prevent that the fault is his own The Murder of Edw. 2. and Rich. 2. was done by private Assassines disown'd by Parliament and punished or if that Age exceeded the limits of Self-defence it will not prejudice such as defend themselves with moderation And in vain are Rights granted and purchased if they may not by any means be defended As to the instance of Marriage the Indissolubility of that no way infers the Indissolubility of the relation between King and people for first Marriage itself in some cases admits a Divorce as in case of Adultery Impotency a vinculo and in cases of Cruelty a mensa toro and in case of Desertion after certain time the Law allows another Marriage 2. The Indissolubility of Marriage springs not from its being a Contract but from a positive Law of God super-added So that unless you can shew the like positive Precept for the Indissolubility of the relation between King and people the argument holds not 3. There ariseth another difference from the nature of the thing a Nation cannot want a present Governour so that if the King will not attend the Government there is an absolute necessity of seeking another which is not so in the case of Marriage for a deserted Woman is not so suddenly destroyed as a deserted Kingdom will be As to the Argument from our own and other Writers concerning Non-resistance c. I answer as formerly That general Rules reach not the particular cases which could not be foreseen or provided against And 2. It may be said without offence that good Divines are not alway good Lawyers and the Law is the measure of our Obedience as appears by the Authors of the Erudition and Bishop Bancroft the former makes the King's Proclamations as binding as a Law the later told King James in the presence of Cooke and other Lawyers that the King might call any Cause and judge it personally in his Chamber And there have been as eminent men in the Church of a contrary opinion Bishop Jewel Bilson Abbot and the Convocation in Q. Elizabeth's reign who contributed to the War which she undertook in behalf of the Hollanders which have been often quoted in the present Case and do all approve of a Defensive War in case of imminent Danger and Destruction contrary to the established Laws As to Dr. Sanderson's Judgment approved by the University i. e. That the Right of Subjection springs from the Right of Protection and the King's neglect of his Office doth not free the Peoples Consciences from the Bonds of Allegiance Ans 1. That besides the Right of Protection an actual Administration of Government is absolutely necessary to prevent Confusion and Anarchy 2. A neglect to perform Duty amounts not to the case in hand viz. visible Attempts to ruine and destroy the people which he should preserve wherein the King doth not abuse his power but acts beyond and without his lawful power 3. The people defending themselves in cases of extream necessity differs from the discharging of them from their Allegiance which the Doctor urgeth yet the discharge of them from their Allegiance may follow if the King will leave them to a state of Nature and Confusion or subject them to such Enemies as seek to destroy them Object 5. The King never dyes therefore when the Right passeth from the King it was immediately to be devolved on the Princess of Orange Ans 1. The descent of the Crown is limitable by the Supreme Authority of the Kingdom as appears first by practice frequently in King Henry the 8th's days and in the Marriage of Q. Mary with King Philip of Spain and in the crowning of Henry the 7th 2. It consists with reason the Right of Succession being but a Humane Constitution is alterable by a Humane Constitution If the Order of Succession had been a Divine Right it must have been so in all Nations and unalterable Nil magis naturale quam quo modo aliquid constituitur eodem dissoluitur And it appears 3. By the Act of Parliament 13 Eliz and whereas the Recognition of King James is pleaded as a bar to that Act. Ans Doth the Recognition say that henceforth the Succession should be as the Laws of Medes and Persians unalterable No they had another intent viz. To silence the Disputes that had been concerning King James his Title upon a Statute enabling Henry the 8th to settle the Succession which Settlement for not observing the forms prescribed by that Statute became void and so there was some cause for making the Recognition And whereas it 's said that the Act 13 Eliz. was made to serve a present turn viz. to secure Q. Elizabeth against the pretences of the Queen of Scots it is clear that it respects the future Succession by making the penalty of a Praemunire the Sanction of that Law for future Ages As for the Maxim viz. That a contrary declaration of the will of the Lawgiver doth abrogate the former Ans Where is the Contrariety The recognizing K. James his Title which had fallen under disputes is not contrary to that Act and besides it is averred that an Act of Parliament cannot be repealed but by express mention of it and as for the omission of it in the late Statute-Books for it still stands in the ancient Books this was rather done to serve a turn than the Act of Q. Elizabeth Anno 13 as is pretended 2ly The present Settlement is made by the Supreme Authority of the Nation for there is the consent of the right Heir and the People fully represented which are essentially the Supreme Authority the calling by Writs being only a formality and forms cease in cases of necessity because forms were introduc'd for common cases to obviate frauds c. But in cases of necessity and where no fraud is used the forms are not necessary 2. In cases of doubtful Succession the extinction of the Royal Line or Lunacy or as the case of restoring K. Charles the Second it is impossible to use all the Solemnities and yet a just Settlement may be made without them Object 6. The next Doubt is concerning the New Oath whether it be assertory or only promissory Ans First it is apparent that this New Oath leaves out the assertory part in the Oath of Supremacy and the alteration in so considerable a part implies an alteration in the matter of the Oath as to that particular 2ly The Law doth not bind the Vulgar to inquire into the Titles of Kings nor indeed are they capable to judge of Titles for we must swear in Judgment and if it be objected that the Law binds us to assert the rightfulness of the King's Title in the Oath of Supremacy that was only in opposition to the Pope's pretences and usurpations which are notoriously apparent therefore we have no reason to presume that the Legislators intended to bind us by this New Oath to assert the legality of the Title of the Governour The ancient Oaths of
