Religion being contrary to the Established Laws whoever came in to it knew beforehand that at one time or other he might be called to lay down his Life for it and when it happened it was no new or unexpected accident but foreseen and provided for But then they were not so silly as to be fond of their Persecutors or to wish or fight for it We are said Tertullian defamed as Enemies to the Emperour's Majesty tamen nuaquam Alainiani nec Nigriani vel Cassiani inveniri potuerunt Christiani Yet never was any Christian found like Albinus Pescennius Niger or Avidius Cassius Vsurping the Throne and Invading the Government They prayed for the Emperor and performed all the Duties of good Subjects till he persecuted them and endeavoured to destroy the Church of God but then they changed their Notes Quales ergâ— leges ist quas adversus nos soli exequuntur impii injusti turpes truces vani dementes What Laws are these which none ever put in Execution against us but impious unjust base barbarous vain and mad Princes Who ever pleaseth may see enough of this laid together in Jovian pag. 161. and 162. There is not one of those Princes who persecuted the Church but he is represented to the World by the Fathers and Church Historians in the blackest Characters That little Book that was written by Lactantius to shew the dismal Ends and sad Catastrophies of the Persecuting Princes shews how far they were from being fond of Persecution or Persecutors and by what hand soever the enraged Fool fell the deliverance was ascribed to God who makes use of such instruments as he thinks fit to punish bloody and tyrannical Men. And let any Man shew me that the Primitive Christians were discontented when they were delivered if he can So far were some of the Ancient Fathers from fighting for the persecuting Princes when they hapned to be dethroned or invaded that they would not suffer a baptised Person to list himself in the service of a Pagan Prince Tertullian de corona cap. 11. To which purpose he alledgeth that passage of our Saviour He that takes the Sword shall perish by the Sword But then saith he Plane si quos militia praeventos fides posterior invenit alia conditio est Those who were admitted to Baptism after they were listed in the Service of the Emperor were not under the same obligation And we have the Passion of one Maximilian an African who suffered Martyrdom for no other Cause but for that he would not serve the Emperor as a Soldier And the Council of Aâ—les which first admitted baptized Persons to take up Arms limited the Grant to times of Peace which was all one with the saying They would not allow it under Pagan Princes From all which I may reasonably infer They did not think themselves bound to bestir themselves for Pagan or persecuting Princes as if the Church must have perished if they had not had the Honour to preserve every Prince God had set over them till he had ended his Reign and his Life together Yet in all these times the Doctrine of Passive Obedience was at the Highest never call'd in question never doubted of It is as true also The Roman Emperors under whom they lived were absolute Independent Princes whose Will was the Law and the constitution of the Empire differed vastly from that of England So that we are not under the same Obligations they were because our Princes have not the same Legal Powers the Roman Emperors had but then I doubt not but we are as much bound to submit to the Legal Commands of a King of England as the Primitive Christians were to the Legal Commands of their Princes But this was no part of the Controversie under the Reign of James II. who had as little Law as Reason for what he did I could never meet with one single Protestant how discontented soever he was that James II. is not still King of England who would pretend to justifie or excuse any of his Actions no they all grant his Design was certainly to extirpate the Protestant Religion to enslave and consequently to extirpate the English Nation but then say they What of all that no evil is to be done we ought not to rebel to save a Church or a Nation Why what then supposing all this were true What is this to them Have any of them rebelled Yes say they all that have sworn Allegiance to their present Majesties have made defection from James II. who tho' he were never so bad a Man is still our lawful Prince and we are bound to swear Allegiance to no other as long as he is alive To this I reply If the things laid to the Charge of James II. in the Prince of Orange's Declaration are true and I think no body questions that for all the same things in a manner are complained of in the Bishops Proposals but one or two which were too high for any Subject to take notice of why then I say That Prince had a just Cause to make War upon James II. and if he was conquered by him he has as good Right to our Allegiance on that score as ever any conquering Prince had But this is not all It is well known His now Majesty offered to submit all his Controversies to the Decision of an English Parliament which is more perhaps than was ever done by any invading Prince before but James II. was resolved That neither he nor we should have any Right or Redress but rather than submit to that he would go make a Voyage to his most Christian Majesty for his Assistance to make a second Conquest of us There has been much bandying Whether James II. went voluntarily away or were forced and this is a Question not worth one Farthing at the bottom For if he went voluntarily he was forced and if he was forced he went voluntarily I suppose no Man ever said or thought he freely resigned the Crown but that his Mis-government had raised such Jealousies and Discontents in the Minds of his Subject that they neither could nor would fight for him till he had in Parliament done Right first to his People and then to the Prince This he was resolved not to grant be the Event what it would and when he saw himself deserted by all the World still he persisted in his Resolution and after he had promised a Parliament broke his Word with the Prince and the Nation and withdrew his Person and Seals and left us in Anarchy and Confusion Now I say he was not forced to do this he might and as the case stood he was bound to have granted a Parliament and then he might have staid with good safety to his Person and Sovereignty Now if there be nothing asked of a Prince by his Neighbour-Prince upon an Invasion but what he ought to grant and may grant he is forced by no body but himself if
