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
Chains beyond which he cannot go and even tempt Men to be of the Opinion of the Gnosticks That all the Governments of the World are a contrivance of some evil Spirits to destroy the lives of Men and to abridge them of their Liberties which God and Nature have given them And with what Countenance can this Author aver that he doth only the Office of an Historian when the whole Design is a Satyr and an Indictment of Treason and Perjury against all those Divines that he quoteth who have since their Writings submitted to the present Government and sworn Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary and seems willing that King James should return with his French and Irish to be their Executioners It is not material to enquire whether he hath misquoted any passages but it is plain he hath mis-applyed them and stretch'd them beyond the meaning of their Authors for which I Appeal to the Author himself and shall only demand of him whether he himself doth or any of those whom he quotes ever did declare their Approbation of those Tenets of Sibthorp and Manwaring in the days of Charles the First or of the Bishops of Chester and Oxon in the Reign of James the Second whose Authorities in their own times were as he confesseth excepted against as of Men that did not write soberly on the Subject as our Author acknowledgeth And yet his whole Design is to shew that the King hath a plenitude of Power paramount to all that either of those four have mentioned over all the Laws of the Land over the established Religion and the Lives Liberties and Estates of all the Subjects with a quicquid libet licet This is not barely to plead for an inconsiderable rate of Ship-Money for granting Tolerations and Indulgences for a Power of Dispensing with some Laws but for the Legality of any Impositions even to the seizing our Freeholds of abrogating and making void all the Old Laws and giving the Prince's Will and Personal Commands the force of New and contrary Laws without any muttering or complaint of Grievances And if this Author have any spark of Ingenuity in him he must with shame acknowledge how Partial he hath been in relating the Opinions of many the most eminent of those Divines whom he hath quoted and leaving out the Opinions and Arguments of others whom though obvious to every ordinary Eye he hath wholly omitted I have already instanced in the decision of the present Case made by Mr. Faulkner and Barclay and Bilson and it were easie to fill a Volume far greater than I intend to shew only the Judgment of some of those Authors by him quoted when they considered what might be Lawfully done in some Cases against which being so odious and so rarely incident that the Laws have taken no notice of them or made any provision against them I shall give but two Instances more to this purpose The first is that of Grotius of whom p. 128. he says Whatever the learned Grotius says in his Books de Jure belli in his later works wherein he may be presumed to speak his truest sense he asserts this Doctrine on Mat. 26.52 If it be once admitted that private Men when injured by the Magistrate may forcibly resist him all places would be full of Tumult and no Laws or Judicatories would have any Authority since there is no Man who is not inclined to think well of himself This Comment is alledged with a Non obstante to whatsoever he had written in his Book de Jure belli because this was the latter Work whereas it is well known that his Book de Jure belli was not only written when he was in his full Maturity and acted in his proper Sphere as a Statesman and often reviewed it even after his Comment on the Gospels and was the Text on which almost all Civilians and Politicians did Comment as Authentick and for which we have his irrefragable Reasons as well as his Authority and in which he doth not deliver his Opinion in general but condescends to the consideration of particular Cases and Accidents whereas in that Comment he only delivers his Opinion as to the general and that not without restriction of the Resistance of private Men that were inclined to think well of themselves whereas when he considered the Constitution of particular Monarchies and Governments where the Legislative Power is not solely in a single Person as he knew it was not in England he hath otherwise determined for thus in that Famous Book p. 21. wherein having urged all the Arguments for Non-resistance he could think of he admonisheth his Reader of something else As first That such Persons as are under Compact with their People if they offend against the Laws may be restrained by force And secondly If a King abjure his Kingdom and desert it all things are Lawful against him as against a private Person for which he quotes Barclay That if a King alienate his Kingdom or subjects it to another he loseth it and then adds of his own Si Rex reipsa tradere regnum aut subjicere moliatur quin ei resisti in hoc possit non dubito nam aliud est imperium aliud habendi modus qui ne mutetur