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, and granted Commissions in the King's Name. And the Case of the present Irish comes home to the point, who being invaded by the French, pretending Commissions from the late King James, who now acts under them may undoubtedly defend themselves [Page 22]by Arms. Mr. Faulkner pleaded the Case of Non-Resi­stance as far as any, yet p. 542. he considers this Case: If the Supreme Governour should according to his own Plea­sure, and contrary to the Established Laws, and his Subjects Property, actually ingage upon the destroying and ruining a considerable part of his People, whether they might defend themselves by taking Arms: And he instanceth in the Pa­risian Massacree, where about 100000 were slain in cold Blood, most of which were innocent persons, never accu­sed or tryed by Law; which he says is such a Cruelty, as can hardly be parallel'd under Mahometism. And he grants, if ever such a Case should happen, it would have great difficulties: Grotius (says he) thinks, That in this utmost extremity, the use of such Defence, U [...]timo necessi­tatis praesidio, is not to be condemned; provided the Common Safety be preserved: Which may be true, (says he) because such Attempts of ruining, do ipso facto, disclaim the Gover­ning those Persons as Subjects, (i. e.) according to Law; and consequently of being their Prince or King. And so the Ex­pressions in the Declaration, That it is not lawful on any Pretence whatsoever, &c. would be secured. And p. 529. he quotes Barclay, l. 3. c. 16 Se omni principatu & do­minatu exuit at (que) ipso jure sine ipso facto Rex esse desiit, l. 6. c. 23. With whom he joyns Grotius, l. 1. c. 4. n. 11. Si Rex vere Hostili animo exitium totus populi feratur: To resist such a one is not to resist the King, but him who ceaseth to be such; and his Reason is, Consistere simul non possunt voluntas imperandi & voluntas perdendi quare qui se hostem totius populi profitetur to ipso abdicat regnum. And p. 531. Mr. Faulkner says, That on yielding such Supposi­tions to be true, I shall grant the Answer to be true.

The Historian is much troubled how to evade the Judgment of Bishop Bilson, which he delivers in these two passages among other: The first is in p. 520. If a Prince submit his Kingdom to a Forreiguer, or change the [Page 23]Form of the Common-wealth, or neglecting the Laws Esta­blished by common consent, or execute his own pleasure, the Lords and Commons may joyn to defend the Laws Established, The other is, where he speaks of the Roman Cruelties, Which are such, saith he, as are able to set good Men at their Wits end, and make them justly doubt, since you refuse all good Laws, Divine and Humane, whether by the Law of Nature they may not defend themselves against such barba­rous Blood-suckers. To these passages the Historian (act­ing the part of a Disputant) replies, That this is but one Doctors Opinion, contrary to the Doctrine of the Church: Which is apparently false; for both the Parliament and Convocation, gave ready and liberal Contributions to as­sist the Queen in the Wars of Holland, against the Spani­ards, at that time, of which I have spoken already.

2. He says, Bilson was not infallible, for he was deceived in other things. Answ. And most probably he was so, when he wrote contrary to those passages, which were approved by all Protestants abroad, as well as by our own Nation.

3. He would invalidate the Judgment of Bilson, by the Censure of Charles the First, in these words: I remember well what Opinion my Father ( King James) had of him for these Opinions; and how he shewed him some Favour, in hope of a Recantation; but whether he did or not, I cannot say.

Answ. King James was of the same Opinion, as to the Wars against the Spaniards; and so was King Charles in the Case mentioned by our Historian, viz. His assisting the Protestants of Rochel, under the Oppressions of Lewis the Thirteenth: And it is improbable that he would ever Recant that Opinion, wherein the whole Nation, and the two succeeding King's did agree.

For the Historian says: 4ly, That Bilson's Book was written when the Queen was assisting the Dutch, against her and their Common Enemy.

Answ. The War then was undoubtedly lawful, and the Bishop's Determination seemed sound as to that War; but the Historian may see that he applies his Opinion to the English Government, when in the Cases mentioned by him, (viz.) If a Prince submit his Kingdom to a For­reigner, or change the Form of the Common-wealth, or neg­lect the Laws, and execute his own Pleasure, the Lords and Commons may in such Cases defend the Laws Established; and therefore it is very unlikely that he was hired to write on­ly in justification of the Wars of Holland. And if our Constitution be founded on a Compact, there is no diffe­rence.