THE DOCTRINE OF Non-Resistance or Passive Obedience No way concerned in the CONTROVERSIES Now depending between the Williamites and the Iacobites By a LAY GENTLEMAN of the Communion of the Church of England by Law establish'd Cruces nec colimus nec optamus LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXIX The Doctrine of NON-RESISTANCE or PASSIVE OBEDIENCE No way concern'd in the CONTROVERSIES now depending c. I Have with some impatience and wonder beheld the bandying of the Non-resisting Doctrine to and fro in this disturbed Kingdom for so many Months and to so little purpose because I am not able to comprehend what any of the contending Parties would be at nor why that Doctrine rather than any other should be made now the Subject of our Disquisitions and Enquiries For what if God has forbidden us upon pain of Damnation to resist our Lawful Princes when they do amiss and has reserved to himself the Censure and Punishment of his own Ministers as I'believe all Lawful Princes are such and that God has for great and wise Reasons tied up our hands Doth it therefore follow from hence that James is still the Lawful King of England Or that when he was so we that believe the Non-resisting Doctrine were bound to sight for him whatever he did And on the other side what can the Friends of their present Majesties pretend to palliate their Contempt and Scorn of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience It was indeed dangerous to them when he first entered England because all that believed themselves bound by it were obliged not to take up Arms for him against King James and so consequently it deprived him of their Assistance But when he had once subdued the Forces and obtained the Throne of that Infatuated Monarch of what use can it be to him to have his Subjects so frequently told That it is lawful for them to take Arms and Defend themselves their Rights and Religions against him I doubt not but His Majesty intends to Govern us with the utmost Clemency and Mercy according to our Laws But when neither Moses nor David could always please their Subjects It is to be feared the best of Princes may at one time or other need the Influence of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience to restrain the madness of the People and therefore they can be no Friends to Government in general nor to him or his in particular who are so zealous to have the Doctrine of Non-resistance extirpated out of the World. The consequence of which is That it is Lawful for every Man to Rebel against his Lawful Prince whenever he thinkâ— it necessary My design therefore in this Discourse being to put an end as far as I can to this unseasonable Dispute I shall endeavour to prove these Particulars as to the Friends of the late King. 1. That thâ—se that believed it were not thereby bound to assert the Mis government of James the Second 2. That seeing he has deserted his Throne and withdrawn his Person and Seals they are not thereby obliged to endeavour the restoring of him The Doctrine of Passive Obedience doth not oblige a Subject to assert the Mis-government of his Prince For it supposeth the Prince may command what he ought not and then it obligeth me to suffer rather than to resist my Prince or to break the Commandments of God or the Laws of my Country or do any other ill Action in Obedience to his Commands Now what is this to the purpose King James had notoriously subverted all our Constitutions and Laws both in Church and State and would suffer no redress the Church of England on the other hand Petition'd him from time to time by her Bishops and Nobility to suffer a Parliament to meet and redress our Grievances but this he would not yield and what should they do in this case Why said the Jesuit in the Answer to the Petition of the 17 th of November 1688. when they had set forth That in their Opinion the Only visible way to preserve his Majesty and this his Kingdom would be the calling of a Parliament Regular and Free in all its circumstances I hope to make it out that the summoning a Parliament now is so far from being the Only way to effect these things that it will be one of the Principal Causes of much Misery to the Kingdom And I am sure both our Duty to God and our holy Religion as well as to His Majesty and our Country doth plainly enjoyn us to use one other effectual means c. which is the keeping inviolably to our Allegiance to our Sovereign and effectually joyning with him to resist all his Enemies Whether Foreign Aggressors or Native Rebels That is let the King do what he please to you you are bound to fight for him and expel the Prince of Orange and subdue all his Adherents I can very well remember what small effect this Oratory had then upon the minds of all Men. There did not seem to be one Protestant in the Nation who could not distinguish between the Doctrine of Non-resistance and that of