seeing we do still agree in those Doctrines of Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience rightly stated and understood it were not more advisable for him to submit his Opinion to the Judgment of those Divines upon their more mature and particular consideration of the Obligation of those Doctrines in such a Case as hath now hapned or at least to the Determination and Establishment by Publick Consent now happily setled and by all Christian Princes approved of the French only excepted than so resolutely to persist in his Opinion to scandalize such as have taken the Oaths and to affright others from doing the same and like Jeroboam to make Israel to sin To put a stop to this Gangreen my next endeavour shall be to find the Nature of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience In order whereunto I shall enquire first the Sense of the Scripture and secondly the Sense of our Laws As to the Scripture we find it in a Prohibition of our Saviour Matth. 5.39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Not to resist an injurious person viz. So as to return the like Injury on him recompensing evil for evil it being unlawful for a private person to avenge himself and take an Eye for an Eye and this Precept obligeth only in lesser Injuries which are tolerable and supportable without any great damage to our Bodies or Estates such as a blow on the Cheek taking away a Coat and compelling a person to go with him a Mile which is but a small restraint of his liberty So Dr. Hammond in his practical Catechism expounding the Precept restrains it to matters of a light nature and to a light contumely and again such slight Injuries in which cases notwithstanding for prevention of greater Evils which we have just cause to fear it is permitted to seek such reparation as the Laws under which we live do allow But in cases of greater Injuries as in Exod. 22.2 when a Thief is found breaking up and be smitten that he die there shall be no Blood shed for him in such a Case the Law of Nature allows Moderamen inculpatae Tutelae And if I have assurance that a malitious person comes to take away my life I may kill rather than be killed So Dr. Hammond who proposing the Question What is the general nature of the Precept answers That the Injuries be tolerable and supportable in respect of what is already done and what may be consequent on our bearing them this concerns private persons As to our not resisting our Governours he that resisteth them is condemned by the Apostle and the word is by Hesychius parallel'd with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 raising War against him where according to the former Exposition if the Injury done by a Prince be tolerable and supportable without destroying the Ends of Government and the Common Welfare they may not resist but in such desperate Cases they are bound by a Superior Law Salus Populi which being the End of Government is to be preferred before the Means it is lawful to defend themselves To this purpose Bishop Sanderson p. 216. De Consc A Subject is not ordinarily bound to obey a Law that is very grievous to the certain Ruin of himself and Family unless some great necessity or Publick danger do appear And if we are not bound to such Laws much less to such Governours as are highly injurious to their Subjects against Law. And thus in case of a lesser abridgment of the Subject's Liberty while it is tolerable and tends not to his utter Ruin the Subject must be passive but when the loss of their Liberty tends to the loss of their Lives and Estates and so the common Ruin of the present Subjects and their Posterity Quin resisti potest non dubito saith Grotius In such case Resistance may be made and yet we did not resist but only with-hold our assistance and only did not do what in truth was not in our power to do to which no Laws nor Oaths could oblige us to defend the late King in all his Extravagancies But because the Precepts of the Gospel do not interfere with the Civil Constitutions of a Nation let us consider how far the Laws of our Land do forbid Resistance There are two Laws made in the Reign of Charles the Second upon special occasions which forbid resistance by any persons on any pretence whatsoever the first is the Stat 13 Ch. 2. when the Parliament having fresh in their minds the War against Charles the First wherein many Members of both Houses as well as the Royal Family had been great Sufferers they made it unlawful for both Houses of Parliament to raise War Offensive or Defensive c. The second is the Corporation Act which says It is not Lawful on any Pretence whatsoever to raise War c. But both these Laws must be understood in a sense consistent with the Fundamental Constitutions for the Publick welfare and according to the intention of the Legislators which was to prevent the like Mischiefs as had happened in the long Civil War between the King and Parliament and which were then fresh in memory and which some Male-contents were endeavouring to renew and not to establish an Arbitrary Power in the King that by a standing Army he might exact all his Pleasure from the People destroy their Religions Laws and Liberties and if his Disposition lead him to it with a handful of Cut-Throats might enter into the two Houses of Parliament and destroy them by their own Law and so to go through the Nation and murther as many as they please which is the killing letter of the Law and of those Doctrines too taken in a strict sense in which they are contrary to all Laws Divine and Moral and therefore though delivered in general terms Aequitatem admittunt interpretem 3dly It is a needful Observation that de odiosis raro contingentibus Lex non decernit the Law makes no provision for such odious things as are not fit to be mentioned and rarely come to pass yet when at any time such cases do happen as under the late King they did we find our Legislators very Industrious and unanimous for the suppressing of them And when the Queen of Scots brought French Forces into Scotland to withstand the Reformation that Parliament and Convocation than which the Historian neither hath nor can mention a more August Assembly of the States agreed to give a Subsidy of six Shillings in the Pound to defray the Charge of that War and call the Design the Queen's using all Prudent and Godly means 5 Eliz c. 24. 27. And the Temporalty call it The Princely and upright preservation of the Liberty of the Realm and Nation of Scotland from iminent Captivity and Desolation And in 35 Eliz. c. 12. another Subsidy was granted by the Clergy for the Queen's Charges in the needful and prudent prevention of such Attempts as tended to the extirpation of the sincere Profession of the Gospel both here and elsewhere And