obstare potest populus id enim sub imperio non est Again he says If a King have one part of the Empire and the People another the King attempting to destroy the Peoples Right a just Force may be opposed and this I think to have place though it be said That the Power of War or Militia is in the King for that is to be understood of Foreign War for he that hath Right hath Power to defend that Right and he quotes Barclay That a Kingdom may be lost if a King be carried on to the destruction of his People Consistere enim non potest voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi that if a King be intent on the destruction of his People to resist such a one is not to resist a Soveraign King but one who ceaseth to be such Qui se hostem totius populi profitetur eo ipsa abdicat regnum on which place Grotius his Annotator mentioneth a Note of Jo. Major in 4 Sentent Non posse populum à se abdicare potestatem destituendi principis si in destructionem vergeret and Grotius himself thinks that the Law of Nature allows it in his Notes on Esther 8.11 speaking of the Edict obtained by Mordecai for the Jews to defend themselves he says Jus naturae munit autoritate regia Much more might be added from Grotius to our purpose but he is so commonly quoted that I forbear and leave the Reader to judge how well the Author hath performed the Office of an Historian who picks and chooseth out of an obscure place and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what may make for his own Opinion omitting those plain obvious and elaborate Discourses of the same Author which would confute it
bring back James the Second which is by the Law of the Land made Treason against the present King and Queen and if the Historian think himself so bound I suppose he is as faulty in not endeavouring the Restoration of the one as he hath been too Industrious to exclude the other besides those Oaths bound us not only to the defence of the King as if the Government were excluded but expresly to withstand all such as should offer any violence to any of His Majesty's Subjects much more to the whole frame of our Government which too many without any Lawful Commission did with great violence and injustice and we were sworn to defend to our power all Jurisdictions Priviledges c. granted or belonging to the King's Highness not such as were neither granted or belonging as the Claim and Exercise of an Arbitrary Power and dispensing with Fundamental Laws and altering the established Religion as many other actions of the late King were and lastly I suppose that by the plain letter of the Oath of Allegiance which says That neither the Pope of himself nor by any other means with any other hath power to annoy the King's Countries License any to bear Arms raise Tumults or offer any violence or hurt to His Majesty's State or Government or any of his Subjects All which things the Pope by any means or in conjunction with any other the King himself not being excepted hath no power to do by this Oath but having so done the Oath binds the Subjects rather to resist than to assist and doth certainly permit the Subjects if not oblige them to defend themselves against all Opposers In a promissory Oath the matter whereof doth respect things future that matter is subject to change and uncertainty and so is the Obligation also which ceaseth with the matter for then it may not be in the power of the person to perform what he swore to and really intended rebus sic stantibus and no Man is bound to do an impossible thing nor is any Oath so absolute when it is made that it may not admit of some tacite Conditions So Bishop Sanderson in his Praelect 7. § 7. There is Solutio vinculi per cessationem materiae aut mutationem aliquam notabilem factam circa causam Juramenti principalem When the state of things is so changed from the time of swearing to that of fulfilling that if at the time of taking the Oath that change which afterward followed had been fore-seen the person would not have taken such an Oath Thus when Solomon promised Bathsheba to grant her Request and she desired that Adonijah might Marry Abishag one of King David's Concubines which was a kind of Treason for any one to attempt except the Successor Solomon notwithstanding his Solemn Promise instead of performing it swore that Adonijah should dye yet Solomon brake not his Promise because there was a tacite Condition that Adonijah should ask nothing that was unlawful Thus in the Oaths above mentioned we swore to defend the King's Person and the Privilidges and Prerogatives granted and belonging to the Crown this tacite Exception is plainly to be understood that if the King should attempt to subject his Kingdom to a Foreign Power and leaving us in Confusion should put himself under the Power of the French King which is diminutio Capitis a kind of Civil Death and by his Arms seek to destroy the Community and Government which by those very Oaths we were bound to defend the Obligation of those Oaths doth cease upon his attempting such things which if they had been fore-seen