actually aiding a Prince to destroy and enslave his People His late Majesty however persisted in his Opinion that no Parliament could be holden till the Prince of Orange was driven out and the Clergy and Nobility in theirs that this was the Only visible way to preserve the late King and Kingdom which imply'd that all fighting was dangerous to both till this was done And accordingly as we had no disloyal Exhortations from Press or Pulpit to perswade Men to fight against their Prince so neither had we any to perswade us to fight for him but the thing was committed to God to determine as he thought fit In this our Bishops Clergy Nobility and Gentry and in general all the Children of the Church of England behaved themselves like good Christians and good Subjects too this difficult Case could then be no otherwise well and justifiably managed and if some few forgot their Duty and declared too soon for the Prince of Orange his now Majesty this they only are responsible for those that adhered to the late King till he actually left the Nation and the Government fell for want of the first Mover are not responsible for their Miscarriage if it was one In the Primitive times when this Doctrine was best both understood and practised their Loyalty was one of their lesser Virtues upon which they never valued themselves It would have been then a mean piece of Virtue for a Man to have alledged he had been ever Loyal to his Prince when a Rebel or a Traytor Christian was a thing they looked upon with horror and affrightment they expected Martyrdom every moment and were preparing for it at all times they were told then at their first admission into the Church that they must expect Persecution and every one who took up that Profession did it with that Expectation And the
would have them produce but one Example in all those times of a Christian that did scruple to submit to or pray for the Prince that was set over him be his Title what it would And when his hand is in let him shew me the Christian that desired the Restitution of Dioclesian or Liciniu two persecuting Princes who were as manifestly laid aside as King James was or could be supposing he was purely forced and that there was nothing of his will in it which yet were a very extravagant Supposition 2. I come now to the Second thing I proposed to examine whether those who stand for the Non-resisting Doctrine are by it bound to endeavour the Restitution of James the Second now he had deserted the Throne and withdrawn his Person and Seals I have in part anticipated this Enquiry in the former part as it was impossible to do otherwise by shewing the Primitive Christians who owned and practised this Doctrine to the highest did yet never concern themselves for the Titles or Successions of their Princes but submitted to those they found in the Throne good or bad by what Right Title or Pretence soever they came in The only reason that be given for this is what I have assigned out of St. Augustin viz. That the Kingdoms of the World were so particularly under the Government of God that no person could usurp them without his particular Gift and Providence They did not in this case make any difference between his Approbation and Permission They knew and acknowledged this thing was managed in such manner that it was impossible for Man sometimes after the utmost search to find out the reason of it but yet they said also with St. Augustin God could approve nothing but what was just and in this be sure nothing could happen but what he approved no force no fraud ever prevailed against any Prince that was in Possession but by the Will and Approbation of God Almighty The only Objection that can be made against this is That this will seem to make God the Author or Approver of the ill things that have been done to good Princes in the several Ages of the World. To which I reply That God has very great Reason and Justice in all his Actions though it is not always known to Men. The best of Men have been guilty of great offences some of which have not been known to Men in general and others that were known have not been committed to writing and are lost but when all things shall in the last Day be discovered then it will appear That God was just in all his ways and righteous in all his works And though God has pleased to settle the Kingdom of the World in certain Families and Persons as he thought fit yet he has not thereby bound up his own hands so that let them do what they please every person that is by his Providence exalted to a Throne must necessarily Reign till his Death and shall then be succeeded by none but his next right Heir God never made a personal promise to any Family but that of David and after that to Jehu but in the Family of David as the Promise was in part conditional there were many false steps and aberrations from the true Rules of an Hereditary Succession and for the sins of Solomen God rent ten of the Tribes out of the hand of Rehoboam his Son which never after returned under the House of David and though this is stiled a Rebellion yet God owns that this thing was from him 1 King. 12. 