says the same of the Empire That Caesar is bound by the Laws And Bodine concerning France Principem contra leges nihil posse rescriptis ejus nullam rationem haberi debere nisi aequitate perinde ac veritati consentanum sint The Historian may be satisfied from these Men that much more than hath been practised by our Nation hath its Approbation in such a Case as we were reduced to But to return home that saying of King James is very memorable That the King is for the Common-wealth and not the Common wealth for the King. Albericus Gentilis Professor of Civil Law saith That he that would keep himself out of danger must meet and prevent it which is a point of greater Wisdom and Courage than to expect it and revenge it If our Adversary have declared his Will and is preparing a Power to hurt us we may not tarry to receive the first blow but anticipate the Evil as Gladiators do Yea it hath been always the Practice to put a stop to the Ambition of great Monarchs who have unjustly invaded one Man's Dominions lest he should attempt others hence the Princes of Christendom have been careful to preserve an equal Pallance between growing Empires Thus Baldus says It is a fault to omit the defence of another but of our selves a treachery And Siracide Eccles 4. Free him to whom Injury is done out of the hand of the injurious And Constantine says We ought to account of the Injuries done to others as our own Thus Justine answered the Persians That he ought to defend the Christians whom they would compel to forsake their Religion And Queen Elizabeth defended the Hollanders against the Spaniards who if they had broken down that Pale of Religion as Lipsius calls it would have extended their Tyranny farther King Charles the First in answer to the Nineteen Propositions says The Lords being trusted with Judicatory Power are an excellent skreen between the Prince and the People by just Judgment to preserve the Law Therefore the Power legally placed in Both Houses is more than sufficient to prevent and restrain the power of Tyranny Dr. Ferne pleading his Cause grants That personal Defence against the sudden Assaults of the King's Messengers if illegal tho' the King be present is lawful even to warding off the King's blows and to restrain him and to preserve the innocent Peter Martyr on Rom. 13. We may not anxiously dispute by what Right or Wrong Princes have obtained their Power but rather make it our business to obey the present Magistrates Judge Vaughan In Cases that depend on Fundamental Principles Millions of Presidents to the contrary are to no purpose Judge Jenkins says We hold only what the Law holds the King's Prerogative and the Peoples Liberties are both determined by Law. And so King Charles the First 's Declaration at York says That his Prerogatives are built on the Laws of the Land And when the Parliament would have him grant an extraordinary Power to some Lords-Lieutenants he tells them If they would have him grant more Power than by the Law of the Land was in him it was fit that the same should by some Law be first vested in him with full Power to transfer the same The same Judge Jenkins speaking of the Oath of Supremacy says We do not swear that the King is above all Laws nor above the safety of the People but his Majesty and we will swear to the contrary The Law and the Safety of the People are the King's Honour and Safety and Strength And when Hobbs extended the Power of the Prince above the Law the Earl of Clarendon answers That in dangerous Circumstances Men are not to resort so much to the Words of Submission as to the Intention of the Law Givers which could not be that the Prince should have Power to take away the Lives of his innocent Subjects nor could such a Submission be ever supposed to be the mind of the Contractors This may serve in answer to the Declaration That it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever c. which was past the House not without great opposition by a mercinary Party of Pensioners and was destructive of many ancient Laws and an alteration of the Government making it absolute and in itself null For as Sherringham who learnedly defended Charles the First says Those Laws which are made for the benefit of the Prince and People are Fundamental and Foundations cannot be altered without the Ruine of the whole Building If therefore that Declaration or any other Act is contrary to the Fundamental Laws it is invalid And now we come to that Declaration of the Lords and Commons who as it became the Masters of the Assembly have fixed our Government as a Nail in a sure place They found us as Sheep without a Shepherd and in the midst of many grievous Wolves ready to devour both them and us they considered that the late King had exercised a Power of suspending Laws committed the Bishops for Petitioning to be excused from concurring to that Power That he erected a Court for Ecclesiastical Causes by Commissioners Levied Money without Consent of Parliament kept up a Standing Army disarmed Protestants and armed Papists and Quartered them contrary to Law violated the Elections of Parliament broke the Seal or cast it away and deserted the Government and Kingdom and did thereupon declare that he had abdicated the Kingdom and left the Throne vacant they being assembled in Parliamentary manner did for the Redress of those Grievances other means being denyed them as their Ancestors had done in like Cases declare the Prince and Princes of Orange to be King and Queen of England c. And appointed the present Oath to be taken instead of the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which Methods have been taken in the like Cases by all Nations as well as our own And I know not what Authority or Reason should determine our Judgments if these cannot for let us suppose that the late King at his departure whetherit were forced or voluntary had left behind him in Writing under his own hand a Declaration to the following effect which consisting of undeniable Matter of Fact is no less Authentick We do declare to all the World That the the Church of England as by Law Established hath on all occasions signally manifested all due Loyalty to Our Royal Father and Brother as well as to Our self particularly in opposing the Bill for Excluding Us from the Throne and assisting Us in suppressing the Rebellion of Monmouth for which Reasons we thought fit and just at Our coming to the Crown solemnly to declare Our Royal Intention to support and defend it in all its Rights and confirmed our Declaration by our Coronation-Oath but having wholly devoted Our Self to the Romish Religion and Papal Authority We were absolutely resigned to the Conduct of such as by that Authority were appointed to Counsel and Direct Us who having convinced Us of a Power to