But 5ly, he says, If the Bishops Opinion be contrary to that of Christ and his Apostles, we ought to renounce it. As if the Bishop had not considered, that the Gospel doth no where abridge the Civil Constitutions of particular Go­vernments, and that it requires subjection to the powers that are in being. But he objects again, That the Presby­terian made very dangerous use of that Book against King Charles the First.

Answ. They were therein inexcusable, by seeking to ju­stifie a Rebellion against so good a Prince, by what was chiefly intended against the Spanish Usurpations and Cru­elties, who invaded all their Priviledges Sacred and Ci­vil, contrary to Agreement, introduced the Inquisition, slighted all Petitions, and barbarously Murthered some Hundreds of Thousands, which much altered the Case a­gainst so pious and merciful a Prince.

And lastly, That which that Bishop says, doth not concern the Clergy of England, who always did, and are still resolved to maintain and practice the Doctrine of Non-Resistance, for to that the Bishop applys his Discourse, in which the Divines whom the Historian accuseth, have not transgressed. But to go on with the Historians Preface, some affirm, (saith he) That the Tenet was no older than [Page 25]Archbishop Laud, and was introduced by a few Court Bi­shops, for the attainment and establishing of their own gran­deur. To which I answer,

It must be acknowledged, that in Bishop Lauds time, this Doctrine was scrued up to the highest, and frequently urged, and with great reason, the people being prepared for a Rebellion against the best of Kings; and had the Doctrine of Non-Resistance been so well practised, as it was prest, the effusion of that Deluge of Blood might have been stopped; but even then, there was an [...], and more than what was due was demanded, that the people might not yield less, which that ancient Rule, Iniquum petas ut aequum feras, might justifie. Yet the Doctrine of Sibthorp and Manwaring, who would have raised the Prerogative to an Absolute Power, as Cartwright and Parker of later days did also attempt, hath been generally exploded by all sober Divines, and States­men; and yet the design of 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 [Page 26] 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 [Page 27]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 [Page 28]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 'tis 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 [Page 29]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 [Page 30]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, Ʋbiquity, 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 [Page 31]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 [Page 32]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 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, [Page 33]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 [Page 34]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 [Page 35]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 [Page 36]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; as the Observation of Grotius on Mat. 22.20. mentioned in his Book de Jure belli, p. 93. c. 4. §. 20. which is more adapted to the present Case. In re con­troversâ (viz.) of a Title to the Right of Government, Judicium sibi privatus sumere non debet sed possessionem se­qui sic tributum solvi Caesari Christos jubet quia in possessione erat & nummus, ejus habuit imaginem. And l. 2. c. 9. §. 8, 9. de Jure belli, If a King dye without Issue, (and it is the same if he be dead in a Civil sense, by Conquest, by Re­signation, or wholly deserting his People, without ma­king any Provision for their Government) the Empire re­mains in the Body of the People, who may create another, and limit him, the People being sui Juris. And as these Ar­guments of Grotius, which our Author omits, would have solved the Phenomena in the present Case, so will also the Resolution of Bishop Sanderson, in the Case of the Engagement, and in divers other parts of his Trea­tises, of the Obligation of Conscience, and of Oaths. In the Case of the Engagement, p. 90. he says, That Al­legiance is such a Duty, as every Subject, under what form of Government soever, by the Law of Nature oweth to his Country (primarily) and consequently to the Soveraign [Page 37]Power, by which that Common-wealth is governed, as is ne­cessary for the preservation of the whole Body.— And that if the intention of the Law-giver should be understood pre­cisely of that particular actual and immediate intention of the Law Giver, in making a particular, it will not hold true in all Cases; but there is to be understood in the Law-Giver, a more general, habituate, and ultimate intention, of a more excellent and transcendent nature than the former, which is to have an influence into, and an over-ruling Power over all Laws, (viz.) An intention by the Laws to procure and pro­mote the Publick Good.

