sense of the Lords and Commons in the following Declaration viz. The Declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled at Westminister presented to their Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Orange at White-hall the 13th of February 1688 / 9. WHereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of divers Evil Counsellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to Subvert and Extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom By Assuming and Exercising a Power of Dispensing with and Suspending Laws and the Execution of Laws without Consent of Parliament By Committing and Prosecuting divers worthy Prelates for humbly Petitioning to be excused from Concurring to the said Assumed Power By issuing and causing to be executed a Commission under the Great Seal for Erecting a Court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes By Levying Money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of Prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was Granted by Parliament By Raising and Keeping a Standing Army within this Kingdom in the time of Peace without Consent of Parliament and Quartering Souldiers contrary to Law. By causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be Disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law. By Violating the Freedom of Election of Members to serve in Parliament By Prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for Matters and Causes cognizable only in Parliament and by divers other Arbitrary and Illegal Courses And whereas of late Years partial corrupt and unqualified Persons have been returned and served on Juries in Tryals and particularly divers Jurors in Tryals of High Treason which were not Free-holders And excessive Bail hath been required of Persons committed in Criminal Cases to elude the benefit of the Laws made for the Liberty of the Subject And excessive Fines have been imposed and illegal and cruel Punishments inflicted And several Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgment against the persons upon whom the same was to be levied All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known Laws and Statutes and Freedom of this Realm And whereas the said late King James the Second having Abdicated the Government and the Throne being thereby Vacant His Highness the Prince of Orange whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the Glorious Instrument of Delivering this Kingdom from Popery and Arbitrary Power did by the Advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal Persons of the Commons cause Letters to be written to the Lords Spiritul and Temporal being Protestants and other Letters to the several Counties Cities Universities Boroughs and Cinque ports for the choosing of such Persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament to Meet and Sit at Westminister upon the 22d day of January in this Year 1688 in order to such an Establishment as that their Religion Laws and Liberties might not again be in danger of being Subverted Upon which Letters Elections have been accordingly made And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now Assembled in a Full and Free Representative of this Nation taking into their most serious Considerations the best Means for attaining the ends aforesaid Do in the first place as their Ancestors in like Cases have usually done for the Vindicating and Asserting of their Ancient Rights and Liberties Declare That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regal Authority without Consent of Parliament is Illegal That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regal Authority as it has been assumed and exercised of late is Illegal That the Commission for Erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of like nature are Illegal and Pernicious That Levying of Money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parliament or for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be Granted is Illegal That it is the Right of the Subject to Petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegal That the Raising or Keeping a Standing Army within the Kingdom in time of Peace unless it be with Consent of Parliament is against Law. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Condition and as allowed by Law. That Election of Members of Parliament ought to be free That the Freedom of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or place out of Parliament That excessive Bail ought not to be required or excessive Fines imposed nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted That Jurors ought to be duly Impannelled and Returned and Jurors which pass upon Men in Tryals for High Treason ought to be Free-holders That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Convicton are Illegal and Void And that for Redress of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserving of the Laws Parliaments ought to be held frequently And they do Claim Demand and Insist upon all and singular the Premises as their undoubted Right and Liberty And that no Declarations Judgments Doings or Proceedings to the prejudice of the People in any of the said Premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into Consequence or Example To which Demand of their Rights they are particularly incouraged by the Declaration of his Highness the Prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full Redress and Remedy therein Having therefore an intire Confidence that his said Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect the Deliverance so far advanced by him and will still preserve them from the Violation of their Rights which they have here Asserted and from all other Attempts upon their Religion Laws and Liberties The said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons Assembled at Westminster Do Resolve That William and Mary Prince and Princess of Orange be and be Declared King and Queen of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereto belonging To hold the Crown and Royal Dignity of the said Kingdoms and Dominions to them the said Prince and Princess during their Lives and the Life of the Survivor of them And that the sole and full Exercise of the Regal Power be only in and exercised by him the said Prince of Orange in the names of the said Prince and Princess during their joynt Lives And after their Deceases the said Crown and Royal Dignity of the said Kingdoms and Dominions to be to the Heirs of the Body of the said Princess And for default of such Issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the Heirs of her Body And for default of such Issue to the Heirs of the Body of the said Prince of