and expressed in those Oaths the Subjects would never have taken them Now although some Divines in their occasional Discourses of Government particularly of this of England seem to make it Absolute and indefesable and inseparable from the person of the Prince yet when they come to consider particular cases which they could not foresee or for the odiousness of them and the almost impossibility of happening they omitted the same Divines do agree to the Heads above-mentioned and make Exceptions to their own General Rules as will appear in what followeth hereafter In the mean time I doubt not but the Reader hath observed that as well Divines when they Treat of Law-matters and Moot-cases as Lawyers when they handle Points and Controversies in Divinity are guilty of many Blunders as particularly the Authors of the Erudition who affirm that the Proclamations of the King are as binding as a Law and Bishop Bancroft who told King James in the presence of Cook and other Lawyers That the King might call and Judge any Cause personally in his Chamber But of this we need no other instance than the present Historian who after so great a Deliverance as he must confess the Nation hath had and of which such ungrateful Murmurers as the Historian are unworthy to partake After that the Great Assembly of the Nation have declared their Judgments by their Oaths and many thousands of the Clergy joyned with them presumes after an Histrionical manner to bring them on the Stage and represent them as Rebels Traytors and perjured Persons not without Reflections on their present Majesties as Usurpers to say no worse is a most uncharitable if not an unrighteous deed seeing he stands in a manner Solus contra omnes Had he differed through a doubting Conscience he should have by the Apostle's Rule Rom. 14.22 kept his perswasion to himself and with all Humility and Modesty sought satisfaction and not have published his Opinion against the more mature Judgment not only of our own Nation but of all Christian Princes who do approve of our present Settlement And if my Account fail me not there is not one of an hundred that consent with him and before the Six Months be expired there may not be more then one of that hundred that will stand off and then our Historian may stand alone as Tom of Ten Thousands The PREFACE Considered THE first Paragraph of the Epistle which shews that the Doctrine of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience are founded in Scripture c. is admitted as Orthodox and the Doctrine of the Church of England but being delivered in general Rules they admit of some Exceptions and carry with them certain tacite Conditions and Qualifications which in case of great alterations would appear to be necessary and justifiable And I suppose that if such a case as ours now is had been thought of or proposed that Declaration viz. That it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms c. would certainly be excepted or provided against as in the Case of Edward the Fifth when Richard Duke of Gloucester seized on his Person raised War and granting Commissions in the King's Name it might have been lawful for the then Queen Elizabeth having the Broad Seal brought to her by the Archbishop of York to raise an Army to rescue the King from the Usurper's Power notwithstanding he had raised an Army
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
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
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
atque ipso jure sive ipso facto Rex esse desiit l. 6. c. 23. In the next Paragraph he tells us Of studying the Laws of Providence and of considering the indispensible Obligations of taking up the Cross but when Providence hath in a signal manner without any unlawful Acts of our own delivered us from the Cross a little study will inform us that we ought not to draw it down on our backs again and to murmur against our Deliverers as the Israelites did against Moses and Aaron who brought them out of the House of Bondage and their cruel Oppressors As for the Opinions of the Gnosticks and Machiavel I suppose that learned Person whom the Author names hath sufficiently condemned them and so do all those Reverend Persons whom this Author hath accused explode the wild Opinions of Hobs Milton and Cressey and have acted in a direct Opposition to them And therefore he hopes in vain That no Man can imagine he intends any disturbance by his Writing for what could be intend by charging such a number of the Church of England as Apostates from their own Principles and guilty of Perjury only for taking the Oath of Allegiance to the present King and Queen There needs a better Apology than he hath yet made for himself to clear him from that Crime whereof his Conscience doth accuse him viz. that devilish Office of Accusing his Brethren for what tho' he truly relate the Opinions of those great Men his mis-applying of them and calling them to a Recantation and intimating that they are the greatest Incendiaries from whom we may justly fear greater