The former intention bindeth, where it is subservient to the latter, or consistent with it, and consequently bindeth in ordinary cases, and in orderly times; but when the Obligation of the Law, by reason of the Con­juncture of Circumstances, or the Iniquity of Times, (Contingencies which no Law-Giver could either certain­ly fore-see, or if fore-seen, could not sufficiently provide against) would rather be prejudicial than advantageous to the Publick, or is manifestly attended with more Incon­veniencies, and sad Consequents to the Observers, than all the imaginable Good that can redound to the Publick thereby, can in any reasonable measure countervail; in such case the Law obligeth not, but according to the lat­ter and more general intention only; even as in the O­perations of Nature, particular Agents do move ordinari­ly according to the proper and particular inclinations; yet upon some occasions, and to serve the ends and inten­tions of Universal Nature (for the avoiding of something which Nature abhorreth) they are sometimes carried with Motions quite contrary to their particular natures, as the Air do descend, and the Water to ascend, for the avoiding of vacuity. And p. 216. De Consc. A Subject is not ordinarily bound to a Law that is very grievous, to the [Page 38]certain ruin and destruction of himself and Family, unless some great necessity or publick danger do appear: And which comes home to the matter of the present Oath, he saith, That when the Imposer chuseth Words capable of a double sence, it is neither necessary nor expedient that the Promiser do doubt which sence the Imposer doth mean, but may in pru­dence, and without Violation to his Conscience, make his ad­vantage of the ambiguity, and take it in the laxer sense. And we may be resolved in our present case, as he de­clares in that of the ingagement, p. 106. There wants not greater probabilities of Reason, to induce us to believe that the laxer sence is to be accounted the immediate and declared sence of the Imposers; who tho' they might have a more secret reserved and ultimate intent, the Ingager is not concerned in it, the equivocation, if any, lieth on the Imposers score, not on the Subscribers, for which he gives many reasons, and the limitation which he gives to an Oath (among many others) doth deserve a remark, (viz.) Rebus sic stantibus, if things continue in the same state wherein they were; for when a Man swears to return a Sword that he borrowed, and he of whom it was borrowed grows furiously mad, he is not bound to restore it: I shall mention but one passage more out of his Praelect. 5. p. 176. where he puts the question, When any one takes the Government on him, having by Force dri­ven out the lawful Prince, or so streightned him that he can­not pursue his Right, which is invaded not on a doubtful Right, but by manifest wrong; what shall a good Subject that hath Sworn Allegiance to the oppressed Prince do in this case? Answ. It seems to me, that it is not only lawful for a good Subject to obey the Laws of the Prince in being, but to do what he is commanded, Medo non sit turpe factu aut injustam: But also if the condition of Humane Affairs require it, there may be a necessity of Obeying, or he [Page 39]may be judged to fail of his Duty. And whereas he had said, that Laws made by him, that wanted lawful Pow­er, do not bind the Conscience, he answers, That these things are not repugnant; because, tho' the Subject be bound to do what the Law requires; yet he is not bound to that Law, but to himself and his Country. The Obligation is annexed to the Law that concerns himself, and is truly a Law which he thus explains: Seeing it is the Duty of a pious and prudent Man to consider, not only what is lawful, but what becomes him, and is expedient to o­thers, a good Subject may be bound to do that for the welfare of himself and Fellow-Subjects, to which by Law he is not bound; which Obligation ariseth from the Du­ty he oweth to himself, and to his Country, that Wars, and Rapines may be prevented, and he may live peacea­bly under them, without violating the Faith we owe to the [...]ightful Heir. I shall mention many others, whose Judgment in particular Cases agrees with what hath been lately practised.

Bishop Hall, Decad. 2. says, If a Thief rob me of my Treasure, and flieth, my Conscience would not strike me, if I pursue him, and so strike him that he dies. The same holds good, in resisting such as want a lawful Commission, and due Qualifications, which are but as Thieves and Robbers, and for want of legal Qualifications may be dealt with as such.