24. And the Family of Jehu ended in the fourth desent as it was foretold Now put these two together That there is a particular Providence that particularly concerns it self in the disposing of Crowns against which neither Fraud nor Force can prevail And That God has an absolute Right as well as full Power to dispose of the Kingdoms of the World as he please and accordingly has in every Age of the World de facto disposed of them and the Conclusion will be That whosoever ascends a Throne and reigns in any Kingdom doth it by the Will and Appointment of God And in this no Wrong is done by God for he may dispose of what is his own when and how he please All Princes are Gods Ministers and Deputies and when he please he may lay them aside and set up others in their stead And this in general is true of all Princes Good and Bad but as to the latter to what purpose are Prayers and Tears stiled The Arms of the Church against persecuting Princes if they were of no Force to what purpose should Men cry unto the Lord because of the King if he were resolved never to hear them or which is all one never to help them And the Difficulty is the same yet if I may not accept of a Deliverance when it comes Why if God is pleased to put an end to the Life of an ill Prince and to set up the next immediate Successor then I may say I am delivered But when did God oblige himself to this That he would exercise this most Sovereign Jurisdiction over Princes only one way and that every Prince should be succeeded by none but his next immediate Heir Where has he obliged us to accept of no other Deliverance and to reject all other Successors but those that we took to be right with the loss of our Lives and Fortunes Did the Primitive Fathers of the Church act or write thus or how come we to be under other Laws than they were If James II. governed us as he ought according to his Laws and his Oath we are bound in Gratitude to desire the continuance of his Government and to be much concerned that we are not still under his Scepter for he was once the undoubted rightful King of England But if it was otherwise if he persecuted that Church he promised and was bound to protect and did not treat us like Englishmen but like Slaves what reason have we to desire now we are delivered to be again brought into the same Circumstances we so lately groaned under Nero Domitian and Decius the three first Persecutors of the Christian Church all of them perished by the Sword but Valerian the fourth as he is reckoned by Lactantius did not escape neither At illum Deus novo ac singulari poenae genere adfecit ut esset posteris documentum adversarios Dei sâ—pe dignam scelere suo recipere mercedem God took a new Course with him and inflicted upon him a new kind of Punishment that he might teach Posterity That the Enemies of God do often meet with a Recompence worthy of their Wickedness for he being taken Prisoner by the Persians lost not only his Sovereignty which he had most insolently abused but his Liberty also which he had deprived others unjustly of and he continued in wretched Servitude to the Day of his Death not only destitute of Help or Pity
of every individual Subject intending to refer the whole to a Parliament legally called freely elected and held without constraint wherein we shall not only have a particular regard to the Church of England as by Law established but also give such Indulgence to Dissenters as our People shall have no reason to be jealous of not expecting for the future any other favour to those of Our own Persuasion than the exercise of their Religion in their own private Families This Letter bears date at S. Germans en Laye Feb. 3. 1688-89 The Letter to the Convention of Scotland runs in a higher strain WE think fit to let you know That We have at all Times relied upon the Faithfulness and Affection of you Our Ancient People so much that in Our greatest Misfortunes heretofore We had recouâ—se to your Assistance and that with good Success to Our Affairs so now again We require of you to support Our Royal Interest expecting from you what becomes Loyal Faithful Subjects generous and honest Men that will neither suffer your selves to be cajoled nor frighted into any Action misbecoming true hearted Scotchmen and that to support the Honour of the Nation you will contemn the base Example of Disloyal Men and eternise your Names by a Loyalty suitable to the many Professions you have made to Vs in doing whereof you shall chuse the safest part since thereby you will evite the Danger you must needs undergo the Infamy and Disgrace you must bring upon your selves in this World and the Condemnation due to the Rebellious in the next and you will likewise have the Opportunity to secure to your selves and your Posterity the gracious Promises We have so oft made of securing your Religion Laws Properties Liberties and Rights which We are still resolved to perform as soon as is possible for Vs to meet you safely in a Parliament of Our Ancient Kingdom In the mean time fear not to declare for Vs your Lawful Sovereign who will not fail on Our Parts to give you such a speedy and powerful Assistance as shall not only enable you to defend your selves from any Foreign Attempt but put you in a Condition to assert our Right against our Enemies who have depressed the same by the blackest of Vsurpations the most unjust as well as the most unnatural of all Attempts which the Almighty God may for a Time permit and let the Wicked Prosper yet then must bring Confusion on such Workers of Iniquity We further let you know That we will pardon all such as shall return to their Duty before the last Day of this Month inclusive and that We will punish with the Rigor of Our Laws all such as shall stand out in Rebellion against Vs or Our Authority Given on Board the S. Michael March. 1. 