bring back James the Second which is by the Law of the Land made Treason against the present King and Queen and if the Historian think himself so bound I suppose he is as faulty in not endeavouring the Restoration of the one as he hath been too Industrious to exclude the other besides those Oaths bound us not only to the defence of the King as if the Government were excluded but expresly to withstand all such as should offer any violence to any of His Majesty's Subjects much more to the whole frame of our Government which too many without any Lawful Commission did with great violence and injustice and we were sworn to defend to our power all Jurisdictions Priviledges c. granted or belonging to the King's Highness not such as were neither granted or belonging as the Claim and Exercise of an Arbitrary Power and dispensing with Fundamental Laws and altering the established Religion as many other actions of the late King were and lastly I suppose that by the plain letter of the Oath of Allegiance which says That neither the Pope of himself nor by any other means with any other hath power to annoy the King's Countries License any to bear Arms raise Tumults or offer any violence or hurt to His Majesty's State or Government or any of his Subjects All which things the Pope by any means or in conjunction with any other the King himself not being excepted hath no power to do by this Oath but having so done the Oath binds the Subjects rather to resist than to assist and doth certainly permit the Subjects if not oblige them to defend themselves against all Opposers In a promissory Oath the matter whereof doth respect things future that matter is subject to change and uncertainty and so is the Obligation also which ceaseth with the matter for then it may not be in the power of the person to perform what he swore to and really intended rebus sic stantibus and no Man is bound to do an impossible thing nor is any Oath so absolute when it is made that it may not admit of some tacite Conditions So Bishop Sanderson in his Praelect 7. § 7. There is Solutio vinculi per cessationem materiae aut mutationem aliquam notabilem factam circa causam Juramenti principalem When the state of things is so changed from the time of swearing to that of fulfilling that if at the time of taking the Oath that change which afterward followed had been fore-seen the person would not have taken such an Oath Thus when Solomon promised Bathsheba to grant her Request and she desired that Adonijah might Marry Abishag one of King David's Concubines which was a kind of Treason for any one to attempt except the Successor Solomon notwithstanding his Solemn Promise instead of performing it swore that Adonijah should dye yet Solomon brake not his Promise because there was a tacite Condition that Adonijah should ask nothing that was unlawful Thus in the Oaths above mentioned we swore to defend the King's Person and the Privilidges and Prerogatives granted and belonging to the Crown this tacite Exception is plainly to be understood that if the King should attempt to subject his Kingdom to a Foreign Power and leaving us in Confusion should put himself under the Power of the French King which is diminutio Capitis a kind of Civil Death and by his Arms seek to destroy the Community and Government which by those very Oaths we were bound to defend the Obligation of those Oaths doth cease upon his attempting such things which if they had been fore-seen and expressed in those Oaths the Subjects would never have taken them Now although some Divines in their occasional Discourses of Government particularly of this of England seem to make it Absolute and indefesable and inseparable from the person of the Prince yet when they come to consider particular cases which they could not foresee or for the odiousness of them and the almost impossibility of happening they omitted the same Divines do agree to the Heads above-mentioned and make Exceptions to their own General Rules as will appear in what followeth hereafter In the mean time I doubt not but the Reader hath observed that as well Divines when they Treat of Law-matters and Moot-cases as Lawyers when they handle Points and Controversies in Divinity are guilty of many Blunders as particularly the Authors of the Erudition who affirm that the Proclamations of the King are as binding as a Law and Bishop Bancroft who told King James in the presence of Cook and other Lawyers That the King might call and Judge any Cause personally in his Chamber But of this we need no other instance than the present Historian who after so great a Deliverance as he must confess the Nation hath had and of which such ungrateful Murmurers as the Historian are unworthy to partake After that the Great Assembly of the Nation have declared their Judgments by their Oaths and many thousands of the Clergy joyned with them presumes after an Histrionical manner to bring them on the Stage and represent them as Rebels Traytors and perjured Persons not without Reflections on their present Majesties as Usurpers to say no worse is a most uncharitable if not an unrighteous deed seeing he stands in a manner Solus contra omnes Had he differed through a doubting Conscience he should have by the Apostle's Rule Rom. 14.22 kept his perswasion to himself and with all Humility and Modesty sought satisfaction and not have published his Opinion against the more mature Judgment not only of our own Nation but of all Christian Princes who do approve of our present Settlement And if my Account fail me not there is not one of an hundred that consent with him and before the Six Months be expired there may not be more then one of that hundred that will stand off and then our Historian may stand alone as Tom of Ten Thousands The PREFACE Considered THE first Paragraph of the Epistle which shews that the Doctrine of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience are founded in Scripture c. is admitted as Orthodox and the Doctrine of the Church of England but being delivered in general Rules they admit of some Exceptions and carry with them certain tacite Conditions and Qualifications which in case of great alterations would appear to be necessary and justifiable And I suppose that if such a case as ours now is had been thought of or proposed that Declaration viz. That it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms c. would certainly be excepted or provided against as in the Case of Edward the Fifth when Richard Duke of Gloucester seized on his Person raised War and granting Commissions in the King's Name it might have been lawful for the then Queen Elizabeth having the Broad Seal brought to her by the Archbishop of York to raise an Army to rescue the King from the Usurper's Power notwithstanding he had raised an Army