Bishop Taylor in his Second Volume, p. 137. resolves, That where the Right of Succession is in a Family by Law, or Time immemorial, no Prince can prejudice his Heir, or the People committed to him, for it cannot without consent be alienated, because Persons cannot be disposed of as Slaves, or Beasts. So that in this (and some other Cases) the King looseth his Authority, and then the force of his Authori­ty ceaseth also: And as to the Law of Nature (for Self-preservation) [Page 40]cannot be dispensed with, saith that Bishop, by any Humane Power: 1. Because God is the Author of it. 2. Because this Law for the preservation of the Common Welfare, is as necessary to the support of So­cieties, as Nourishment is for support of their Bodies. 3. Because Natural Laws are the Dictates of Natural Rea­son; and no Man hath power to alter Reason, which is an Image of the Divine Wisdom, and therefore unaltera­ble. And concerning the Obligation of the King's Oath, this learned Bishop gives his Opinion, quite contrary to what our Historian contends for, l. 3. p. 144. of his Cases, he says, Kings are bound by Natural Justice and Equity, without Oaths, to do what they swear, for they are not Kings unless they Govern, and they cannot expect Obedience unless they tell the Measures by which they will be obeyed, which are the Laws, and these are the Will of the Prince; If Kings are not bound to Govern the People by Laws, why are they made? By what else can they be Governed, by the Will of the Prince, the Laws are so which are Published, that wise Men may walk by them; and that the Prince may not Govern as Fools and Lyons, by Chance or Violence, and unreasonable Passions, Ea quae placuerunt servanda, saith the Law, De Pactis. And p. 143. Whatsoever the Prince hath Sworn to, to all that he is obliged, not only as a single Person, but as a King; for though he be above the Laws, yet he is not above himself, nor above his Oath, because he is under God, and cannot dispense with his Oath and Promises in those Cases wherein he is bound. Although the King be above the Laws, that is, in Cases extraordinary, and Matters of Pe­nalty; yet is he so under all the Laws of the Kingdom, to which he hath Sworn, that although he cannot be punished by them, yet he sins if he break them. And p. 149. he says, The Prerogative of Kings is by Law, and Kings are so far a­bove the Laws, as the Laws themselves have given them [Page 41]leave. And p. 143. The great Laws of the Kingdom do oblige all Princes, tho' they be Supreme. The Laws of the Medes and Persians were above their Princes, as appears in Daniel. And such are the Golden Bull of the Empire; the Saler, and Pragmatical Sanctions in France; the Magna Charta, and Petition of Right in England, &c.

And whereas the Historian doth urge at large, the Doctrine of our Church, in the Articles, Homilies, Liturgy, and Canons, &c. it may be observed, that there is no distinction in any of those, of a King de Jure, and de Facto; but as by that Law of 11 Hen­ry 7. did require Allegiance to the King de Facto, so did the Subjects under Queen Mary, and Queen Eli­zabeth pay their Obedience to both successively, although one of those Queens was not Legitimate; and if we pay our Allegiance to our present Sove­raigns, we do not transgress either her Doctrine or Practice; unless it could be proved, that we had re­sisted the late King: And therefore our Historian reflects too severely on Dr. W—, who said, That Passive Obedience, in the narrow sence we take it in, was not so much as thought on, when these Homilies were Published; those Homilies being aimed against the Ʋsurpations of the Church of Rome, to which they ne­ver intended Obedience. And when, as our Histo­rian observes, That as well evil as good Kings do Reign by God's Ordinance, and that it is a perillous thing, to permit Subjects to judge which Prince is wise and godly, and his Government good, and which otherwise, it may be supposed, they intended our Obedience should be payed to the present King.

But because the Laws are the Measures as well of the Princes Power, as the Subjects Obedience, I shall therefore act the part of an Historian so far, as to give you an account of our Laws in both these Cases: And I shall begin it with our Magna Char­ta, which hath been confirmed by Parliaments in every Age, since it was first made; wherein the King grants, That neither He, nor his Heirs shall pro­cure, or do any thing, whereby the Liberties therein granted shall be infringed; and if any such thing be procured, it shall be of no force: And in the Origi­nal Grant, yet preserved, and in the hands of the Bishop of Salisbury, it is provided, That in case the King should violate any part of the Charter, and refuse to rectifie what was done amiss, it should be lawful for the Barons, and People of England to distress him by all the ways they could think on; such as the seizing his Castles, Lands, and Possessions, &c. Bracton hath been often quoted, who says, l. 1. c. 17. The King hath for his Superiors, God, and the Law, by which he is made King, as also his Court the Earls, and Barons, who when they see him exorbitant may restrain him: And l. 1. c. 2. The Laws of England being approved and confirm­ed by the King's Oath, cannot be altered: And c. 17. Let Kings therefore temper their Power by the Law, which is the Bridle of Power: And c. 8. The King in receiving Judgment, may be equalled with the meanest Subject. L. 2. c. 24. The Crown of the King is to do Justice and Judgment, and to preserve Peace, without which he cannot subsist: (i. e.) As in the Laws of King Edward, c. 17. The King is constituted for the Liber­ty of the People; which if he do not, Nee nomen Regis in eo constabit: And that by the word (Heir) all [Page 43]Successors are meant, though not expressed in words.