Judgments is as great a Reproach as the most malicious Jesuite could cast on them for though the Preaching up the necessity of Suffering and the unlawfulness of Resisting be not a Doctrine likely to disturb the present Government yet when that Doctrine is applyed to the Person of King James and because we did not for his sake that would have destroyed us resist him that came to save us and as the Jews did Crucifie our Saviour to make way for those Romanists that will destroy us and our Nation This is the sole ground of all his Clamour against us but we are not such Children as to be affrighted by such Clamours we keep steady to our Principles and yielded both Active and Passive Obedience to the late King until he made it morally impossible for us to Obey him any longer and now that God hath set over us more gentle Governours by the same Methods that from the beginning he did set Rulers over all other Nations that is Mediante Populo which I could never yet see disproved we think our selves still bound to yield them that Obedience without which our Author says no Government can subsist If we compare what this Author designs by his Collections with that which the Jesuits and other Papists have written it will evidently appear that he intends to make the late King as Absolute in all Causes and over all Persons in his Dominions as ever they intended the Pope should be i. e. to be Infallible to be the Supream Judge of all Controversies to declare what is Good and what is Evil what is Vertue and what is Vice. And as hath been observed of Finch he attributes all the Divine Perfections to the King viz. Soveraignty Omnipotence Omniscience Majesty Infinity Vbiquity Perpetuity Justice Truth and Clemency and all these to be inseparable from his Person So that he is the very Hobbs of this Age whose Principles he would have all Men to espouse as himself hath done who in his Book de Cive c. 12. § 1 2. says That the Rules of good and evil just and unjust honest and dishonest are the Civil Laws and therefore whatever the Law Commands is to be accounted good and valid and that it is a wicked speech that Kings are not to be obeyed unless they Command Just things That before Empires were established there was nothing just or unjust which are Relatives to a Command that Emperors make things just which they command to be done and unjust what they forbid that private Men who assume the cognizance of good and evil do aspire to be like Kings which cannot consist with the safety of Government These seem to be the Articles of our Author's as well as of Hobbs his Creed Now let the Author review all the Writings of those learned Men whom he hath defamed and see whether he can Collect any such Problems out of them whether they ever declared that the King of England hath as Extensive and Absolute Power as either the Turk or the Pope or that the Person of the Prince had such an indelible Character of Majesty on him as could by no means be erazed Have any of them said that he could not be conquered in a just War or that on such a Conquest we were bound to pay him our Allegiance still and by no means transfer it to any other Have they said that the King might submit his Dominions to the Pope or the French King or that in so doing his Subjects were bound to assist him even to the utter destruction of the established Religion and the Fundamental Laws and Liberties of the Nation That it was in the King's Power to alter the Succession and set up a Suppositious Child to the Exclusion of his own Children and Lawful Successors King James never declared that he would assume to himself such an excess of Power though he declared that he was an Absolute Prince and would be obeyed without a Reserve as this Author hath for him who hath exceeded in this his Design all those flattering and fulsome Addresses which any the most infatuated Fanaticks presented to him But to go on did any of the Church of England say that it was not in the Power of the King exuere Regis personam to cease to be a King and either for his Religion or some other cause betake himself to a Cloyster and live as a Recluse leaving the Administration of the Government to a Successor Or if he were a Mad-man and bent on the Ruine of his People that no Restraint ought to be laid on him In such cases you might have required a Recantation of their Errors but when they never acknowledged more Power or Authority to be his due than what the Laws gave him when they never withdrew their Obedience Active or Passive until they were left in a state of Nature and Confusion and could never expect that he would return to them again or not without a Foreign Power that would make them and their successive Generations as unhappy in respect of things Spiritual and Eternal as in things Temporal what have they done to deserve those black Characters which the Author stigmatizeth them with which they do better deserve who would give the Powers of the World a kind of Omnipotence to do all that they will and to exceed the Devil himself who hath his Bonds and