Orange And they do pray the said Prince and Princess of Orange do accept the same accordingly And that the Oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all Persons of whom the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by Law instead of them and that the said Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy may be Abrogated A. B. Do sincerely Promise and Swear that I will be Faithful and bear true Allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary So help me GOD c. I A. B. Do Swear That I do from my Heart Abhor Detest and Abjure as Impious and Heretical this Damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be Deposed or Murdered by the Subjects or any other whatsoever And I do Declare That no Foreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm So help me GOD c. Now if in the Judgment of the Great Counsel after mature Deliberation these evident Matters of Fact did amount to a just Cause to pronounce the Crown Void I cannot perceive what in Justice they could do otherwise then to lodge it where it is the present Circumstances in which the Nation was requiring a speedy Settlement For which end it was provided after the Vacancy of the Roman Empire the Electors were to agree in the Choice of another within thirty Days or else to be allowed only Bread and Water until they had agreed If it be objected That the Crown ought to be set only on the Queen it may be thus answered That there is as little Deviation made as possibly could be and that the present King might have claimed it by Conquest with as much reason as either William called the Conqueror or Henry the Seventh but he had also a better Title than either of those being nearer in Bloud then either of them and the Title of his Lady being undoubtedly the next in Succession but by a suspected Child was endeavoured to be excluded ought to be as happily it is vindicated by her Royal Consort whereupon the Administration of the Government being by general Consent conferred on him during Life it is no more than what he might have claimed nor less than what they could have granted And therefore there is no cause can be given why we should not transfer our Allegiance to him at least in conjunction with the Queen in the case of Henry the Seventh the Nation did so before his marrying the Queen in whom the right Title was and much rather may we when the Queen's Title is acknowledged and the Test of all publick Acts and Writs are in both their Names so that during the joynt Lives of the King and Queen supposing that King James hath forfeited the Crown our Allegiance is undoubtedly due as by the new Oath is required But if yet any man should scruple the taking this Oath as not being satisfied that the right of Title is in the present King I say that this is more than appears to be required either by the Letter of the Oath or the intention of the Authority that imposed it And first as to the intention of the Legislator let it be considered what other intent they could have in laying aside the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance wherein the right Title of the Prince in being was so punctually asserted to make room for this wherein the assertory part is wholly omitted but to prevent the objection of such as should pretend this too nice scruple of Conscience to which there being in the Nation so many Pretenders to a Liberty of Conscience which cannot be forced I do rationally believe that the present Authority had a respect in penning the Oath so cautiously for the Oath doth not say as without gross Nonsence it can be supposed I do promise that King William and Queen Mary are lawful King and Queen c. but only that I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary which may be done supposing that King William is only King de Facto and Queen Mary de Jure as in the Case of Henry the Seventh before mentioned And as to the Letter of the Oath though the Comparison be odious yet the Resolution of Bishop Sanderson in the case of subscribing the Engagement may determine such scrupulous Consciences the words of the Engagement are I do promise to be True and Faithful to the Common-wealth of England as it is now Established without King or Lords The words of the present Oath are I do sincerely Promise and Swear that I will be Faithful and bear true Allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary Where first observe that the Swearing doth no more add an Obligation to the Matter sworn to in the Oath than the Promise and Subscription doth to the Matter of the Engagement Secondly The Ingagement was for altering of the Species of the Government from that which was most Noble to that which was most Ignoble and indeed to an individuum vagum there being then no Government established Thirdly The King then in being had in no case made a Desertion or Forfeiture of his Crown but endeavoured with the hazard of his Life to vindicate his just Title Fourthly The Invader then was a Subject and a notorious Usurper who by fraud and force had driven him from his right All which considerations made a great difference between the legality of taking this Oath and subscribing that Ingagement But here I must premise that I do not insist on this Instance as if I thought the present King and Queen were only so de facto for I am rationally and fully perswaded that they are rightfully King and Queen of England c. as ever any of their Predecessors were That learned Casuist gives a higher and stricter or a lower and laxer sence of the Engagement the lower and laxer sence he thus expresseth Whereas for the present the Supreme Power under which I am is actually possessed by the House of Commons without King or House of Lords I promise that as long as I live under their protection I will not contrive or attempt any act of Hostility against them but living quietly and peaceably will endeavour faithfully in my Place and Calling to do what every good Member of a Common-wealth ought to do for the safety of my Country and preservation of Civil Society therein And our Casuits says p. 106. There want not greater probabilities of reason to induce us to believe that this sense is to be accounted the immediate and declared intent of the imposers who though they might have a more secret reserved and ultimate intent the ingager is not concerned in it the Equivocation if any lieth on the Imposers score not on the Subscribers Because 1. Many both Divines and Lawyers took it which they would not have done in another sense 2.
