the effects of it had been foreseen and they had considered maturely what ill conclusions might be inferred from those premises such as the establishing an Arbitrary Power and ruling by a standing Army and destroying many wholsome and fundamental Laws they would never have contributed to the establishing of their own Slavery by a Law. Of this design the Parliament-men in both Houses became sensible And when in the thirteenth Session of the Parliament 1675 the like Declaration was required as a Test of all Parliament-men in either House and of all Officers of Church and State viz. I A. B. do declare That it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King c. there was great opposition made against it as a Bill of dangerous consequence insomuch as it was debated five several days in the House of Lords before it was committed to a Committee of the whole House The Lords that opposed it were of great Quality for Paris and Interests their Names as I find them were Buckingham Bridgewater Wâ—â—â—chester Salisbury Bedford Dorset Aliâ—bury Bristol Dembigh Pagist Hollis Peter Howard of Berks Mohun Stamford Hallifax Delamore Eâ—re Shaftsbury Clarendon Grey Roll Say and Seal Wharton Audley Fitzwater The Bill was intituled An Act to prevent the Dangers which may arise from Persons disaffected to the Government Divers amendments and alterations were proposed some would have it run thus in the second part of it I do abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by the King's Authority against his person or against those that are Commissioned by him according to Law in time of Rebellion or War c. And as to the third part concerning Church-Government some would have it run thus I do swear not to endeavour by force or fraud to alter c. Others thus I do swear that I will not endeavour to alter the Protestant Religion now by Law established in the Church of England But the first part about taking up Arms was most hotly disputed And first they debated the Form whether there should be any Oath in the Bill Here they argued against the multiplying of Oaths and that there was really no Security to any State by
Oaths and that no private Person much less a Statesman would so order his affairs as to rely on them No man would ever sleep with open Doors or unlockt Treasure or Plate should all the Town be sworn not to rob Then was the Assertory part of the Declaration debated and it was urged That Assertory Oaths and Declarations were properly appointed to give Testimony of a matter of Fact of which a man may be assured by the evidence of his senses but not to confirm or invalidate Doctrinal Propositions and that the Legislative Power which imposeth such an Oath assumes to its self an Infallibility and must suppose all that take it to be infallible which could not be supposed in ignorant and illiterate Men and that Promissary Oaths in the judgment of Grotius De Jure Belli l. 2. c. 13. are forbidden by our Saviour Matth. 5.34 37. to be multiplied and that to declare upon Oath and to swear upon Oath were the same thing And that to declare upon Oath That it was not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King might introduce a new Form of Government that it was better to leave such things in Generals as in the Law of 25 Edw. 3. which makes it Treason to take up Arms against the King and the restraint of it to any case whatsoever would destroy the distinction between Absolute and Bounded Monarchies if Monarchs have only the fear of God and no fear of Man to restrain them and that our Ancestors took care that the Prince's safety should be in them and never would endure a mercenary or standing Army though Commissioned by the King and that the declaring an Abhorrance of that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by the King's Authority against his Person being set down in universal Terms is not alway to be abhorâ—ed as Traiterous there being but one case and such as is not like to happen again wherein it was so i. e. the Case of the Long Parliament but other Cases might and did often happen wherein taking Arms against such as were Commissioned by the King might be the Subjects Duty as in the instance of Henry the Sixth being taken Prisoner by Edward the Fourth who pretended to the Crown and the Earl of Warwick who gave out what Commissions they pleased but his Wife and Son raised Arms against such Commissions and rescued the King's person by fighting against such Commissions And lastly that not to take Arms against any that were Commissioned by the King did evidently introduce Arbitrary Government and if whatever is by the King's Commission is not to be opposed by the King's Authority then a Standing Army is Law whenever the King pleaseth and that the King's Commission was never held sufficient to justifie any Man acting against his Authority which would destroy the most essential and fundamental part of Law for Liberty and Property and make the Government Arbitrary And it was urged That if a Man recovers possession of his House and is by the Sheriff put into it and the person outed procure a Warrant to some Commissioned Officers of a Standing Army to deliver back the Possession the person that is in possession by Law may defend himself by Arms against those who by Commission from the King come by force to Eject him out of his Possession So that such a Declaration and Oath was to establish another Government which the Oath of Allegiance knew not and then swear to maintain it as established All this and much more notwithstanding the Declaration as it stands after sixteen or seventeen days spent in arguing was confirmed and the Consequences plainly manifest how unreasonable it was in it self and how mischievous to the Subjects and therefore is by the Act 24 April last laid aside Concerning the Present Oath The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy being abrogated our Allegiance was reduced to the Oath of Allegiance as it anciently stood and was to be administred in the Court-Leet the Form whereof runs thus You shall swear that from this day forwards you shall be true and faithful to our Soveraign Lord the King his Heirs and lawful Successors c. which words do not assert the Title to the Crown nor look backward to what is past but assures Fidelity for the future and our Legislators plainly declare that by the words in the late Oath I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance is the same Fidelity meant as in the Declaration ordered to be subscribed by some Dissenters viz. To be true and faithful And doubtless the Legislators who are of the same Communion in the Church of England could not think of laying a greater restraint or obligation on the genuine Members of that Church whom they have found to be always Faithful then upon such Dissenters as had been false And had the two Houses thought or suspected any snare in it they would have been so far from laying it on the Consciences of others that they would not have tought 〈◊〉 with one of their Fingers So that our Legislators have in the Subscription required from those Dissenters clearly resolved what they meant by the word Allegiance in the Oath namely To be true and faithful in which sence as many have declared they would take it without any farther scruple So I see no reason but all may except such unreasonable Men as bogling at shadows from the word Megiance are resolved to incur the sad consequences of being judged Rebellious I have one Request more which I intreat such of my Brethren as are yet Unresolved seriously to consider viz. That having devoted their Persons and Services to Almighty God in the Ministry of the Church of England they cannot without the guilt of Sacriledge in a high degree and upon very clear and demonstrable Arguments withdraw themselves from that Ministry especially in such a juncture of time when there are so many grievous Wolves some in Sheeps cloathing and others with open mouths roaring for their Prey that seek by all means to devour their Flocks and by the loss of her Ministers the Church itself may be in a short time destroyed for there are still too many that bear evil will to Sion and would down with it even to the ground And if it should be found that we have forsaken the Service of God on a Mistake or Prejudice when we shall be called to an account how we have fulfilled our Ministry and watched over the Flocks whereof the Holy Ghost had made us Overseers we must have some substantial Reasons to plead in our Excuse or we shall never render an Account with Joy. The Evil Spirit hath not without a Miracle been sorely cast out and is roving up and down seeking how to enter again and if we by our Divisions should make a breach for him to enter by he will bring with him seven-fold more and dwell among us and make our later end worse than the beginning It is sad when we shall be reduced to such a condition as sometime the Roman State was which could neither ferre Vulnera nec Remedia endure their Wounds nor the Remedies of them If we by our Obstinacy do frustrate all the means of our Salvation and receive the Grace of God in vain and being fond of kissing the Rod that smote us do resist the Hand that would heal us there must be a greater Miracle wrought for our Salvation than hitherto God hath wrought for any man that is to save us against our wills Cujus aures clausae sunt ut ab amico veritatem audire nolit hujus Salus pene desperanda est FINIS ADVERTISEMENT 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