it was in his power and was perswaded by his Men to have taken it away to whom he thus answers 1 Sam. 26.10 The Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to die or he shall descend into battle and perish i.e. he will assault me and may perish in that attempt which he wilfully attempting may be slain and then I shall be innocent but if I should slay him in cold Bloud and with an intention to destroy him I should be guilty nor was David affrighted from joyning himself with the King of Achish in a Battle against Saul in which Battle Saul perished which was more than his self-defence that so Saul's Army might be weakned or diverted from the pursuit of him Whence it follows that although we hold the King's Person be inviolable yet if he shall unjustly expose himself in a War to destroy his Subjects they may justly raise an Army to defend themselves and though the King should casually perish they are innocent The Blessing pronounc'd by Amasas on David shews Gods approbation of his intended Defence 1 Chron. 12 18. It follows also that a Prince in such a case as David was may joyn himself with the Enemies of his oppressing Soveraign which doubtless will hold in the case of our present King's uniting himself with the confederate Protestant Princes in Defence of their Religion Laws and Liberties which are in danger Albericus Gentilis Professor of Civil Law in Oxford under Queen Eliz. distinguisheth of a threefold lawful Defence 1. Necessary 2. Profitable 3. Honest and says He is necessitated against whom an Enemy comes Armed or prepares Arms on which the War against Methridates was accounted just because of his preparations which their Adversaries accounted a more real Declaration of War than any words Pia arma quibus nulla nisae in armis relinquitur spes He who would keep himself out of Danger must meet and prevent it which is a point of greater Wisdom and Courage than to expect it and revenge it it is also more safe and easie to prevent a future than to redress a present Evil. Turpius ejicitur quam non admittitur Hostis We presently slay a Serpent at sight not staying till he hurt us and suffer not noxious Weeds or Thorns to grow up but grub them up by the roots while they are young if we expect the first stroke it may kill or disable us Venjenti occurrite morbo is good advice to a body politick as well as natural If our Adversary have declared his will and is preparing a power to hurt us we may not carry to receive the first blow but anticipate the evil as Gladiators are wont to do Yea it hath been always practised to put a stop to the ambition of great Monarchs who have unjustly invaded one Man's Dominions lest he should attempt the like upon others and hence the Princes of Christendom have been careful to preserve an equal balance between growing Empires Posse nocere sat est quodque potest alios perdere perde prior We may as justly remove impendent evils as those that are actually befallen us The whole World is but one great City and tho some part of Mankind is nearer than others yet our Charity should extend to all Si non homini tamen humanitati Thus Baldus and both Civilians and Canonists determine That it is a fault to omit the defence of another but of ourselves a treachery Siracides Eccl. 4. Free him to whom injury is done out of the hand of the Injurious Constantine says We ought to account of the injuries done to others as our own And if this be the duty of private men much more of Princes and if in the other cases much more in the case of Religion Thus Justine answered the Persians That he ought to defend the Christians whom they would compel to forsake their Religion Thus Constantine helped the Christians that were oppressed by Maxentius and Q. Elizabeth assisted the Hollanders against the Spaniards who sought not only to destroy the Protestant Religion there but having broken down that Pale of Europe as Lipsius called it they should have extended their Tyranny farther Dr. Ferne pleading the Cause of King Charles the First grants That Personal Defence against the sudden Assaults of the King's Messengers if illegal tho' the King be present is lawful even to warding of the King's blows and to restrain his hands and rescue their innocent Brethren out of his hands as the People did Jonathan from the hands of Saul And if a King should joyn with Robbers or Pirates by Land or Sea the Subjects might lawfully defend themselves tho' the King were in their company It is well known that the Emperour the Pope and almost all the Princes in Christendom do joyn to prevent the ambitious Designs of the King of France insomuch that they will rather assist England and Holland than suffer them to fall into the hands of the French and if Popish Princes agree in this for the preservation of their Dominions from an ambitious and aspiring Monarch tho' of their own Religion much more may a Protestant Prince for the recovery of his own Right and for the preservation of the just Rights Laws Liberties and Religion of his Allies and Confederates Aeneas Sylvius If a King contemn the Laws and Subjects all to his Lust will not the States in such a case depose him and chuse another who shall swear to govern by Law as reason tells us it ought to be Aquinas speaking of deposing Tyrants says They are not guilty who do it though obliged to them by Oath for he deserves the People should not trust him who transgresseth the Duty of a King. Object The people of Israel might as well judge David to have abdicated his Kingdom as the people of England King James for great complaints were made against David by Absolom concerning the Male-administration of Government and his Adultery and Murther are in the Sacred Record besides upon the approach of Absolom's Army he fled out of the Land. 2 Sam. 19.9 Ans As to David's personal miscarriages they were done in secret scarce two or three made privy to those designs whence that expression in Ps 51. Against thee only have I sinned intimating that it was not known to his people So Nathan told him 2 Sam. 12.12 Thou didst it secretly but I will do this before all Israel And Uriah being dead and his Wife consenting there was none against whom David had sinned as some do Comment but these personal sins did not make him obnoxious to the censures of his people As for the Administration of the Kingdom it was a forged Accusation of Absolom to steal the hearts of the people from his Father for the Holy Ghost beareth witness to the contrary Ps 78. ult He fed them according to the integrity of his heart and ruled them prudently with all his power And Absolom's Conspiracy was secret and a sudden surprize the men that followed him went
he was a very wise man and well acquainted with the Constitution of the Roman Government for by the Lew Regia granted by the Senate to Augustus it was declared Quicquid per Epistolum statuit cognoscons decrevit aut pro edictum perpalaâ—it Lâ—â— esto And Cicero De Legibus Regio Imperio duo sunto Militiae summum jus habento nemini parento So Dion of Augustus That he was free and of Absolute Authority both over himself and over the Laws for the Emperour is a Living Law and commands as much by word as the Law doth by writing But we are not under the Laws of the Romans Turks or Tartars And if God should for our sins now or had he in the late King's raign permitted the French King to invade us with his Dragoons I doubt not but we might Vim vi repellere resist his Tyranny and Usurpation And as to the Protestants under Q. Mary none of them were put to death until she had procured a Parliament to make Laws against them and then it was their Duty to submit And we are bound with all thankfulness to bless God who prevented the late King from procuring such a Parliament and such Sanguinary Laws which he had well nigh effected to the Extirpation of our Religion Laws and Liberties and fastning those heavy Yoaks of Popery and Slavery on us and the Posterities that were to succeed us This was the Lord's doing and as it is marvellous in our eyes so it ought with all humble thankfulness to be acknowledg'd and accepted But it is objected from Sir E. Cooke That the Regal Authority is so inherent in the person of the King that no separation can