One King to Reign over them to Govern the People of God and to maintain the Christian Faith and defend their Goods and Persons in quiet by the Rules of Right and to be obedient to the Rules of Right if he did not so he should lose the Name of a King. Old Fleta speaking of the King's Oath says The King by Vertue of his Oath is especially obliged to the preservation of the Laws and he is therefore Crowned that he may Rule the People committed to him per Judicia by the Laws 15 Edw. 3. Stat. 1. We considering how by the Bond of our Oath we are bound to the observance and defence of the Laws and Customs of the Realm c. And 20 Edw. 3. Moâ—e at large the King declares We perceiving that the Law of the Land which we by our Oath are bound to maintain is less well kept and the execution of the same disturbed we greatly moved in Conscience in this matter desiring as much for the pleasure of God and ease of our Subjects as to save our Conscience and to keep our said Oath c. The like is in the Statute of Provisors King James told his Parliament the same March 21. 1609. That the King is bound by a double Oath to preserve the Laws tacitly as being King and so bound to protect his People and the Laws and expresly by his Coronation-Oath So as every just King is bound to observe that Paction made with his People by his Laws framing the Government thereunto And a King leaves to be a King. and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as he leaves off to Govern by Law in which case the King's Conscience may speak to him as the poor Woman to Philip of Macedon Either Govern according to Law or cease to be King. And else-where he says If he should not keep the Laws to which he was Sworn he should be perjured But I proceed to the Statute of 11 H. 7. That from thence-forth no Person attending on the King for the time being and doing him true and faithful Service of Allegiance in his Wars should in any-wise be Convict or Attaint of High Treason nor of other Offence for that cause but to be for that Service utterly discharged of any vexation trouble or loss The Lord Bacon p. 144. Hist of Hen. 7. gives a Reason of this Law as agreeable with Reason of State that the Subject should not enquire of the justness of the King's Title or Quarrel And it was agreeable to good Conscience that whatever the Fortune of the King were the Subject should not suffer for his Obedience The Spirit of this Law saith he was wonderful Pious and Noble being like in matter of War to the Spirit of David in matter of the Plague who said If I have finned strike me but what have these Sheep done Neither wanted this Law parts of Prudence and deep fore-sight for it did the better take away from the People occasion to busie themselves to pry into the King's Title for that however it fell out their Safety was provided for besides it could not but greatly draw to him the love and hearts of the People because he seemed more careful for them than for himself To this purpose the Lord Cook p. 7. of his third Book of Institutes speaking of Treason says That the Act for Treason is to be understood of a King in Possession of the Crown and Kingdom for if there be a King Regnant in Possession although he be de Facto only and not de Jure yet is he within the purview of this Statute and the other which hath Right and is out of Possession is not within this Statute And if Treason be committed against a King de Facto and not de Jure and afterwards the King de Jure cometh to the Crown he shall punish the Treason against the King de Facto and a Pardon granted by the King de Jure that is not also King de Facto is void It is the Opinion of Lawyers That Melior est conditio possidentis And Judge Hales gives the same sense of that Statute in his Remarks on the Pleas of the Crown Chap. of Treason The Lord Cook says 'T is against all Reason that the King 's Politick Capacity may not be separated from his Personal seeing his private Will is distinct from his publick Will exprest in the Law. Littleton in his Tenures Title of Homage Sect. 85. says Allegiance is due to every one in Possession that becomes King and to no other And Judge Popham in his Reports fol. 16 17. mentioneth a Case to our purpose Richard the Third granted certain Priviledges to the City of Gloucester with a Salvo to him and his Heirs And in Queen Elizabeth's days it was questioned whether the Salvo did pass to her she not being Heir to King Richard and all the Judges did Resolve that the Salvo did pass to her Sir Edward Cook in his Institutes on Magna Charta alloweth That the King hath no Power over the Militia to Muster his Subjects but only in such cases and manner as the Parliament by special Acts hath prescribed And p. 147. That the Right of Electing Sheriffs was anciently in the People as in London York Bristol c. So the Heretochs or Lord-Lieutenants in every County were chosen by a Folkmote in their Counties Lambard Arch. p. 135. And Spelman on the word Legiantia says it is Archius vinculum inter principem subdites It would be tedious to relate all that Grotius hath said though very pertinently and rationally I shall name a few of such Observations as come home to our Case l. 1. c. 4. § 7. n. 3. It is to be observed that Men did not at first unite in Civil Communities by any Command from God but voluntarily and from the experience they had that private Families were unable to resist Foreign Force from hence grew Civil Power which St. Peter calls a Humane Ordinance though elsewhere it be called a Divine because God approved it as convenient for the good of Mankind but when God approves of a Humane Law he must be supposed to do it after a Humane manner L. 2. c. 14. § 4. That Promises fully made and accepted do naturally transfer a Right and this holds as well in Kings as in private Persons L. 2. c. 13. n. 16. If a Promise confirmed by Oath be grounded on a Condition whereto it related that Condition not being performed makes the Promise void or if the Quality of the Person cease the Oath sworn to that Person in relation to his Quality doth cease also L. 2. c. 13. n. 18. Every Contract though sworn is to be understood with this reserved Condition That matters continue in the same state A wise Man saith Seneca changeth not his Resolution all things continuing as they were when he made it nor can he be said to repent because at that time no better Counsel could be followed than that he resolved on l. 2.
