at Arms were not obliged to fight for the one or against the other in this Juncture their Duty was to stand still and wait for the salvation of God which they did and God wrought Deliverance for them as he did for David and they sate down peaceably every Man under his own Vine as free from sin as from danger Rumpatur quisquis rumpitur Invidia Now to remove the Prejudices which the Historian hath insinuated into the minds of some to make them of his own Opinion that such of our Clergy as have taken the late Oath are as wicked as he represents them And to state the present Case aright I shall premise these things to consideration There are Two Extream Opinions which some Men have espoused concerning Monarchy The First Sort hold I. That Monarchy is Jure Divino which would infer that all other Species of Government are unlawful II. That the Monarch hath such an indelible Character of Majesty and Soveraignty inherent in his Person as cannot be erazed or dissolved but by his Death III. That every Supreme Monarch hath an Absolute and Arbitrary Power over his Subjects independent on the People and paramount to all Laws which he hath Power to dispense with as he shall think fit and that the Laws are only Acts of Grace and Condescentions granted by the King. And consequently IV. That though at his Coronation he have Sworn to maintain such Laws yet he is not obliged by his Oath when he shall see cause to do otherwise The Second Sort would depress the Majesty of Kings too low And they hold I. That the Original of all Power is from the People and that they may resume it on Male-Administration The Papists hold That there is such a Power in the Pope who in Case of Heresie may depose one Prince and set up another in Ordine ad Spiritualia And some of the Presbyterial Perswasion affirm the same Power to be in their Synods That Democracy or the Government of the People by a Common-wealth is more eligible than that of Monarchy The Church of England walks in a middle way between these and holds That though the King be not strictly Jure Divina i e. so as to make other Species of Government unlawful yet is he the Minister of God and not of the People though the Power be conveyed Medias Populo That he is in all Causes and over all Persons both Ecclesiastical and Civil Supreme Governor That though he be Supreme yet he is not Absolute to do whatever he shall please That Kings are generally limited either by certain Laws and Agreements with their People or those Ends for which Government was appointed by God. That the Parliament of England have part of the Legislative Power without whose concurrence no Acts of the King do bind the Subject That Kings are bound by those Oaths which they have taken at their Coronation to defend the Religion Laws and Liberties of the People And that our Laws and Oaths are the Measures as well of Government to the King as of Obedience to the People That though the King may dispense with a particular Law pro hic nunc for the Publick welfare wherein Salus populi Supreme Leâ—â— yet he cannot ordinarily dispense with Fundamental Laws to alter Religion and the Species of Government and destroy the Liberties and Priviledges of the People particularly when by Law it is agreed how the Members of Parliament and Officers Militery and Civil ought to be qualified it is not in the Power of the King to dispense with unqualified Members and Officers That although no Degrees of Subjects have Power to co-erce resist or depose the King for Male-administration yet Cases may happen whereby he may exuere personam Regis cease to be King and the Obligation of his Subjects be made void As first in Case of Conquest in a just War when the Conqueror protects the People in their Laws and Liberties and is in a plenary possession especially if the conquered King flies to a professed Enemy of the Nation and seeks to subject or enslave his People to such a Forreign Power 2. In Case of Lunacy and a setled Distraction of Madness which makes him utterly unfit to Govern himself he hath only nomen fine Re no Power of Administration 3. In Case a King obstinately persists to Subvert the Species of Government to alter the Religion to subject his Dominions to the Pope or French King and for want of Power to effect it wholly deserts the Government and not only leaves his People in a state of Anarchy and confusion but he himself enters into a state of War and procures the assistance of Forreign Princes to spoil and destroy the People That no Precept of the Gospel nor any Law of God doth interfere with or annul the Constitutions of a Nation or the general Ends of Government viz. the welfare of the Community for as King James said The King is for the Commonwealth and not the Common-wealth for the King And the End is more Noble and Valuable than the Means That if any Laws be made on an emergent occasion which may prove destructive to the Fundamental Laws and the Publick Welfare such Laws are not obligatory by reason of a previous obligation for the preservation of our selves and of the Community These are the leading Rules which we of the Church of