1689. A Jesuit who printed a small Paper under the Title of Advices given to his R. H. M. the Prince of Orange by one of his most faithful Servants Your Emissaries saith he made use of the Mantle of Religion to create in the Minds of the People of England false Impressions of the Designs of the King their Master whilst they who knew the Bottom of the Business the Jesuites and his true Intentions as well as you are fully perswaded That this is a good Prince who desireth nothing but to pass the remainder of his Life in Peace and who would be well-contented to obtain from his Parliament the free Exercise of his own Religion without giving the least Disturbance to that which the greater part of his Subjects profess It is not possible for you to take too much care to hinder this Truth from spreading it self amongst the People c. Thus the late King promiseth and threatneth and the true hearted Jesuite who would not for the World speak one Tittle of Untruth to an Heretick of the first Magnitude voucheth for him and would make the whole Society that Holy Society which has so great an Influence over the Mind and Actions of that good Prince Garantee for the Performance of all these fine things Nay I will undertake if the English Hereticks will once more put their Heads into the Yoke That Lewis the Fourteenth too shall pass his Royal Word and unquestionable Faith That James the Second shall for the future keep his Faith with them in spite of all the Canons of the Church of Rome to the contrary as well as he himself has his to his own Protestant Subjects The Letter to the Convention of Scotland was dated on Board the S. Michael a French Ship then in the Road of Brest and the late King was then passing in her into Ireland where he arrived the 12 th of March at Kinsale with twelve French Men of War three Fire-ships and eight Merchant-Ships Now notwithstanding the King's Promise of Pardon to those of Brandon several were indicted at the Assizes insomuch that thirty or forty of them fled and came to Bristol being frighted at the Bloody Proceedings against one Mr. Brown of Cork who was hanged drawn and quartered at the same Assizes Several Petitions were also preferred for the Pardons of Sir Thomas Southwel and Captain Mills and many others who being taken in their Way to the North were carried to Galloway and there tried and condemned to die but the King rejected their Petition but however reprieved them for three Weeks deferring it till his Arrival at Dublin to which Place he set forward on the 21st of March. Nor was the rest of his Proceedings in that miserable Kingdom unlike this beginning all the English being plundered of all their Horses and Arms first then of their Cattle and Houshold-stuff and at last of their very Cloaths that they might be reduced to a necessity of perishing by Hunger Nakedness and Want and great numbers of them destroyed by pretended Legal Proceedings because they would not at first Summons open their Doors and suffer the Rabble to plunder them of all they had which I have had from some of my near Relations who fled on that account The twenty fifth of March a Proclamation was issued by him for the sitting of a Parliament the 7th of May at Dublin as it accordingly did wherein they passed these Acts. I. An Act to levy 20000l a Month for 13 Months II. For repealing the Act of Settlement and restoring old Preprietors III. For Liberty of Conscience IV. For taking off Penal Laws and Oaths V. For taking off all Writs of Error and Appeals to England VI. For taking off Valuation Money and other Rights from the Clergy VII For repealing the Act of the 23d of October 1641. VIII No benefit of Clergy for two Years IX All Patents for Offices void X. Ireland to be independent of England They seized in the mean time all the Protestants Estates who fled into England and all this they effected by the 26th of June 1. After this they passed an Act for repealing Poyning's Law. 2. Against counterfeiting Foreign Coins 3. And an Act for the
same service what fortune ever fall by chance in the same Battle against the Mind and Will of the Prince as in this Land some time passed hath been seen that it is not reasonable but against all Law Reason and good Conscience that the said Subjects going with their Sovereign Lord in Wars attending upon him in his Person or being in other places by his commandment within this Land or without any thing should lose or forfeit for doing their true Duty and Service of Allegiance c That for the said deed and true Duty of Allegiance he or they be in no wise Convict or Attaint of high Treason ne of other Offences for that cause by Act of Parliament or otherwise by any Process of Law whereby he or any of them shall lose or forfeit Life Lands Tenements c. or any other things but to be for that Deed and Service utterly discharged of any vexation trouble or loss And if any Act or Acts or other Process of the Law hereafter thereupon for the same happen to be made contrary to this Ordinance that then that Act or Acts or other Process of the Law whatsoever they shall be stand and be utterly void 5 Provided always that no Person or Persons shall take any Benefit or Advantage by this Act which shall hereafter decline from his or their said Allegiance Which is to be understood of the King in being as the rest is and against the same King. To this Statute it is alledged That the Title of the Crown was then so ambiguous and uncertain that it was hard to know where the Right lay which is a meer Cavil The Title was as well known then as it is now and is a thing of that Nature that it can never be universally known but the greatest part of Mankind take those that are set over them without further inquiry nor is it reasonable any Man should suffer for obeying them whom he cannot nor ought to resist So that what some have said That every one is bound to take notice of the right Title at his Peril is true if the Person is in Possession but false if he is out of Possession Conquest a voluntary Surrender and a wilful Desertion of a Crown will put an End to the best founded Title in the World as I think is universally agreed so that if the Party pretending has