be made so that as long as he lives our Allegiance is due to him and to no other Ans Whatever that great Lawyer says the Law says otherwise for even while a rightful Prince is in possession the Law makes a difference between his private and his publick Capacity and as while the King acts by the Laws we owe him our Obedience so in those things wherein he acts arbitrarily by his own Will contrary to Law our Allegiance is not due in such cases Object We are sworn to the King and to his lawful Heirs and Successors now as the King while he lives can have no Heir to whom in his life time we owe our sworn Allegiance so when he dies there can be no lawful Successor but the Heir if there be any that survives Ans In the sence of the Oath there can be no Heir till the death of the King and in our case there is no obligation due from our Oaths to the Heir until he or she be actually King or Queen of England as our Law expounds itself And when the King dies in a natural or civil and political sence by deserting his Government and going over to an avowed Enemy to the Nation their Religion and Liberties or hath submitted his Kingdom to the Usurpations of the Pope and so renders himself not only as useless as if he were buried in a Cloyster but as destructive as an open Enemy there is in such cases a Demise made of the Crown and it descends to the Heir 2ly In this case if he that is not the next Heir by Bloud be by the unanimous consent of the people as well as by the good liking of the lawful Heir chosen and admitted into the actual possession of the Government all Rights that were due to the Heir become due to such a Successor in the eye of the Law So Bracton determins it Heredis verbo omnes significari successores si verbis non sint expressi So Littleton in his Tenures Title of Homage Sect. 85. Allegiance is due to every one in possession that becomes King and to no other Judge Popham in his Reports f. 16 17. mentions a Case to this purpose Richard the Third granted certain Priviledges to the City of Glocester with a Salvo to his Heirs in Q. Elizabeth's reign it was questioned whether the Salvo did pass to her she being not Heir to King Richard but Successor onely and all the Judges did resolve that the Salvo did pass to the Queen Grotius l. 2. c. 9. s 8 9. If a King dye without Issue in an Hereditary Kingdom the Empire remains in the Body of the People who may create another and limit him the People being sui Juris Now in such a case a Convention of the People duly assembled in their Representatives is the most August Assembly even beyond a Parliament for to be able to make a King is more than to be a King and as the Original of Majesty is fundamentally in the people a Parliament hath a great dependance on the King being his Subjects the Convention is Absolute and Independent it makes bounds for the Monarch and whereas one Parliament may repeal the Acts of another a Parliament cannot alter the fundamental Constitutions of a Convention when it first constitutes a Monarchy And this hath been the most ancient manner in cases of great Necessity the people assembled in a Folke mote in the several Counties and chose their Wittena Gemote or Meeting of Wisemen Object The King was forced to leave his Kingdom his Subjects failing to assist him against the Invaders Ans The question that comes here to be considered iâ— Whether the Kings departure were voluntary or forced It is certain that the actions of reasonable men are generally influenced by the proposed end for Omnes beati esse volunt nec possunt velle contrarium as all men desire to be happy so they cannot will any thing which they conceive to have a tendency to the contrary These two are generally the Originals of Humane actions viz. Necessity and Choice and Necessity is either that which we draw on ourselves or is imposed on us by others Pharaoh's Oppression of Israel was at first voluntary while he hardned his heart against the Command of God but when God gave him up to that hardness of heart though the execution of what he did became necessary yet the principle that led him to it was voluntarily espoused 'T is a Rule given by Rainaudus a good Casuist Modo preluceat notitia absit coactio intervenit voluntarium Where the understanding is satisfied concerning any design and there be no force to withhold the prosecution of it there our actions are voluntary The end which the late King had long endeavoured and with too much success had by many means well nigh effected was to make Popery the established Religion of the Nation He declared his desire that all his Subjects were of the same perswasion with himself and his actions tended to make them such and doubtless he was not willing to have all his labours frustrated when therefore he was reduced to some straits being such as he wilfully brought on himself he could not properly be said to act by constraint But this was not the King's case that he did deliberate whether to go
him he could never do his Prince service but if his Prince and Country should be afterward invaded by the conqueror that not only seeks to take away that life and liberty which he granted him but the lives and liberties of his Relations it may be lawful to defend himself by Arms against his conqueror notwithstanding his Oath which implied an offensive taking of Arms only for to what purpose were life and liberty granted for the present time if it should not be lawful to defend it when assaulted afterward After all my weak endeavours in a business out of my sphere I have reason to doubt that I shall not prevail with such persons as have withstood the declared judgment of that great Council to whom the cognizance of this Affair doth properly belong whose ability and integrity they cannot reasonably suspect Yet with what submission would I become a Petitioner to my Superiors on behalf of such of my Brethren as are known to be zealous Protestants of Consciences truly tender that fear an Oath Men that have strict Principles of Loyalty of pious and peaceable Lives and Conversations and whose number in the Nation is so few that they cannot be suspected of designing any disturbance to the Government may not some time and forbearance be indulged to such what if until a Convocation be called that they may be better infomed If any sort of Men deserve their Princes favour these are they and I pray God it may not be granted to Men of worse Principles But Cynthius aurem vellit I shall rather therefore expostulate farther with my Brethren Why should you not submit your private Judgments to the publick Judgment of the Nation What better Counsel could you chuse than what the Nation did chuse or what better Methods could they take to prevent Confusion They did not drive away the King by fighting against him neither did they fight for him that was their declared Enemy They set the Crown on the nearest in the Royal Line such as love our Nation and Religion Suppose the King had been actually dead and the Crown as it ought had immediately descended to the present Queen who considering the great trouble of the Administration thereof in such difficult times should have desired that the Administration might be committed to the present King who is every way qualified for it could such a Meet-help have been denied What Monsters of Ingratitude then are they who when that Great Prince took his life in his hands and parted with all to save our lives and all that we have if we shall refuse