England have followed and which we hope will in the judgment of all sober Men excuse us from those black Characters of Time-Servers Apostates c. which the Historian would brand us with only for transferring our Allegiance from the late King upon whom the Jesuits had practised their Power of Transubstantiating and made him of a King to be No-King to the present King and Queen wherein only for ought I yet see the Historian differs from us for as to the Authorities and Reasons by him alledged we are very near of the same mind And because he says in the conclusion of his Preface That he should be sorry that he hath lost his Labour viz If we be not perswaded to deny and withdraw our Allegiance from King William and Queen Mary I do assure him I am as sorry that his Labour should be lost as he himself can be and to think with how much greater sorrow he may be overwhelmed if his Labour be not lost For what can follow if his Design should take the desired effect i. e. If the late King should return with full Power to execute his whole pleasure in such an arbitrary manner as he began but the total Destruction of our Religion Laws and Liberties in which Case if the Historian be yet a Protestant he must turn Apostate and declare for an arbitrary independant Power in the late King or prepare himself to suffer whatever that King and his Instruments shall think fit to inflict on him which will be no cause of Joy to him though his Labour be very successful Wherefore I desire him to consider whether
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
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.
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
this Author is far more exorbitant who would have the whole Nation submit to the Arbitrary Power of King James to alter our Religion Laws and Liberties and to kill ravish and ruine the whole Community and submit all to the Pope or French King which things the Nation in darkest times of Popery have resisted even to Bloud And this without ridiculing is the Doctrine of the Bow-string which the Author would introduce into this Nation It is therefore just and necessary that such General Rules and Maximes whether Divine or Political should be received with some restrictions else as Dr. Barrow says They would clash with Reason and Experience And therefore many formal Prohibitions are to be received only as sober Cautions and so are general Oaths and Laws made on emergent occasions in dangerous times which at other times may themselves prove dangerous and destructive As appears in that Exception of the Jews to the General Rule concerning the Sabbath Periculum vitae tollit Sabbatum and both in Law and Equity Omnia dicta quantumvis universalia equitatem admittunt interpretem And it is not so much the letter of the Law as the intention of the Law-Giver which makes the Law Ratio legis intentio Legislatoris Dominatur verbis tanquam anima corpori And Verba inserviunt intentioni tanquam fini Now it could never be the intention of God in the Scripture to set up such an Order of Governours and invest them with such an uncontroulable Power as to subver the Ends of Government or of the Legislators in our Nation to make any one such Law as should destroy all those other Fundamental Laws which with mature deliberation had been anciently Established for their preservation for both in Civil and Canon Law this is a sure Rule Ex verbis quantumvis generalibus nemo praesumitur velle sibi magnum praejudicium Such as that Law which declares It is not lawful on any Pretence whatsoever c. by which the late King might have sent a number of Irish or French Papists into Both Houses and have cut the Throats of the Legislators The Casuists therefore give many Exceptions to such General Rules Ex impossibili inhumanâ durâ c. And Baldus says Clausula de plenitudine potestatis semper intelligenda est de potestate bona laudabili So that the Calumny of Changlings and Weather-Glasses imputed to such as have written for Non-Resistance is malitious the change is not in their Doctrine which they did and resolve still to adhere to as long as the King kept his station and they were in a capacity to observe it and that of Seneca is a sufficient Apology for them l. 2. c. 16. n. 27. Eadem mihi Praesta idem sum If the late King had continued in the same Condition as he was we should have yielded him the same submission as we did tho' many were cruelly dealt with that is we should have prayed for him as our King we should have petitioned him and as some of our Bishops did have given him good Advice to prevent the ruining of himself and that he would have called a Free Parliament which doubtless would have provided much better for him than he hath done for himself by those destructive Counsels which he chose to follow but we would not have lifted up a hand against him nor abridged him of any of those Rights Priviledges and Preheminences which by Law belonged to his Crown and Dignity Nor can the Author that upbraids the Clergy for their Doctrine instance in any one of those Writers who did transgress that Doctrine by