a Title why is he not in Possession too if he is outed by his own Act I am absolved if by the Force and Power of another why then he is conquered and both waies especially if I had no hand in it I am and ought to be absolved before God and Man. But then not only the three Estates of England but all the Princes and Sovereign States in Christendom except the King of France have allowed King William and Queen Mary as the rightful Sovereigns of England which is a kind of giving Judgment against the late King after hearing what has been alledged on both sides So that this Case is determined by all the ways that are possible and must absolve any Man that submits now to that which is the only Supreme Power in England As to the Oaths taken to the late King they create no new Obligation upon us as to the Extent or Duration of our Allegiance I was under the same Obligations of Allegiance before I was sworn as I was afterwards and every Subject of England oweth by the Laws of England a natural Allegiance to his Prince before he is sworn as every Man ows naturally Obedience to God before he entreth into the Baptismal Covenant And so the Primitive Christians were under the same Obligation to their Princes we are tho' I do not find they ever swore any Allegiance to them 2. This Allegiance is no everlasting Obligation as to time Death a voluntary Resignation a wilful Desertion or a lawful Conquest will put an End to it 3. It is no wild unlimited Obedience whilst it lasteth but is plainly limited by the Laws of God and the Laws of the Land and if I obey further actively I am responsible to God and Man for it I come now to the Words of the Oaths which may seem to create any Scruple which in the Oath of Supremacy I suppose may be these I do promise that from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King's Highness his Heirs and Lawful Successors and to my Power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the King's Highness his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Where first I observe No Man is bound beyond his Power but that all those who stuck to the late King till he left the Nation and another took Possession of his Place are thereby disabled and freed from attempting any further 2. That the Authorities I am to defend are such only as belong to the Crown of England by the Laws of England which are to limit my Allegiance but by the Law of England my Allegiance is now transferred to another and cannot be due to two in opposition each to other so that if I persist in my Allegiance to James II. I am punishable by these very Laws therefore my Allegiance which was a legal Allegiance is determined That in the Oath of Allegiance which may be objected is this I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their Persons their Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any such Sentence or otherwise c. Now this Oath which binds us to the Person as the other did to the Power is capable of the same Limitation and is to be limited both as to its Duration and extent by the Laws of England and the Law of Nations and therefore is determinable the same way the other was The Power and uttermost Power reserved and expressed in these Oaths is a Legal Power and therefore no Man is by these Oaths bound to exert his Natural Power for any Prince when he may by the Laws of England be punished as a Traytor for so doing it being a Legal and not an Illegal Allegiance we promise by them If King James would have been contented with the Preheminences Priviledges Authorities and Jurisdictions granted and annexed or belonging to the Crown of England I believe no Body questions but he had been still King of England but by grasping at others which did not belong to him he cut off his own Succours and hindred those that otherwise would have defended him and them from doing it He would not be content with those that belonged to him and they could not fight for or defend any other and between these two his Power fell to the Ground by his own Default and his withdrawing put an End to his Sovereignty
he will run away from his People rather than do them and his Neighbour Right But then when we say His retreat was voluntary we do not pretend there was no force made use of but that it was not made use of to that end All that was asked by the Prince or his own Subjects was a free and legal Parliament and all the force that was used was to that End And this he might and ought to have granted but if he would not the Prince is not to be supposed to have brought 14000 Men only to make a vain Shew with all but either to force him to do him Right or force him out of his Kingdom This Prince was no Subject to King James nor to any other Prince and consequently was no Rebel He had as well good Right as a good Cause to invade this injurious Prince who had injured both him and his good Subjects and without a War would do no right either to the Prince or us For the Prince had tried all fair waies before he tried Force as is notoriously known to all the World. But our Jacobites prate of the Force that was used against him by another Sovereign Prince as injurious only because it was Force Why the Prince was no Subject and if James II. would do him no right without Force tho' we that were then his Subjects had no Right to compel him HE might lawfully compel him by Force to do what he ought to have done without it but would not What Stupidity is it to deny a Sovereign Prince may make use of Force against a neighbouring Prince that has done him Wrong Well but say they His Subjects ought to have fought for King James To which I say Why did they not who hindred them from fighting No they would not fight or which is