Fortescue, fol. 27. says, From that Power which flows from the People, it is not lawful for him to Lord it over them by any other Power; that is, a Political not a Regal Power. And fol. 32. The King is set up for the Safeguard of the Laws of his People. The Sword called Curtein was given to the Counts Pala­tine of Chester to this end: Ʋt Regem si aberret ha­beat potestatem coercendi, saith Matth. Paris, p. 563.

The Parliament in Richard the Second's Case, did refer to an Ancient Statute, whereby it was provided, That if the King through a foolish obstinacy and con­tempt of his People, or any other irregular way, should alienate himself from his People, and would not Govern by the Laws of his Kingdom, made by the Lords of his Kingdom, but should exercise his own Will, from thence­forth it was lawful for them, with the consent of the Peo­ple, to depose him from the Crown: This Law it seems was embezelled by that King, for in the Twenty Fourth Article against him, it was alledged, That he had caused the Records and Rolls concerning the State of the Government to be crazed and imbezelled, to the great detriment of the People. The Author of the Mirrour says, p. 8. (speaking of the Rise of the En­glish Monarchy) That when Forty Princes chose One King to Reign over them, to Govern the People of God, and to maintain the Christian Faith, and defend their Goods and Persons in quiet, by the Rules of Right, and to be obedient to the Rules of Right; if he did not so, he should lose the Name of a King.

Old Fleta speaking of the King's Oath, says, The King by Vertue of his Oath is especially obliged to the preservation of the Laws, and he is therefore Crowned, that he may Rule the People committed to him, per Ju­dicia, by the Laws. 15 Edw. 3. Stat. 1. We con­sidering how by the Bond of our Oath, we are bound to the observance and defence of the Laws and Customs of the Realm, &c. And 20 Edw. 3. Mo [...]e at large the King declares: We perceiving that the Law of the Land, which we by our Oath are bound to maintain, is less well kept, and the execution of the same disturbed, we greatly moved in Conscience in this matter, desiring as much for the pleasure of God, and ease of our Subjects, as to save our Conscience, and to keep our said Oath, &c. The like is in the Statute of Provisors. King James told his Parliament the same, March 21. 1609. That the King is bound by a double Oath to preserve the Laws tacitly, as being King, and so bound to protect his People and the Laws, and expresly by his Coronation-Oath: So as every just King is bound to observe that Paction made with his People by his Laws, framing the Government thereunto: And a King leaves to be a King. and degenerates into a Tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to Govern by Law; in which case the King's Conscience may speak to him, as the poor Woman to Philip of Macedon, Either Govern according to Law, or cease to be King. And else-where, he says, If he should not keep the Laws to which he was Sworn, he should be perjured. But I proceed to the Statute of 11 H. 7. That from thence-forth, no Person attending on the King for the time being, and doing him true and faithful Service of Allegiance in his Wars, should in any-wise be Convict or Attaint of High Treason, nor of [Page 45]other Offence for that cause, but to be for that Service utterly discharged of any vexation, trouble, or loss. The Lord Bacon, p. 144. Hist. of Hen. 7. gives a Reason of this Law, as agreeable with Reason of State, that the Subject should not enquire of the justness of the King's Title or Quarrel; And it was agreeable to good Conscience, that whatever the Fortune of the King were, the Subject should not suffer for his Obedience. The Spirit of this Law, saith he, was wonderful Pious and Noble, being like in matter of War to the Spirit of David, in matter of the Plague, who said, If I have finned, strike me, but what have these Sheep done? Neither wanted this Law parts of Prudence and deep fore-sight, for it did the better take away from the People occasion to busie themselves, to pry into the King's Title, for that however it fell out, their Safety was provided for; besides, it could not but greatly draw to him the love and hearts of the People, because he seemed more careful for them, than for himself.