resisting the King while he continued in his Kingdom And as Seneca says A wise Man cannot be said to change his Resolution when things are changed from what they were at the time when he resolved Tum fidem fallam si omnia eadem sint me permittente si mutentur fidem meam liberat And those other limitations given by Bishop Sanderson are applicable to this Case Si Deus promiserit quoad licet Rebus sic stantibus salva potestatis Superioris p. 216. de Consc A Subject is not bound ordinarily to obey a Law that is very grievous to the destruction of himself and Family And p. 202. when the subject matter of an Oath ceaseth the Obligation also ceaseth Cessante causa cessat Lex says Grotius This may suffice to shew that such as the Author hath branded so malitiously as if whatever they said or did was to gratifie their ambitious or covetous Appetites as if their Honesty like Quick-silver in a Weather-Glass rose higher or sunk lower as the Day proved clear or cloudy as the greatest Hypocrites and Time-Servers in the World who sacrificed their Consciences to their Desires of growing Rich and Powerful while had the Times been contrary to them they would have owned other principles and that all their former Declarations have been only pretence and juggle and that they have been Loyal no longer than they could get by it Hoc Ithacus vellet magno mercantur Atridae His next Paragraph says The Doctrine of Non-Resistance cannot be unseasonable since no Government can be safe without it Mens Passions inclining them to think well of themselves and to make Complaints of hard usage even when they are most gently treated And it were well for the Author if he be not found to be one of that sort of Complainers As for those whom he hath so causlesly defamed they still resolve to retain their first Principles of Non-Resistance to the present Governors because as he says No Government can be safe without it We therefore leave him in the Company of Parsons and his Party railing at the most gentle and admirable Government now Established under King William and Queen Mary to whom all that have taken the Oath of Allegiance are branded as Rebels and perjured Persons which in effect is to say that there is no Allegiance due to them But if the Author were indeed a Protestant of the Established Church or had any regard to the condition of other Protestant Churches abroad he would see a necessity of transferring his Allegiance from him that would wholly extirpate those Churches to one who by God's Blessing is likely to preserve and establish them for the lawfulness whereof I refer him to a Treatise concerning those Oaths written as it is reported by Dr. Whitby As to his upbraiding us with the Writings of Preston Widdrington and others in England and Ireland and Barclay in Scotland some of them lived to act contrary to what they wrote and 't is the manner of those Men to cloak their wicked Designs by contrary pretences to render their Adversaries secure while they carry on their Designs with the least suspition as Watson did who was after all his quodlibets executed for Treason And Barclay clearly expresseth himself That a Prince seeking the ruine of his People is no longer King l. 3. c. 16. p. 212. Se omni principatu exuit
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
Absolve Us from Our Oaths and that no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks and also how Meritorious a Work it would be to root that Pestilential Schism and Heresie whereof the English Church was the chief Bulwark by which We should merit a better Crown and that it would be to Our Damnation to keep Our said Oath We thought Our Self Obliged in Conscience industriously to attempt the Destruction of that Church and the introducing of Popery into Our Kingdoms In order whereunto We having entred into a League with Our Brother of France have pursued those well-known Methods We have discarded all such Officers Military and Civil as would not comply with Our Royal Intentions and having Established a Standing Army We committed their Conduct to such Papists and other Sectaries in Our Kingdoms of England and Ireland as would serve Our Designs and for their Security We suspended and dispensed such Laws as incapacitated them for such Offices and caused the Bishops and Clergy who by their Petition and Refusal to Read Our Declaration to that purpose to be Imprisoned and by Our Commission for Ecclesiastical Affairs We suspended the Bishop of London and turned out the whole Society of Magdalen Colledge to plant Men of our own Perswasion in their place as also We founded divers Schools Seminaries and Colledges for several Orders of the Romish Perswasion and as a farther check to that Church We gave such a Toleration to the Sectaries who were profess'd Enemies to that Church as we promised to make unalterable To which end it was advised to impose a Suppositious Heir on Our Kingdoms that they might not fear an alteration from our Lawful Successors Which Proceedings the Prince of Orange conceived to be a Just Cause of War as well for the Vindication of his Princess her Right