all one they durst not and now he is gone they think to make him amends by a fullen disclaiming of the present King's Sovereignty But tho' they will not swear they will promise to live peaceably under this King That is they will not own him for the lawful King of England but they will submit to him as they did to Oliver Cromwel till they have an Opportunity to dethrone him and deliver him into the Hand of King James and for this they would be allowed the same Condition with those Subjects that have sworn Allegiance to him Is this reasonable will they admit a Servant or a Rival on the same Terms into their own Families Well but some of his Subjects forsook and others of them fought against him and almost all the rest stood still and would not fight for him 1. What is this to them if they have done as much for him as they could or ought they shall answer for no body but themselves 2. What was the Reason and who gave the Cause of this general Desertion 3. It is denied that King James his Subjects were bound to stand by him and fight for him He had notoriously invaded and destroyed all our Civil and Religious Rights and Liberties and designed the Ruine and Destruction both of them and us and would give us no Assurance we could rely on to do otherwise for the future and therefore if it were unlawful to resist him it was also as unlawful to assist and enable him to destroy the true Religion the English Liberties and Immunities nay the very Nation Now Jovian tells us pag. 272. Whosoever acts contrary to Law in this Realm to the Prejudice of any other Person must be subject to make Reparation by Law against which the King himself can protect no Man as long as the Courts of Law are kept open this has been sufficiently confuted so that there can be no Tyranny nor any Persecution but a most exorbitant and illegal Persecution which must presuppose That Justice is obstructed the Laws and Lawyers silenced the Courts of Judicature that up and that the King governs altogether by Arbitrary Power and the Sword. The Courts were indeed open but we know for all that no Man could have any redress but the Consequences were the same as if they had been shut up But to suppose this saith the Doctor is plainly to suppose the utmost possibility which is next to an impossibility a possibility indeed in Theory but scarce to the reduced into Practice For in such a violent Vndertaking all good Men would withdraw from the Service and Assistance of the King mark that and the Bad durst not serve him because if he died or repented of his Vndertaking they must be answerable for all the Wrongs and Illegalities they were guilty of in his Service And a little lower he tells us To shut up the Laws or obstruct and pervert Justice would prove an exceeding difficult and almost impracticable Undertaking because all his good Subjects and all the bad too that tendered their own Safety would desert him nay Foreigners upon this account would make a Difficulty to serve him because he could not protect them against his own Laws Now all this was done and averred in the Face of the Sun this Possibility was brought into act and things driven on to the utmost Extremity and the only Question then was Whether we should intail this arbitrary tyrannical exorbitant Persecution on our Posterity without any Hopes or Possibility of Redress or whether we should withdraw from his Service and secure our Rights and Religion by it And this was done by all but the Irish and Papists both Good and Bad in a manner as the Doctor foretold it would and to me it seems altogether justifiable I know the Doctor means only a Civil Recess but if it was highly punishable and Infamous to have persisted in a co-operation and Assistance of these things it was worse and more punishable to have fought for them And from hence I conclude All that did withdraw from the Service of the late King when they saw he was resolved on these illegal exorbitant Courses are not to be blamed and that the best of the Primitive Christians would have done the same thing if it had been their lot to have fallen under such a Prince Tertullian de corona c. 12. expounds that Place of Scripture Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's Give the Man to God and the Penny to Caesar The Man bore God's Image as the Penny did Caesar's and when God and Caesar were in opposition the whole Man was God's Right So far were they from thinking their Loyalty to their Prince obliged them to be disloyal to their Religion even then when they never thought of Resisting their hands were tyed up neither to assist nor resist a against persecuting Prince they would do neither of these tho' they perished And are not we still under the same Obligations as to the latter as well as to the former For Shame let no Man boast of that Loyalty to his Prince which makes him Disloyal to God and his Church