and granted Commissions in the King's Name And the Case of the present Irish comes home to the point who being invaded by the French pretending Commissions from the late King James who now acts under them may undoubtedly defend themselves by Arms. Mr. Faulkner pleaded the Case of Non-Resistance as far as any yet p. 542. he considers this Case If the Supreme Governour should according to his own Pleasure and contrary to the Established Laws and his Subjects Property actually ingage upon the destroying and ruining a considerable part of his People whether they might defend themselves by taking Arms And he instanceth in the Parisian Massacree where about 100000 were slain in cold Blood most of which were innocent persons never accused or tryed by Law which he says is such a Cruelty as can hardly be parallel'd under Mahometism And he grants if ever such a Case should happen it would have great difficulties Grotius says he thinks That in this utmost extremity the use of such Defence Uâ—timo necessitatis praesidio is not to be condemned provided the Common Safety be preserved Which may be true says he because such Attempts of ruining do ipso facto disclaim the Governing those Persons as Subjects i. e. according to Law and consequently of being their Prince or King. And so the Expressions in the Declaration That it is not lawful on any Pretence whatsoever c. would be secured And p. 529. he quotes Barclay l. 3. c. 16 Se omni principatu dominatu exuit atque ipso jure sine ipso facto Rex esse desiit l. 6. c. 23. With whom he joyns Grotius l. 1. c. 4. n. 11. Si Rex vere Hostili animo exitium totus populi feratur To resist such a one is not to resist the King but him who ceaseth to be such and his Reason is Consistere simul non possunt voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi quare qui se hostem totius populi profitetur to ipso abdicat regnum And p. 531. Mr. Faulkner says That on yielding such Suppositions to be true I shall grant the Answer to be true The Historian is much troubled how to evade the Judgment of Bishop Bilson which he delivers in these two passages among other The first is in p. 520. If a Prince submit his Kingdom to a Forreiguer or change the Form of the Common-wealth or neglecting the Laws Established by common consent or execute his own pleasure the Lords and Commons may joyn to defend the Laws Established The other is where he speaks of the Roman Cruelties Which are such saith he as are able to set good Men at their Wits end and make them justly doubt since you refuse all good Laws Divine and Humane whether by the Law of Nature they may not defend themselves against such barbarous Blood-suckers To these passages the Historian acting the part of a Disputant replies That this is but one Doctors Opinion contrary to the Doctrine of the Church Which is apparently false for both the Parliament and Convocation gave ready and liberal Contributions to assist the Queen in the Wars of Holland against the Spaniards at that time of which I have spoken already 2. He says Bilson was not infallible for he was deceived in other things Answ And most probably he was so when he wrote contrary to those passages which were approved by all Protestants abroad as well as by our own Nation 3. He would invalidate the Judgment of Bilson by the Censure of Charles the First in these words I remember well what Opinion my Father King James had of him for these Opinions and how he shewed him some Favour in hope of a Recantation but whether he did or not I cannot say Answ King James was of the same Opinion as to the Wars against the Spaniards and so was King Charles in the Case mentioned by our Historian viz. His assisting the Protestants of Rochel under the Oppressions of Lewis the Thirteenth And it is improbable that he would ever Recant that Opinion wherein the whole Nation and the two succeeding King's did agree For the Historian says 4ly That Bilson's Book was written when the Queen was assisting the Dutch against her and their Common Enemy Answ The War then was undoubtedly lawful and the Bishop's Determination seemed sound as to that War but the Historian may see that he applies his Opinion to the English Government when in the Cases mentioned by him viz. If a Prince submit his Kingdom to a Forreigner or change the Form of the Common-wealth or neglect the Laws and execute his own Pleasure the Lords and Commons may in such Cases defend the Laws Established and therefore it is very unlikely that he was hired to write only in justification of the Wars of Holland And if our Constitution be founded on a Compact there is no difference But 5ly he says If the Bishops Opinion be contrary to that of Christ and his Apostles we ought to renounce it As if the Bishop had not considered that the Gospel doth no where abridge the Civil Constitutions of particular Governments and that it requires subjection to the powers that are in being But he objects again That the Presbyterian made very dangerous use of that Book against King Charles the First Answ They were therein inexcusable by seeking to justifie a Rebellion against so good a Prince by what was chiefly intended against the Spanish Usurpations and Cruelties who invaded all their Priviledges Sacred and Civil contrary to Agreement introduced the Inquisition slighted all Petitions and barbarously Murthered some Hundreds of Thousands which much altered the Case against so pious and merciful a Prince And lastly That which that Bishop says doth not concern the Clergy of England who always did and are still resolved to maintain and practice the Doctrine of Non-Resistance for to that the Bishop applys his Discourse in which the Divines whom the Historian accuseth have not transgressed But to go on with the Historians Preface some affirm saith he That the Tenet was no older than Archbishop Laud and was introduced by a few Court Bishops for the attainment and establishing of their own grandeur To which I answer It must be acknowledged that in Bishop Lauds time this Doctrine was scrued up to the highest and frequently urged and with great reason the people being prepared for a Rebellion against the best of Kings and had the Doctrine of Non-Resistance been so well practised as it was prest the effusion of that Deluge of Blood might have been stopped but even then there was an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and more than what was due was demanded that the people might not yield less which that ancient Rule Iniquum petas ut aequum feras might justifie Yet the Doctrine of Sibthorp and Manwaring who would have raised the Prerogative to an Absolute Power as Cartwright and Parker of later days did also attempt hath been generally exploded by all sober Divines and Statesmen and yet the design of