him that honor which without his running so great a hazard for us could we in Duty have denied it him I cannot think that either the Soveraignty of the Prince or the Allegiance of the Subjects do stamp such an indelible Character on them as can by no means be erazed I am not bound to take base Metal for currant Coin tho' it have the Royal Stamp and if when a Subject of England by reason of Poverty or Oppression goeth into France for his safety and subsistance and be enfranchised there his Allegiance to his former Prince doth cease What disparity of reason is there if a King of England having by Male administration made his Government uneasie and impacticable flies to France and becomes uncapable of governing and protecting his People to affirm that his Soveraignty and his Subjects Allegiance do cease together Once more we cannot but acknowledge that such an exchange of Princes as the hand of God and the People have made is a Blessing and no Robbery why then should we halt any longer between two Opinions whom we ought to follow If our present Soveraigns give us Protection it will be justly expected that we pay them our Allegiance If any think that the late King hath still a right why do they not declare for him a Neutrality in this Case is intolerable for tho' some few may think themselves obliged in Conscience by their former Oaths yet many others out of fear or hopes of interest or perhaps out of a secret affection to Popery may refuse to pay their Obedience to the present Government and our Governors not being able to discern and judge of the Consciences of Men will take all such Recusants for Enemies and that they that are not with them are against them and only wait for an opportunity to do them mischief and the People will be apt to condemn them for Papists in Masquerade For as the Historian says Non caret scrupulo societatis occultae qui manifesto facinori obviari definit He gives a just suspicion of a secret Confederacy that neglects to obviate an apparent Danger And then though deliverance should come such men cannot expect to partake of it for the Controversie now to be decided is like that which Cicero observeth between the Romans and Carthaginians Non an uter imperaret sed an uter esset Not which of the Kings shall Reign but which shall be Ruined And it would be a very ill requital to expose him again to ruine who once exposed himself to ruine that he might save us But I would ask the men of interest Cui bono what benefit they think to reap by hovering thus in the Air if you are Protestants can you think that the late King will preserve you in your Religion Laws and Liberties if you are Papists can you so depend on his crazy Life as to think that a Protestant Prince would not succeed and then by how much the more troublesom and triumphant you have been for a short time by so much the more will you be fettered by severe and just Laws that you may be so no more In a word they that in this juncture of Affairs will declare themselves friends to neither party do deserve to be declared enemies to both And as Livy says of Metius Suffetius who doubting of the event of the War between the Romans and Albans hovered at a distance with his Army until the Romans had gotten the victory That they condemned him to be torn in pieces with wild Horses The like is observed of Pub. Servilius Medium se gerendo nec plebis vetuit odium nec apud patres gratiam iniit by behaving himself as a Neuter in the Civil Wars of Rome thinking to retain the favour of the Senate and People he incurred the displeasure of both whereas Appius tho' he had taken the contrary party upon a mistake patribus mire fuit gratus was graciously reconciled and accepted of the Senate Therefore I conclude with Suetonius Quando alterum habiturus es inimicum aut socium jacienda est alea alterutri adherendum Seeing you must have one to be your Friend or your Enemy come to a resolution and adhere to him whom you chuse to make your Friend If after all that has been said be not satisfactory as to the Case of Allegiance to their present Majesties and the Voting the Crown vacant pray see the
or not appears by his first departure and returning again and then by departing still under his own Guards a second time when he was by contrary Winds driven into Feversham he still resolved to quit the Land So that if the late King had thought his carrying would have promoted his Interest he would have staid but being guided by better hopes of compassing his designs abroad it follows that he voluntarily and I may say maliciously deserted us destroying the Writs for calling a Parliament concealing the Broad-Seal leaving us under the power of an Army of Irish Papists whom he ordered to be Disbanded without Pay whereby he probably thought we would have crumbled into several Factions and sought it out among ourselves All men count those actions voluntary which were in their power to do or not to do and though after deliberation the will be for a while in equilibrio yet when other Reasons and Circumstances are added to make the Scales turn the Resolution and Actions that follow are our choice 2dly If it had been the present King's Design or Will to have hindred the late King's departure he might have done it and perhaps it might have been for his Interest to have so done but by not doing it he manifested that it was not his will to restrain him but the late King's choice for there was a Treaty offered and accepted by the late King who sent his Commissioners to treat with the Prince but being as by the event it appears resolved on his departure he tarried not for the return of his Commissioners and though he had appointed to meet his own Council in the Morning yet he deserted them in the Night before to which it is said he had engaged himself by Oath to the Queen So that all these pretences of his being willing to remain in his Kingdom were but to facilitate what he was more peremptorily resolved to do i. e. to forsake it So that tho' the consequents of his own Actions which were undoubtedly wilful as his raising a standing Army which revolted from him his abrogating the Laws submitting the Kingdom to the Pope and all those Grievances summ'd up by the Lords and Commons Feb. 12. brought a necessity on him to depart yet seeing that necessity was the effect of his own Voluntary Actions it must be imputed to his will and choice as the cause of it And doubtless the King deserted the Nation on some such deliberations as these He had followed such evil and rash Counsels as had involved him in unextricable Troubles his Counsellors were not able to defend him or themselves and by flight shifted for themselves The Army in which he confided forsook him the Affections of the People were generally alienated from him so that the only Refuge that was left him was his trusty Confederate the King of France to whom he chose to commit himself rather than to submit to a Treaty Object But it may be Objected That the Lords and Commons were too hasty in declaring that the late King had Abdicated his Kingdoms and that they ought to have treated with him and proposed such Terms as might have secured their Religion Laws and Liberties to which if he had consented all our Grievances might have been redressed Answ To this it is answered That the Parliament by their Votes against the Bill of Exclusion had done as much as in them lay to engage him to a Faithful Execution of the Trust reposed in him viz. To