to the Succession as for Redressing the Grievances as they were called of Our discontented Subjects who thereupon Invaded Our Kingdom by a Forreign Army and by the Revolt of Our Army from Us to him reduced Us to a necessity of submitting Our Self to his Power and to come under a Guard of his Souldiers for the Security of Our Person During these Distractions We were advised by Our Bishops and other Subjects to admit of a Treaty and to Summon a Free Parliament which for Our present Security We seemed willing to do But well-knowing those great and necessary Ends by Us designed would be by such means made void We caused those Writs that were made ready for the Summoning of our Parliament to be destroy'd We cast away our Broad Seal disbanded Our Army and left Our Kingdoms in Confusion and committed Our Royal Person to Our Brother of France hoping that by his Assistance and by the Divisions which We should foment among Our Subjects fully to accomplish in a short time Our Religious Intentions to the rooting out of all that should oppose Our Royal Pleasure after the admired Example of Our Brother of France Now this being the lively Pourtraicture of the late King and the Truth of the Case between Him and the Kingdom what could the Nation do less than to provide themselves of another Governour And who more fit than those who by Common Consent as well as by Right of Succession are now set over us To whom Our Allegiance on these Accounts is as due as if the late King were actually dead And when all the Princes of Christendom except only France who aspires to a Universal Monarchy have owned our King and Queen as rightful Soveraigns it is an unexcusable singularity and obstinacy for a few private Persons to stand off It must be acknowledged that some Divines acting beyond their Sphear have rested in general Notions concerning Government as Men in the Clouds and others have made such Conclusions as the Premises would not bear and this hath been the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Foundation and Cause of many Errors for if from General Propositions or Rhetorical Expressions or from Arguments urged in the heat of Disputations as also from Laws made on emergent and present Occasions we should frame Rules for our Faith or Obedience we should incur many great Errors as well in Polity as in Morality and Divinity for from such beginnings grew up the Doctrines of Praying to Saints and to the Virgin Mary of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead Indulgences and Pardon of Sins past present and to come Worshipping of Images Transubstantiation the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope and from the Doctrine of Non-Resistance c. rigidly understood Princes who are generally Men of Great Passions would be under almost irresistible Temptations of fulfilling all their Lusts And the Subjects in that Case be of all Creatures the most miserable Whatever therefore the Authors of such a Law might have in Speculation I am confident they never intended to suffer it to be put in Practice on themselves And such a Government would be worse than Anarchy and a State of Nature which allows Vim vi repellere to defend themselves against violent Aggressors The People could not be more miserable when there was no King in Israel than when they had a Rehoboam to chastise them with Scorpions as his young rash Counsellors would have advised him to have done We may say of some Laws as of some Truths if we follow them too close at the Heels they may dash out our Teeth And sometimes there are such Legislators as like the Pharisees bind heavy Burdens and lay them on others which they will not touch with one of their Fingers And I think without breach of the Rule of good Manners I might desire those who made those Laws against offensive or defensive Arms in any Case and those that adhere so precisely to the Doctrines of Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience whether if the late King should return with French Dragoons or Irish Cut-Throats they would cast themselves at their Feet and offer their Throats to their Swords as a willing Sacrifice to their own Laws and Examples to their own Doctrine When the Scripture Commands Wives to obey their Husbands in all things no good Wife will think her self bound to Obey her Husband if he should Command her to Steal Murther and prostitute or kill her self Such things which Nature abhors need not be excepted out of general Precepts And what an insolent and odious Reflection would it be upon a King if when his Parliament presented him with such a General Law for his consent they should tell him Sir we have framed such a Law for Your Majesty's Safety That it shall be Treason for any to take Arms Offensive or Defensive on any pretence whatsoever unless contrary to all Laws of God and Men Your Majesty shall turn a Turk or an Idolater and force your Subjects to become such or shall against Law dispossess us of our Free-holds Ravish our Wives destroy our Religion and Laws to which you have sworn yet though such things be not in express words excepted there is no