Chains beyond which he cannot go and even tempt Men to be of the Opinion of the Gnosticks That all the Governments of the World are a contrivance of some evil Spirits to destroy the lives of Men and to abridge them of their Liberties which God and Nature have given them And with what Countenance can this Author aver that he doth only the Office of an Historian when the whole Design is a Satyr and an Indictment of Treason and Perjury against all those Divines that he quoteth who have since their Writings submitted to the present Government and sworn Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary and seems willing that King James should return with his French and Irish to be their Executioners It is not material to enquire whether he hath misquoted any passages but it is plain he hath mis-applyed them and stretch'd them beyond the meaning of their Authors for which I Appeal to the Author himself and shall only demand of him whether he himself doth or any of those whom he quotes ever did declare their Approbation of those Tenets of Sibthorp and Manwaring in the days of Charles the First or of the Bishops of Chester and Oxon in the Reign of James the Second whose Authorities in their own times were as he confesseth excepted against as of Men that did not write soberly on the Subject as our Author acknowledgeth And yet his whole Design is to shew that the King hath a plenitude of Power paramount to all that either of those four have mentioned over all the Laws of the Land over the established Religion and the Lives Liberties and Estates of all the Subjects with a quicquid libet licet This is not barely to plead for an inconsiderable rate of Ship-Money for granting Tolerations and Indulgences for a Power of Dispensing with some Laws but for the Legality of any Impositions even to the seizing our Freeholds of abrogating and making void all the Old Laws and giving the Prince's Will and Personal Commands the force of New and contrary Laws without any muttering or complaint of Grievances And if this Author have any spark of Ingenuity in him he must with shame acknowledge how Partial he hath been in relating the Opinions of many the most eminent of those Divines whom he hath quoted and leaving out the Opinions and Arguments of others whom though obvious to every ordinary Eye he hath wholly omitted I have already instanced in the decision of the present Case made by Mr. Faulkner and Barclay and Bilson and it were easie to fill a Volume far greater than I intend to shew only the Judgment of some of those Authors by him quoted when they considered what might be Lawfully done in some Cases against which being so odious and so rarely incident that the Laws have taken no notice of them or made any provision against them I shall give but two Instances more to this purpose The first is that of Grotius of whom p. 128. he says Whatever the learned Grotius says in his Books de Jure belli in his later works wherein he may be presumed to speak his truest sense he asserts this Doctrine on Mat. 26.52 If it be once admitted that private Men when injured by the Magistrate may forcibly resist him all places would be full of Tumult and no Laws or Judicatories would have any Authority since there is no Man who is not inclined to think well of himself This Comment is alledged with a Non obstante to whatsoever he had written in his Book de Jure belli because this was the latter Work whereas it is well known that his Book de Jure belli was not only written when he was in his full Maturity and acted in his proper Sphere as a Statesman and often reviewed it even after his Comment on the Gospels and was the Text on which almost all Civilians and Politicians did Comment as Authentick and for which we have his irrefragable Reasons as well as his Authority and in which he doth not deliver his Opinion in general but condescends to the consideration of particular Cases and Accidents whereas in that Comment he only delivers his Opinion as to the general and that not without restriction of the Resistance of private Men that were inclined to think well of themselves whereas when he considered the Constitution of particular Monarchies and Governments where the Legislative Power is not solely in a single Person as he knew it was not in England he hath otherwise determined for thus in that Famous Book p. 21. wherein having urged all the Arguments for Non-resistance he could think of he admonisheth his Reader of something else As first That such Persons as are under Compact with their People if they offend against the Laws may be restrained by force And secondly If a King abjure his Kingdom and desert it all things are Lawful against him as against a private Person for which he quotes Barclay That if a King alienate his Kingdom or subjects it to another he loseth it and then adds of his own Si Rex reipsa tradere regnum aut subjicere moliatur quin ei resisti in hoc possit non dubito nam aliud est imperium aliud habendi modus qui ne mutetur obstare potest populus id enim sub imperio non est Again he says If a King have one part of the Empire and the People another the King attempting to destroy the Peoples Right a just Force may be opposed and this I think to have place though it be said That the Power of War or Militia is in the King for that is to be understood of Foreign War for he that hath Right hath Power to defend that Right and he quotes Barclay That a Kingdom may be lost if a King be carried on to the destruction of his People Consistere enim non potest voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi that if a King be intent on the destruction of his People to resist such a one is not to resist a Soveraign King but one who ceaseth to be such Qui se hostem totius populi profitetur eo ipsa abdicat regnum on which place Grotius his Annotator mentioneth a Note of Jo. Major in 4 Sentent Non posse populum à se abdicare potestatem destituendi principis si in destructionem vergeret and Grotius himself thinks that the Law of Nature allows it in his Notes on Esther 8.11 speaking of the Edict obtained by Mordecai for the Jews to defend themselves he says Jus naturae munit autoritate regia Much more might be added from Grotius to our purpose but he is so commonly quoted that I forbear and leave the Reader to judge how well the Author hath performed the Office of an Historian who picks and chooseth out of an obscure place and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what may make for his own Opinion omitting those plain obvious and elaborate Discourses of the same Author which would confute it