Govern according to the Established Laws And his Promise to the Privy-Council immediately on his Brother's Death did manifest what then was or at least ought to have been his Resolution for he declared That he would make it his Endeavour to preserve the Government both in Church and State as it was then established That he knew the Principles of the Church of England were for Monarchy and that the Members of it had shewed themselves good and Loyal Subjects therefore he would always take care to defend and support it I know said he that the Laws of England are sufficient to make the King as great a Monarch as I can wish and as I shall never depart from the just Rights and Prerogatives of the Crown so I shall never invade any man's Property I have often adventured my Life heretofore in Defence of this Nation and I shall still go as far as any Man in preserving it in all its just Rights and Liberties These were Solemn Promises to the performance whereof not only his Honour of which he boasted that he never had broken his Word with any Man but his real Interest should have obliged him I cannot omit that Observation of Job Chap. 34. ver 30. That God in his righteous Judgment will not that an Hypocrite Reign lest the People be ensnared These were Divine Sentences in the King's Lips but his Actions declared what was in his Heart namely to pull down and destroy all that he had promised to preserve and defend with his very Life to which the hope of salvation being then a resolved Papist so pre-ingaged him that in the perswasion wherein he then was his conscience must tell him he must perish eternally if he should perform his promises God only knows how to treat with such Princes It was not in the wisdom or power of men to confine such an Angel of light for if by a Treaty the late King under the circumstances to which he was reduced should have yielded to all the demands of his Subjects his Allies abroad might whenever they had an opportunity to assist him have made all void on pretence that he was under force all the time of such Treaty And if he had been re-admitted with that freedom honor and power which became a King of England who could not foresee that as long as the Jesuits had the guidance of his Conscience he would a second time have renewed his Promises of establishing our Religion Laws and Liberties only until he found another opportunity to destroy them to which the Name of a King and his Presence among his Subjects and the Subtil Counsels and Devilish Arts of the Jesuits the Credulity of some and the Discontents of many others for under the best Governments there will be Malecontents would have made plausible pretences and arguments for disturbance of our peace which our too powerful Neighbour the King of France hath for a long time had incouragement from the late King to do and only waited for an opportunity and now declares he will endeavour to effect by open War. Thus Coleman's Letter to Sir William Throgmorton Febr. 1. 1673 / 4. You well know that when the Duke comes to be Master of our Affairs the King of France will have reason to promise himself all things that he can desire And in another Letter to L' Cheese that his Royal Highness was convinced that his interest and the King of France 's were the same and if his Royal Highness would endeavour to dissolve
the Election of Sheriffs and anciently the disposing of the Militia and many great Offices both by Sea and Land and the Judicial part was left to the King confined by certain Methods the King in Person not being able to decide the least Cause 3. I thus except against the Minor. The subjection required in the Text is due to the King's Person for the sake of the Power and therefore is not to be extended farther than the Power wherewith he is invested and with a Salvo to that part of the Power which is vested in another so that we owed no such subjection to King James as did derogate from anothers Right beyond the extent of his own Power which was not absolute but limited by Law. And let this be considered from the Objection Those actions which will produce mischeivous consequences should not be ingaged in without most clear evidence of being our duty But to refuse Submission to the present Government will produce c. therefore they are not to be ingaged in without most clear evidence which as things now stand cannot be accounted clear and undubetable in relation to King James Object 2. The King can do no wrong and therefore is not to be dealt with as a Malefactor Ans As to your Maxim The King can do no wrong if it be understood of the King 's private or personal capacity it may be thus retorted The King can do no wrong but he that oppresseth ravisheth or murders an innocent person doth wrong therefore he is not King i. e. in such actions he is not to be considered as a King. But this Maxim as many others is to be understood of the King 's political capacity in which respect the Law is his Will and the execution of the Laws are his Actions in which sence he can neither do wrong nor suffer wrong nor ever dyes The true sence of the Maxim is this as Sir Edw. Cooke Id potest quod jure potest and this he says is the King 's greatest priviledge which makes him like unto God who cannot act but agreeably to the eternal Rules of Justice but the King acting by his own Will against Law may do wrong and Judgment hath been given against him for unjust and illegal Actions And doubtless King John and Henry the Third that would have subjected the Kingdom to the Pope as King James also would cannot be exempted from doing wrong though as it was necessary he must use many Instruments therein Ahab did wrong Naboth in taking away his Vineyard as well as his Instruments that did act under colour of Law. Object 3. That King that is not accountable to his people for any wrong done is not by them Coercible into a private estate but the King of England is not accountable c. therefore he is not Coercible Ans The Argument is besides the Business for the People of England do not Coerce the King to a private Estate but if he attempt to alter the Government and Religion and enslave and destroy the People they may use the remedy which the Law of Nature allows Moderamen inculpatae tutelae The Law not having appointed a legal remedy against the unjust oppressions of Princes doth not render it sinful to use the remedies allowed by the Law of Nature for the Laws grew up gradually and legal remedies were introduc'd occasionally before the institution of which remedies it was not sinful to use extraordinary remedies as to kill se defendendo to pull down Houses in case of Fire c. 2. The Law provides remedies for cases within its own compass but not for cases that may happen when the Law itself shall be subverted it is unreasonable to expect from written Laws any directions how Subjects must behave themselves when the authority of the Laws ceaseth If our Laws have not provided for the cases of the King's Lunacy Extinction of the Royal Line wilful Desertion doubtfulness of Title c. but leave us to the general Rules of Prudence and Discretion the same may be affirmed in the present case 3. What is not prohibited is lawful the cases of extraordinary nature are not included in general Prohibitions according to that Maxim Consensus in rebus magni prejudicii ex verbiis quantumvis generalibus non presumitur And Concessione generali nemo presumitur ea concessisse quae in specie vere similiter non esset