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
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
to their Power and beyond it have endeavoured to depose any Prince whom they judge Heretical the not owning of the Pope's Supremacy is thought a sufficient cause for excommunicating first and then deposing such a Prince and incouraging the People to withdraw their Allegiance and take Arms against them witness the Bull of Pope Pius against Queen Eliz. and the approbation of that hellish Powder Plot against King James for the contrivance whereof Garnet was numbred among their Saints at Rome and the deposing of Kings and Emperors of the Romish Communion hath been often practised by the Pope in Germany France and other Countries on frivolous pretences as the History of former and later times doth abundantly manifest And our own Chronicles shew what was practised by the English Nation when it was wholly at the devotion of the Pope in deposing one King and choosing another And God forbid that any Protestant Nation should be guilty of such Principles or Practices as have been received and allowed of by the Romanists Our case is vastly different as is evident by the Declaration of the Lords and Commons the many Grievances therein mentioned and the occasion of a just War given to the present King reduced the late King who had wholly destroyed the Foundation and Species of the Government to desert the Nation and to fly to France for refuge leaving his People in Confusion and made it necessary for them to do what they have done to prevent their utter destruction by those Flames which he having kindled fled from them for his own security Nor can any Protestant Nation be scandalized at our Transactions they having done the same thing on a like occasion Thus the Swedes excluded Sigismond the Third and his Heirs for altering the established Religion by introducing Popery and sending his Son to be educated a Papist for violating his Oath altering the Laws raising Souldiers and exacting Money contrary to Law causing a Nobleman to be assassinated for diswading him from his illegal Practices punishing such as would not receive the Romish Religion and deserting his Country without consent of his People for which causes he was adjudged to have Abdicated his Kingdom and the Nation chose Charles Duke of Sudermannia to succeed him Christiern the Second King of Denmark was so dealt with by his People and what the Hollanders did against the King of Spain and the Scot against Queen Mary is generally known and neither of these can be scandalized at us who have acted more innocently than the best of them Object From the Act of 13 of Q. Eliz. which makes it high Treason during her Reign and forfeiture of Goods ever after in any wise to hold or affirm that an Act of Parliament is not of sufficient Force and Validity to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm and the descent limitation and inheritance thereof It is objected that this Act concerns not the present case seeing what is to be done for the descent and limitation of the Crown is to be done by an Act of Parliament but a Convention is no Parliament and that Act was made only to serve the present Interest of the Queen against the Claims of the Queen of Scots Answ That in the circumstances wherein we were left there was this Remedy left us and no other the late King having immediately before his departure destroyed the Writs for calling a Parliament though he had prepared the Elections for such a one as might serve his purpose And an extraordinary Distemper requires unusual Applications yet this was the most usual and proper means for what could heal our Distractions but an unanimous agreement of the People in choosing a Convention when a Parliament could not be had And who were more able or likely to consult for the common welfare than the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Representatives of the People duly Elected with whom the King having left them in Person left his Authority with them and they became as August an Assembly as ever any Senate of the Ancient Romans when the Empire became void who had the Power to create an Emperor which also had been often practised by the Ancient Britains Nor was it fit that the Nation should continue without a King least every Man should have done what seemed good in his own Eyes as when there was no King in Israel And though a Convention have not the formality of a Parliament yet that being not to be had it hath a greater Power than a Parliament because they act not as Subjects but a free People who may choose their King and make such Laws for Government as shall not be in the Power of the King and Parliament to dissolve without the Dissolution of the Government itself as when the Foundations are destroyed the Fabrick must fall nor was there any one to invalidate the Acts of a free Convention as the King in Parliament might do by his Negative Voice 2. And whereas it is objected that the Act of 13 Eliz. respected only the Title of that Queen and was made to serve the present turn this is contrary to the express Letter of the Act which provides that ever after it should be punishable with forfeiture of Goods in any wise to hold or affirm that an Act of Parliament was not of sufficient force c. So that this Act still continues in force as the reason of it doth viz. to prevent the dangerous disputes concerning the Succession Object But the Convention ought to have set the Crown on the right Heir as the most likely means to prevent all Disputes Answ Quod fieri non debuit factum valet That which ought not to be done in more peaceable times may be warrantably done in case of imminent danger and Necessitas cogit defendit The Affairs of the Nation were involved in so many Intricacies by reason of a Confederacy of the Popish Princes against the Protestants throughout all Europe and the delivering up of Ireland into the Possession of the Papists who also had the Command of the strength of England by Sea and Land that the Courage and Conduct of a Woman though never so well qualified could not be thought competent to wrestle with so many and great difficulties and who more fit to unite so Noble but distorted a Member as the Kingdom of England to the Body of the Protestants than he who by mutual Consent of the Princes of that perswasion was chosen to be their Head who also being of the Bloud Royal and having married the right Heir was by her consent and by the consent of the Princess Anne as well as by the unanimous consent of the Nation chosen to stand as a Skreen between them and the Fury of the French King to defend their Title to the Crown which he had so successfully recovered from a lost condition Or who so fit to wear the Crown as he that won it for himself and the Right Heirs when otherwise they might have
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