force of his Authority ceaseth also And as to the Law of Nature for Self-preservation cannot be dispensed with saith that Bishop by any Humane Power 1. Because God is the Author of it 2. Because this Law for the preservation of the Common Welfare is as necessary to the support of Societies as Nourishment is for support of their Bodies 3. Because Natural Laws are the Dictates of Natural Reason and no Man hath power to alter Reason which is an Image of the Divine Wisdom and therefore unalterable And concerning the Obligation of the King's Oath this learned Bishop gives his Opinion quite contrary to what our Historian contends for l. 3. p. 144. of his Cases he says Kings are bound by Natural Justice and Equity without Oaths to do what they swear for they are not Kings unless they Govern and they cannot expect Obedience unless they tell the Measures by which they will be obeyed which are the Laws and these are the Will of the Prince If Kings are not bound to Govern the People by Laws why are they made By what else can they be Governed by the Will of the Prince the Laws are so which are Published that wise Men may walk by them and that the Prince may not Govern as Fools and Lyons by Chance or Violence and unreasonable Passions Ea quae placuerunt servanda saith the Law De Pactis And p. 143. Whatsoever the Prince hath Sworn to to all that he is obliged not only as a single Person but as a King for though he be above the Laws yet he is not above himself nor above his Oath because he is under God and cannot dispense with his Oath and Promises in those Cases wherein he is bound Although the King be above the Laws that is in Cases extraordinary and Matters of Penalty yet is he so under all the Laws of the Kingdom to which he hath Sworn that although he cannot be punished by them yet he sins if he break them And p. 149. he says The Prerogative of Kings is by Law and Kings are so far above the Laws as the Laws themselves have given them leave And p. 143. The great Laws of the Kingdom do oblige all Princes tho' they be Supreme The Laws of the Medes and Persians were above their Princes as appears in Daniel And such are the Golden Bull of the Empire the Saler and Pragmatical Sanctions in France the Magna Charta and Petition of Right in England c. And whereas the Historian doth urge at large the Doctrine of our Church in the Articles Homilies Liturgy and Canons c. it may be observed that there is no distinction in any of those of a King de Jure and de Facto but as by that Law of 11 Henry 7. did require Allegiance to the King de Facto so did the Subjects under Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth pay their Obedience to both successively although one of those Queens was not Legitimate and if we pay our Allegiance to our present Soveraigns we do not transgress either her Doctrine or Practice unless it could be proved that we had resisted the late King And therefore our Historian reflects too severely on Dr. W who said That Passive Obedience in the narrow sence we take it in was not so much as thought on when these Homilies were Published those Homilies being aimed against the Vsurpations of the Church of Rome to which they never intended Obedience And when as our Historian observes That as well evil as good Kings do Reign by God's Ordinance and that it is a perillous thing to permit Subjects to judge which Prince is wise and godly and his Government good and which otherwise it may be supposed they intended our Obedience should be payed to the present King. But because the Laws are the Measures as well of the Princes Power as the Subjects Obedience I shall therefore act the part of an Historian so far as to give you an account of our Laws in both these Cases And I shall begin it with our Magna Charta which hath been confirmed by Parliaments in every Age since it was first made wherein the King grants That neither He nor his Heirs shall procure or do any thing whereby the Liberties therein granted shall be infringed and if any such thing be procured it shall be of no force And in the Original Grant yet preserved and in the hands of the Bishop of Salisbury it is provided That in case the King should violate any part of the Charter and refuse to rectifie what was done amiss it should be lawful for the Barons and People of England to distress him by all the ways they could think on such as the seizing his Castles Lands and Possessions c. Bracton hath been often quoted who says l. 1. c. 17. The King hath for his Superiors God and the Law by which he is made King as also his Court the Earls and Barons who when they see him exorbitant may restrain him And l. 1. c. 2. The Laws of England being approved and confirmed by the King's Oath cannot be altered And c. 17. Let Kings therefore temper their Power by the Law which is the Bridle of Power And c. 8. The King in receiving Judgment may be equalled with the meanest Subject L. 2. c. 24. The Crown of the King is to do Justice and Judgment and to preserve Peace without which he cannot subsist i. e. As in the Laws of King Edward c. 17. The King is constituted for the Liberty of the People which if he do not Nee nomen Regis in eo constabit And that by the word Heir all Successors are meant though not expressed in words Fortescue fol. 27. says From that Power which flows from the People it is not lawful for him to Lord it over them by any other Power that is a Political not a Regal Power And fol. 32. The King is set up for the Safeguard of the Laws of his People The Sword called Curtein was given to the Counts Palatine of Chester to this end Vt Regem si aberret habeat potestatem coercendi saith Matth. Paris p. 563. The Parliament in Richard the Second's Case did refer to an Ancient Statute whereby it was provided That if the King through a foolish obstinacy and contempt of his People or any other irregular way should alienate himself from his People and would not Govern by the Laws of his Kingdom made by the Lords of his Kingdom but should exercise his own Will from thenceforth it was lawful for them with the consent of the People to depose him from the Crown This Law it seems was embezelled by that King for in the Twenty Fourth Article against him it was alledged That he had caused the Records and Rolls concerning the State of the Government to be crazed and imbezelled to the great detriment of the People The Author of the Mirrour says p. 8. speaking of the Rise of the English Monarchy That when Forty Princes chose