concessurus And it cannot be presum'd that the Law would consent that the King might at his pleasure destroy their Lives as well as their Laws considering how tender the Laws have been to preserve the Lives and Liberties of the Subjects who have been always accounted a free People Object 4. If the whole Executive Power of the Law is in the King then all Laws to Coerce the King are in effect null because Execution is the life of the Law But the whole Executive Power c. therefore c. To the minor it is already shewn in what cases and respects the Executive Power of the Law is in the People and in other cases the King cannot suspend the Execution of the Laws by his personal Command the Officers being bound by their Oaths as well as Law to the due Execution of them So that if the King in person should make unlawful Entries hinder the Execution of Writs and Judgments break the Peace head a Riot c. Sheriffs and other Officers are bound to suppress and oppose such by their Oaths If it be objected that the case of the King's presence makes an exception I answer Neither the Oaths nor the Laws makes any such exception And ubi Lex non distinguit non est distinguendum Again the Defence made against the King's illegal Assaults is not an act of the Executive Power which is in the King but of Natural Right for in cases where the Law hath not provided a remedy and particularly and expresly prohibited Self-preservation there we may recur to natural and moral Remedies and every man is allowed to be his own Judge in case of imminent danger when there is no time allowed nor any Judge to be appealed to You say that if the King will pervert the great end for which he was appointed and pervert the Laws c. then as Bracton says Datur petitioni locus licet ei fraenum ponere i. e. as you expound it to curb him by Petitions with holding Taxes and questioning his Ministers there is no ense recidendum in our Law. Ans To curb by Petition is to bind with Ropes of Sand to question Ministers if the Executive Power be in the King is to no purpose and so to with-hold Taxes if the King in the head of an Army may compel them nor yet is there any need of deposing or cutting off for Henry 3. was not so dealt with If a King mix himself with Outlaws and Cut-throats against which we may and in some cases are bound to rise and expose himself to Casualties the people cannot
Homage and Fealty required of every Lord from his Tenants hath the same expressions as the present Oath yet this Oath was not intended to assert the Lord's Title in point of right nor did it oblige the Tenant in case the Lord should forfeit alienate or be disseiz'd 4. An actual Obedience is sufficient to secure the Government and therefore we cannot presume that it requires more it doth not look backward to what is past but respect only the future time 5. If these reasons make not the case clear yet they render it doubtful and then this Maxim takes place Contra eum qui a pertius potuit loqui facienda interpretatio But of this more hath been said in Bishop Sanderson's Resolution of the Case of the Ingagement against which if it be objected That there is more included in the word Allegiance than in those of being true and faithful I answer There seems to be less required by that word for Allegiance signifies Obedience according to Law and not in illegal cases in which there is no Obedience due because there is no authority to require it Concerning the Lawfulness of Self-Defence 1. If the English people are so far at the Prince's disposal as to have no right to defend their Lives against his illegal Assaults then they are in the state of Slaves and Captives but we are not in such a state but Freemen and Proprietors as the Magna Charta and the Petition of Right do evidence 2. If to preserve our lives c. we may not use a defence then we prefer the means before the end but this is absurd therefore the first is so And if any Government do deprive us of that priviledge which Nature grants us it were better to have continued in a state of Nature and Anarchy then to come under such a Government 3. The Laws cannot be so interpreted as to be illusory but to bound the King's power and to give the people Rights and yet to suffer him to destroy all at his pleasure is a meer illusion of the Laws 4. What hath been publickly done and never been censur'd in the most setled times may be presumed lawful but the Defence of the Peoples Rights as in the Barons Wars was never publickly censured but the matters contended for were confirmed by several Charters ratified by dreadful Imprecations and vindicated by the expence of the Lives of the Nobles and People therefore it may be presumed to be lawful 5. What is permitted by the Law of God and Nature and is not forbidden by the Law of the Land is lawful but Self-defence is permitted c. and is not forbidden by the Law of the Land therefore it is lawful Object The Declaration that says It is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms c. forbids it Ans General Prohibitions must not be extended to such extraordinary Cases as would have been expresly excepted if they had been expresly proposed And they who united into Government and made Laws to preserve their Lives would never have consented to give one man power to cut all their Throats 6. Treason includes Felony and Felony Malice propense but self-defence implies no propense Malice therefore it is neither Fellony nor Treason Consider these Maxims Quod quisque obtutelam corporis sui fecerit jure fecisse videtur quando copiam sibi Judicis qui jus reddat non habet vim vi repellere omnia jura permittunt a jure civile approbatur modenamen inculpatae tutelae So Grotius Si corpus impetatur vi presente cum periculo vitae non aliter vitabili tunc bellum est licitum etiam cum interfectionem periculum inferentis ratio Natura quemque sibi commendat jus est cuilibet se defendendi contra immanem saecutiam So Barcl cont Monarchom l. 3. c. 8. Non sunt expectanda verbera sed vel terrorem armorum sufficere vel minas Of the King's Abrenunciation 1. To destroy the Government is to renounce and disclaim it for Animus perdendi retinendi non consistunt Nolle habere is the same with Renunciare but King James attempted to destroy the Government for to destroy the Essence and Form of a Government and alter its species is to destroy it 2. If the defence be lawful in the People and the Invasion in the Prince then the loss of the Crown or Right to govern doth legally follow But the Defence and Invasion c. therefore the loss of the Crown and Right of Goverment is ceased and consequently so is our Allegiance 3. To forsake a Kingdom and leave it in a state of Nature is to disclaim it but the late King did so therefore he disclaimed it The Major is clear because Government is necessary by an Antecedent Necessity to a particular Person 's being made a Governour and therefore rather than to continue a disbanded Multitude a particular Man's Right or Title must cease The Minor is clear because he suspended the Laws stopt their course carrying away the Broad Seal discharging the Judges and then withdrew leaving us in confusion If it be objected that he was forced to withdraw Answ It was what by many voluntary Acts he had drawn on himself and the last Act partakes of the Nature of those Actions from whence it flowed Object It will be a very great Scandal to the Nation and Church of England to disclaim their lawful King without Treating with