To this purpose the Lord Cook, p. 7. of his third Book of Institutes, speaking of Treason, says, That the Act for Treason is to be understood of a King in Possession of the Crown and Kingdom; for if there be a King Regnant in Possession, although he be de Facto only, and not de Jure, yet is he within the purview of this Statute, and the other, which hath Right, and is out of Possession, is not within this Statute. And if Treason be committed against a King de Facto, and not de Jure, and afterwards the King de Jure cometh to the Crown, he shall punish the Treason against the King de Facto; and a Pardon granted by the King de Jure, that is not also King [Page 46] de Facto, is void. It is the Opinion of Lawyers, That Melior est conditio possidentis: And Judge Hales gives the same sense of that Statute, in his Remarks on the Pleas of the Crown, Chap. of Treason. The Lord Cook says, 'Tis against all Reason that the King's Politick Capacity may not be separated from his Perso­nal, seeing his private Will is distinct from his publick Will, exprest in the Law.

Littleton, in his Tenures, Title of Homage, Sect. 85. says, Allegiance is due to every one (in Possessi­on) that becomes King, and to no other. And Judge Popham, in his Reports, fol. 16, 17. mentioneth a Case to our purpose; Richard the Third granted cer­tain Priviledges to the City of Gloucester, with a Salvo to him and his Heirs. And in Queen Eliza­beth's days, it was questioned, whether the Salvo did pass to her, she not being Heir to King Richard, and all the Judges did Resolve, that the Salvo did pass to her.

Sir Edward Cook, in his Institutes on Magna Char­ta, alloweth, That the King hath no Power over the Militia to Muster his Subjects, but only in such cases and manner as the Parliament by special Acts hath pre­scribed. And p. 147. That the Right of Electing Sheriffs was anciently in the People, as in London, York, Bristol, &c. So the Heretochs, or Lord-Lieutenants, in every County, were chosen by a Folkmote in their Counties, Lambard. Arch. p. 135.

And Spelman, on the word Legiantia, says, it is Archius vinculum inter principem & subdites.

It would be tedious to relate all that Grotius hath said, though very pertinently, and rationally. I shall name a few of such Observations as come home to our Case; l. 1. c. 4. §. 7. n. 3. It is to be obser­ved, that Men did not at first unite in Civil Commu­nities by any Command from God, but voluntarily, and from the experience they had that private Families were unable to resist Foreign Force; from hence grew Civil Power, which St. Peter calls, a Humane Or­dinance, though elsewhere it be called a Divine, be­cause God approved it, as convenient for the good of Mankind; but when God approves of a Hu­mane Law, he must be supposed to do it after a Hu­mane manner.

L. 2. c. 14. §. 4. That Promises fully made and ac­cepted, do naturally transfer a Right, and this holds as well in Kings as in private Persons. L. 2. c. 13. n. 16. If a Promise, confirmed by Oath, be grounded on a Condition, whereto it related, that Condition not being performed, makes the Promise void; or if the Quality of the Person cease, the Oath sworn to that Person, in relation to his Quality, doth cease also. L. 2. c. 13. n. 18. Every Contract, though sworn, is to be understood with this reserved Condition, That matters continue in the same state. A wise Man, saith Seneca, changeth not his Resolution, all things con­tinuing as they were when he made it; nor can he be said to repent, because at that time no better Counsel could be followed than that he resolved on, l. 2. c. 16. n. 27. cadem mihi omnia praesta & idem sum.

Such Persons as are under Compact with the Peo­ple, if they offend against the Laws, may be re­strained [Page 48]by Force: And if a King desert and abjure his Kingdom, all things are Lawful against him, as against a private Person; and he quotes Barclay, That if a King alienates his Kingdom, or subjects it to ano­ther, he loseth it; and I doubt not but in such a case he may be resisted. The Empire is one thing, and the manner of administring it is another thing; which the People may hinder from being changed, for that is not in the Empire; and from Sen. l. 3. contr. Although I must Obey my Father in all things, yet not in that wherein he ceaseth to be a Father; Consistere enim non potest voluntas imperandi & perdendi. And 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. L. 2. c. 7. n. 27. in a Question concern­ing the Right of Succession, it is not amiss to take the Advice of the People, as Camden says of England, Anno 1571.

Grotius de Jure belli, p. 93. c. 4. §. 20. In a Con­troversie (concerning the Title to a Kingdom) a private Man must not undertake to become a Judge, but follow the Possession; for thus Christ comman­ded Tribute to be paid to Caesar, Matth. 22.20. be­cause he was in Possession, and the Money bare his Image.