doubt but it was the intention of the Legislators to exclude them out of those Laws which were made with respect to a more particular occasion as the 〈◊〉 face to those Laws plainly sheweth It is notoriously known how hardly the Church was beset by two busie and powerful Factions when those Laws were enacted who though they agree in Principles tending to Rebellion yet that they might undermine the Church they found Patrons and an Interest in Court and Council in the Reign of Charles and James the Second and how opposite soever the Factions were to each other they were still ready to unite against the Church as their Common Enemy in which case it was requisite that the Members of the Church should use all honest means to retain their Superiours in a good Opinion of their undoubted Principles of Loyalty and to press the same Duty on such as were suspected to be of a contrary Mind against whom the Parliament especially intended those Tests and Declarations for who can suppose them such Mad-men as to make a Law upon a particular emergent Occasion as should cassate and destroy all other Laws for the preservation of their Religion Lives and Liberties and to establish Tyranny Popery and Idolatry by Law if the King will have it so for which end he may by the killing letter of that Law when ever he pleaseth bring in what Foreign Forces he pleaseth to eat us up and no Resistance must be made if this Law be strictly understood without any Reserve or Consideration of the Occasion of making the Law and the intention of the Law-givers which undoubtedly was their own and the preservation of the Nation And wise Men think that if there should be such a pack of Law-makers as to serve a turn of their own should have no regard to the over-turning and perverting as well of the Duties we owe to God our Neighbours and our selves as the Ancient Fundamental Laws of the Land that they are utterly void and we should sin more in swearing to keep such Laws than in not observing them The Historian reflects so severely on some Divines as if he came with a Commission from James the Second to execute on them the consequences of the Doctrines of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience they are Arraigned and Condemned as Apostates Traytors and perjured Persons and when time serves they shall not want an Executioner In the mean time he directs a fatal blow at one single and obscure Person but through him wounds all the rest who though they be many Heads yet all standing on the same Neck and our Historian thinks he hath got the Advantage which Nero wished for however he thinks he deals friendly with him if as Butchers are wont to use their Swine who scrape them a little before they cut their Throats Mr. Long says he is so well known for his Zeal in this good Cause viz. of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience to all that have seen his Answer to Mr. Johnson and Hunt His no Protestant but Dissenters Plot and other such Treatises that it is wondred that of late he should own himself the Author of the Solution of the Popular Objections c. Answ They who have known Mr. Long ever since the War began against Charles the First know that he hath inviolably practised those Doctrines himself to which in those Writings he perswaded others and shrunk not from them after the Prince of Orange came to Exeter as the present Bishop of Salisbury and several Members of the Church of Exon can attest and continued to Pray for the late King until he received Order for the contrary though he were publickly disturbed for so doing but when he considered that the late King had deserted the Government and left us in Confusion that the States of the Kingdom had admitted their present Majesties to the Throne even then though our Governours were changed he changed not his Opinion of the Doctrine of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience but thought that it ought to be transferred from the Person of the late King to the present King and Queen so that it is no wonder that he owns himself the Author of the Solution of Popular Objections wherein if any thing be urged by him that seems to comply with the Opinion of Mr. Johnson c. it was an Argument ad hominem and in such a case as happened after Mr. Johnson had written and was scarce thought possible to happen and we hope never will more And though he needed not that Apology of St. Austine's making retractations and to confess Errare possum Hereticus esse nolo yet he thinks it much better to do so than with Bellarmine to make such Recognitions as should declare his Obstinacy in a dangerous Error as the Historian doth And as to the particular Quotations from a Sermon of that Authors the Reader may observe that they were aimed at the Popish and Fanatical Doctrines of Resisting and Deposing Lawful Princes for the good of the Kirk and Mother-Church and do not touch a hair of them that did neither Resist nor Depose nor are any way guilty unless their not sighting with Popish and Irish unqualified Miscreants for the utter Destruction of our Church and Religion and the establishing of Popery and Slavery be a Crime of that Magnitude as to be accounted Perjury and Treason which seeing the late King's Souldiers very honourably and worthily refused it could not be expected from those who were to sight under another Banner What remains then but that we study to be quiet and to do our own business not provoking not envying or slandring one another but leaving the Government of the Nation to God and our Superiours make it our business to govern our selves according to the Laws of God and the Land and to follow the things that make for Peace and whereby we may edisie one another and not publish Histories with a design to foment Divisions to alienate the Affections of the People from their present Governours and to run us again into Confusion And although the Author of the History do conceive that either we have been too sinful in not assisting the late King though it were out of our Power or not Passive enough in our Obedience to him yet I shall still think it my Duty to Pray that neither he nor we may sin in resisting Lawful Authority nor suffer under an Unlawful and Arbitrary Power Lead us not into temptation And I hope that all good Protestants will joyn with me not only in this Prayer but in that Thanksgiving of the Royal Prophet Psal 66.8 9 c. O bless our God ye People and make the voice of his praise to be heard which holdeth our Soul in life and suffereth not our feet to be moved for thou O God hast proved us thou hast tryed us as Silver is tryed Thou broughtest us into the Net thou layedst Affliction on our Loyns thou causedst Men to ride over our heads we went through fire and water and thou broughtest us out into a wealthy place I will go into thy House with burnt-offerings I will pay thee my Vows FINIS ADVERTISEMENTS A Resolution of Certain Queries concerning Submission to the Present Government The QUERIES I. Concerning the Original of Government II. What is the Constitution of the Government of England III. What Obligation lies on the King by the Coronation-Oath IV. What Obligation lies on the Subject by the Oaths of Supremacy c. V. Whether if the King Violate his Oath and actually Destroys the Ends of it the Subjects are freed from their Obligation to him VI. Whether the King hath Renounced or Deserted the Government VII Whether on such Desertion the People to preserve themselves from Confusion may admit another and what Method is to be used in such Admission VIII Whether the Settlement now made is a Lawful Establishment and such as with a good Conscience may be Submitted to By a Divine of the Church of England as by Law Establish'd