him and seeking Reconciliation upon redress of their Grievances Ans The Clergy and Nobles did often Treat by way of Petition and humble Advice but were rejected with Contempt The Prince of Orange began to Treat with the late King's Commissioners who were returning with an Answer but the King left the City the day before and ever since hath put himself out of a Condition to Treat having given up himself to the Conduct of such as are Irreconcileable Enemies to our Nation and Religion None were more fit to Treat with the King than a free Parliament which as the King had made impossible by his Method so if it had been duly called and chosen yet a force would have been pretended while the Prince of Orange had any Army in the Nation And what if the King had complied as Christiern the Second King of Denmark who after his desertion was received again upon renewing his Oath and subscribing to Conditions who not only brake them all but inviting the Nobles and their Children to a Feast caused them all to be slain The King of France shews what Faith may given to the solemn and repeated Acts of Ambitious Princes and the observance of the Coronation Oaths and many publick Declarations by our King. 2. As to the case of Scandal I know not any sort of Christians that can justly be scandalized at such proceedings or condemn that practice in others which they allow in themselves As for the Papists the principles of their Religion oblige them not to endure a Prince of a different perswasion who
the Parliament the King of France would assist him with his Power and Purse to have such a new one as would be for their purpose which was the subduing of a pestelent Heresie that had domineer'd over a great part of the Northern World a long time of which there were never such hopes of success since the death of Queen Mary God having given us a Prince who is become I may say to a Miracle zealous of being the Author and Instrument of so glorious a Work. See the Collection of Letters p. 118. So that by what was designed by the Duke and French King and hath since been jointly and vigorously acted we have full assurance of a League with France for our utter ruin and they are Fools or Mad-men that having such clear light and experience to guide them will suffer themselves to be blindfolded a second time and be led to destruction So that what Joab said to David is much more applicable in our Case Thou lovedst thine enemies and hatedst thy friends for thou hast declared this day that thou regardest neither the Prince nor his Servants for this day I perceive that if the King had prevailed and all they had died then it had pleased thee well So fond was David of his Absolom 2 Sam. 19.6 It is not necessary that abdication of an Office should alway be an act of the will. Lentulus is said to abdicate the Consulship because he could hold it no longer having been one of the Conspirators with Gatiline And Silla abdicated the dictatorship thinking to find a better opportunity be to revenged on his enemies And Dioclesian left the Empire because he could not effect his will against the Christians These were mixt actions partly through constraint and partly voluntary yet were accounted abdications And our King had involved us in so many miseries that nothing but his desertion of us or our opposing of him could deliver us God prevented the latter and the King granted the former Pufendorf de interregno p. 272. determines that if a King abdicates the peace of his Kingdom and be of an hostile mind or departs from the Rules of governing which he expresseth thus Modum habendi potestatem immutare that then the ground of the Subjects obedience is made void And in the Digests l. 49. Tital 15. de Capt. we have this Maxim Qui fuget ad eos cum quibus nulla est amicitia à fide suscepta transfugit and that the late King hath so done is an evident truth And it is as true that to desert a Government rather than to keep it on just and legal terms is to abdicate it for an abdication may be as expresly signified by real deeds as by any form of words whatsoever As to the League with France for making King James as Absolute as King Lewis and inable him notwithstanding his Oaths and Publick Declarations to the contrary to extirpate the Protestant Religion there wants not sufficient evidence of the endeavours of the Court of France for many years together by correspondence with the late K. while he was Duke of York and assum'd on him the chief administration of Publick Affairs Nor of a too fond if not a willing compliance of Charles the Second to that end Some wise men have thought that the great Revenues granted to the Crown the declaring the Militia to be wholly in the King the binding up not only the Subjects but the Parliament by Oaths and Declarations not to resist the King or those that were commissioned by him on any pretence or cause whatsoever by vertue whereof an hundred Irish or French might have come into the House of Parliament and out all their Throats and they not have dared to draw a Sword in their own defence all which things were against or as far besides the Laws of the Land as of Reason and Common Prudence for doubtless had it been proposed whether those Laws might have been so interpreted they would speedily have made an alteration in them All these I say have been observed by wise men to have been the designs of such as designed to introduce an Arbitrary Government and facilitate the bringing in of Popery though they that acted did not intend to serve the ends either of France or the Crown of England so far On this Errand was the Dutchess of Orleance some years since sent into England to assure Charles the Second of the Assistance of the King of France in reducing the Parliament to the King's pleasure to this end were Tolerations and Indulgences granted French Whores admitted with great power and pomp and all things so well prepared though more slowly and secretly in the Reign of Charles the Second that there wanted nothing but James the Second's ascending the Throne to give a Consummatum est to that design of bringing in both Popery and Slavery upon us And that being effected too soon alas for England then notwithstanding the Coronation-Oath the many Publick Protestations to maintain the Church of England and the Protestant Religion and of whose Loyalty he was well satisfied and that he never desired to be more great and happy than he might be by the established Laws yet all these were forgotten and trampled under foot Jesuits and Papists being admitted at Court and into the Privy-Council the King's Conscience submitted to their Conduct the Pope's Nuncio publickly entertained and feasted at the Guild-hall an Embassador sent to Rome Popish Bishops set up with power of Jurisdiction Protestant Bishops put into the Tower the Nobles closetted and such as would not comply to betray their Religion and Country were turn'd out of all the chief Offices by Sea and Land and others put into their room and in all places of Judicature Judges and Juries were adapted for the prosecution of that design there wanted only a complying Parliament and to that end Quo Warranto's were issued out against the Charters and alterations made in them fit for that design Addresses were procured for taking off the Test and Penal Laws i. e. for introducing of Popery by Law an Army of Irish Papists brought in and another prepared in France So that our destruction was much nearer than we believed Monsieur D'Avaux Embassador for the King of France in Holland in his Memorial told the Estates that the Friendship and Alliance between his Master and the King of England did oblige him to assist the King of England and to look on the first act of Hostility by Sea or Land as a Rupture of Peace Coleman's Letters spake to the same effect and the event hath demonstrated the truth of all that was thought to be but groundless fears and jealousies for on the approach of the Prince of Orange these dark mists vanish'd the Nation awaked out of their deep slumber and resum'd their ancient valour and resolution to defend their Religion Laws and Liberties against Popery and Arbitrary Government which seized on us as an armed man. And he that doth not now