number Julian and Valens were cut off by the Justice of God for Persecuting his Church Now the force of all this Argument lies in this That the Providence of God watcheth over Pious Princes to preserve them from Violence and as he suffereth not persecuting Princes to end their daies in Peace he looks graciously upon his Servants to preserve their Souls from violence and wrong because they are such But if it is said he has suffered some good Princes to be oppressed as he did Henry the Sixth and Charles the First I say the Judgments of God are sometimes unscrutable and those that have any hand in such Actions shall doubtlessly be responsible for it But as for those who are meerly passive as they could not hinder the ill things that happened in their times they may and ought to commit them to God who in his due time will punish all unjust Usurpers either in their Persons or in their Posterity But then this new Doctrine of standing by wicked persecuting Princes to the apparent and visible Ruine of the Church or at least of those that imbrace it was never heard of in the Church before was never taught or practised by the Primitive Christians and is not any part of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience or Non-resistance As they would not rebel against their Princes how wicked or cruel soever they were so neither would they against God whose only Right it is to dispose of the Kingdoms of the World without whose Approbation as well as Permission no Force ever did or ever shall prevail who when he pleases punisheth the Wicked and when he pleaseth pulls down not only unjust Usurpers but those who have the justest Title The great Thuanus makes this Reflection on the Deposition of Christian the Second King of Denmark if Princes will Reign well and happily they must govern their Affections and not out of a violent lust of insulting over their Subjects give up themselves to the Conduct of their Passions or otherwise they ought to assure themselves God is a severe revenger alway ready and delighting to pluck off their Thrones the most Proud and Insolent who shall abuse that Power he has intrusted them with Nor is this less true of lawful Princes than of unlawful Usurpers no Title can exempt a Prince from being responsible to the Justice of God and he will use his Power as he thinks fit and punish one Man after one manner and another in another some in this World and others in the next and the Church in the best of times accordingly left it to him to dispose of the Government of the World and as she did not anticipate his Judgments by disturbing the Peace of the World whatsoever she suffered so neither did she think her self more wise or just than he but submitted to those he was pleased in his Providence to set over her and would certainly have been very thankful for such a Deliverance as we of the Church of England have had by the Ministery of our King who like another Constantine has delivered us out of the hands of our Enemies who designed to enslave and ruine us and our Posterity for ever The Primitive Church in the best times took the words of St. Paul in their plain and literal sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The powers that are i. e. in Possession are ordained or ordered of God. They never formalize or make any Exception but Conquest Election Usurpation were to them all alike if once the Man was Established in the Throne And whereas they so frequently affirm Empires are given by God according to that of Tertullian Apolog. cap. XXX We Invocate for the Preservation of the Emperors the Eternal True Living God him whom the Emperors themselves would wish propitious above all others for they know who gave them the Empire they know it as Men and who gaâ—e them their breath They feelingly know that he iâ— the only God in whose Power they only are c. There is no power but that of God that can touch the Person the Power or the Life of any Prince Thus Soz. in his Ecclesiastical History Lib. VI. c. 35. reprehends the vanity of the Pagan Philosophers who had been too Inquisitive to find who should succeed Valens and the over great severity of that Prince in Executing many who had no hand in it because their Names began with the Letters pretended to be discovered If saith he these things are once agreed to depend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the Motion or Course of the Stars we ought to expect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Prince that is thus decreed for us whosoever it is But if these things are ordered by the counsel of God why do Men prie curiously into them for the fore-sight or endeavours of Men can never find out the Will of God. And if is were possible it is not fit to be done because the wisest of Men cannot order them the succession of Princes better than God. The Ancient Fathers and Primitive Christians do every where ascribe the Setting up and Pulling down of Princes to God only as they do Raine and other such things and you shall never find any Exception of lawful or unlawful Powers that were supreme in Fact in the Writings of the first Ages To this purpose see that Passage of St. Augustin De Civitate Dei lib. V. c. 21. cited above Some have alledged in answer to this That we in England are under other Circumstances than the Primitive Church were both in Relation to our Laws and our Oaths for the Law Sir Edward Coke in his Pleas of the Crown Chap. 1. p. 7. saith upon the 25 E. 3. c. 2. This Statute is to be understood of a King in Possession of the Crown and Kingdom for if there be a King Regnant in Possession of the Crown although he be Rex de facto non de jure yet he is Seignior le Roy within the Purvieu of this Statute and the other that hath Right and is out of Possession is not within this Act. Nay If Treason be committed against a King de facto non de jure and after the King de jure cometh to the Crown he shall Punish the Treason done to the King de facto And a Pardon granted by a King de jure that is not also de facto is void for which he cites 11 H. 7. c. 1. 4 E. 4. 1. 1 Ed. 4. 1 2. The words of the Statute are as followeth The King our Sovereign Lord calling to his remembrance the Duty of Allegiance of his Subjects of this Realm and that they by reason of the same are bound to serve their Prince and Sovereign Lord for the time being in his Wars for the Defence of him and the Land against every Rebellion Power and Might reared against him and with him to enter and abide in service in Battel if case so require 2 and that for the