believe the French League for introducing of Popery and Arbitrary Government is worse than an Infidel Object But the King forsook the Land because his Subjects had first forsaken him contrary to their Duty Ans The peoples duty was to be governed according to the Law which is the measure of their Obedience and they being sensible that the King's design was to subvert the Laws and to that end had armed Irish and English Papists contrary to Law they could not joyn with such men in such a design The Papists themselves alway opposed their Kings in the reigns of King John Henry the Third and others that would have submitted the Kingdom to the Pope And if the Subjects had fought for the King in this Cause they had fought for the Pope and for Slavery against the Crown and Dignity of the King against their Religion and Liberties and against the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which bound them pro posse as far as they were able to resist the Usurpations of the Pope by what means soever they should be introduced In brief let this Dilemma be considered either the King was forced to flye or else he deserted the Government willingly if he was forced then there was a Conquest and the Conqueror had right to what by lawful Arms he did obtain if he fled willingly then there was a renouncing of the Government that is an Abdication and so the Crown became void and our Allegiance to the late King ceased Object But the Subjects of England entred into an Association with the Prince and though they fought not yet were in Arms. Ans The Magna Charta granted by King John as well as the Law of Nature and confirmed by many Parliaments doth warrant such an Association for preserving their Lives Laws and Liberties when they are in imminent danger and such was the Case of England at that time Object If Subjects have Power to resist their Princes why then did the Primitive Martyrs cast away their Lives died Abner as a fool dieth Ans They had no Laws for establishing their Religion no Votes in choosing the Senators the Laws were against them and their Religion obliged them to submit to the present Powers who had an Absolute Command over them and if these Christians had such Oaths from their Emperors as we have it might be well questioned whether they would not have held him to the performance Object If we may not resist a King acting contrary to the Laws of God and Nature then neither when he acts contrary to the Laws of the Land. Answ The Laws of the Land do grant to Subjects more particular Rights and Liberties than the Law of God doth and the Law of God doth not destroy the Civil Constitutions of a Land which the People may claim and defend it is therefore observable that Queen Mary did not put any to Death for their Religion untill she had procured a Parliament that made void the Laws made on behalf of the Protestants and had reinforced the ancient Laws which were made in times of Popery and procured new ones against Protestants as Hereticks It is a strange account which Ecclesiastical Histories gives of the Primitive Christians that they were Candidati Martyris offered themselves to their Persecutors not only when they were accused and brought before Magistrates but when the Inimicum vulgus invaded them and they might have resisted such as had no Authority against them it was a Rule with Tertul. Quodcunque non licet in Imperatorem nec in quenquam licet By which Rule it was as unlawful to resist a Robber or Murtherer as the Emperor and in his opinion if the Emperor had been a Christian he might not have resisted any violent person but he was a Montanist and had his Errors as in matters of Doctrine so also of Fact as in his Account that the number of Christians were sufficient to have vanquished the whole Roman Empire that it was not lawful to fly in times of Persecution to which end he wrote a Tract De fuga c. which was contrary to our Saviours direction to his Disciples Matth. 10.23 And in truth if it be not lawful to resist a Persecutor neither is it lawful to fly when we are summoned to appear before a persecuting Magistrate for that is determined to be a kind of Resistance But the true Cause of the Non-resistance of the Primitve Christians was that which Tertul. observes Nos externi sumus We are Aliens from the Common-wealth of Rome they had no Laws no Votes in choosing the Senators but were accounted of as Out laws and Enemies to the Government by their Religion it was with them as with such Protestants as live under the Tyranny of the Pope who being apprehended and cast into the Inquisition had neither Power nor Right to defend themselves but it was their duty to give Testimony to the Truth by laying down their Lives for it They were under an Arbitrary Power in the nature of Slaves and Vassels and lookt on as Enemies to the Roman State being of a Religion contrary to what was established but we are Freemen that have our Religion and Properties established by Law and such as act contrary to the Government resist the Ordinance of God and oppose it and may be resisted And the Oaths by which we are obliged bind us primarily to the Government and to the Governours for the sake thereof and if the Government be not Arbitrary neither is our Allegiance due to one that would govern Arbitrarily So that suffering for the Faith of Christ is a distinct thing from suffering for the frame of the Government for if I may not resist I am overcome and yield consent to a change of the Government i. e. to an Arbitrary and Illegal Power contrary to the Constitution under wich I live and so promote the ends of an Oppressing and Usurping Governour and I cannot expect with comfort a Reward from God for casting away my own Life and endangering the Lives of many others when a Government is duely established God approves of it as his Ordinance and the People ought by all lawful means to preserve it for the Gospel of Christ doth no more destroy the priviledges of the People than of the Prince but if the Prince would destroy the Rights of the People they may contest them for in vain are Laws made and Liberties granted if they may not be defended And this may serve to answer the Objection concerning the behaviour of the Primitive Christians who as Bishop Abbot observed when they were armed with publick Laws and Priviledges under Constantine did not submit as when they lived under Dioclesian and Licinius but fought in their own Defence and would rather kill than be killed From the Death of Nero the Christians until Constantines Reign thought it a great happiness to injoy their Religion with Persecution they served the present Emperours fought their Battles and took the Military Oaths though the Emperor made