L. 2. c. 25. n. 4. He approves of a War on be­half of Confederates, because he that doth not re­pel an Injury from his Confederates, if he can, is as much in fault as he that doth the Injury; and he commends Constantine for making War on Maxen­tius and Licinius, who persecuted such of their own Subjects as were Christians, only for their Religion; [Page 49]and l. 2. c. 20. n. 39. Injuries begun only, are not to be vindicated by Arms, unless the matter be both very weighty, and proceeded so far, that from what is al­ready done, either a certain Mischief, though not yet what was intended, hath already befallen, or some ex­traordinary danger do threaten thereby; if an Enemy hath once assaulted me, and comes armed with a resolu­tion to kill me, I am not bound to tarry till he comes within reach of me, but seasonably to prevent him: And l. 2. c. 25. n. 8. Those Princes who are free, may make War for themselves or others; and though we should grant that Subjects may not take Arms for their own Defence against their Prince (which yet is doubted even by those whose purpose it was to defend Regal Power) yet it follows not that Princes may not take Arms in their Defence; that which is unlawful for one to do, by reason of a personal Impediment, may be lawful for another to do for him. As in Affairs of the Church, Bishops are said to take on them the Care of the Universal Church; so besides the care of their particular Dominions, Kings assume the ge­geral Care of Humane Societies. So Seneca, Bello à me peti potest qui à mea gente sepositas suam ex­agitat. This which I have named from this Re­nowned Casuist may suffice to silence all the Ob­jections of such as are of the Historians perswasion, and to quiet the Consciences of such as have taken the late Oath to the present King and Queen.

I proceed now to our late Lawyers and Casu­ists, and Selden deserves the first place, who, de Jure Nat. l. 1. c. 8. p. 106. says, That by permis­sion of Nature it hath been granted, that whatsoever [Page 50]hath been by Men joyned in Society, limited; for­bidden, or constituted, that they are bound to keep, who have so consented according to the Conditions and Qualifications wherewith it is prescribed, even as in any as have, and as they have given their consent; but whence is it they are so bound? From the Autho­rity of a Deity (i. e.) of Man's Superiour, even from those things the rise of the Authority is derived, and therefore from some Heads of the Law of Na­ture. Lod. Vives, on St. Augustine, de Civ. Dei, l. 4. c. 5, 6. takes Notice of the first words of Justine (viz.) That in the Beginning the Rule of Nations was in the hands of Kings, whom not Popular Ambi­tion, but their Moderate Carriage, approved by the good, advanced to that height of Honour.— That the People elected such Kings to be their Guides, and Over-seers of Publick Interest, and that they were not compelled to take such a one to them as happened any way; neither did Nobility, or the seeking of a Party carry it, but every Man's own private good, with the good of the Publick, was so near to him, that it made him to make choice of none but the best. And Juvenal observes, Satyr 10. That it was the People, Qui dabat olim, Imperium faces legiones Om­nia.

I shall crave Pardon, if I here insert a little of what our Judicious Hooker hath said in our Case, to countervail what the Historian hath quoted, as his Judgment. Now thus saith he, l. 1. c. 10. Though wise and good Men are fit to make Laws, yet Laws take not their constraining Power from those that make them, but from the Power which gives them the [Page 51]strength of Laws. And by Natural Law the Lawful Power of making Laws, whereunto all Societies are subject, belongs so properly to those entire Societies, that for any Prince or Potentate whatsoever to exer­cise the same of himself, and not either by express Commission from God, or Authority derived from their consent upon whose Persons they impose Laws, is no better than Tyranny. Laws they are not, which Publick Approbation hath not made: What is the Chaff to the Wheat? That Quotation from an im­perfect, broken, exploded Fragment, to this sub­stantial Argument?

I shall not swell this Tract by those Excel­lent Discourses of Puffendorff, translated by the Au­thor of the Answer to Popular Objections. I shall mention but two Sentences of his; first, from his Tract de Interregno, p. 272. If a King abdicates the Peace of his Kingdom, and be of an Hostile mind, or departs from the Rules of Government, the ground of the Subjects Obedience is made void. As in the Digests, l. 49. Tit. 15. Qui fugit ad eos cum quibus nulla est amintia à fide suscepta transfugit. The se­cond is, de Jure Naturae, p. 1008. Such as desert the Government, or abdicate the Kingdom, against them is Lawful whatever is Lawful against a private per­son. Also if a King that is constituted by his People, would alienate his Kingdom, or alter the form of Go­vernment, if he continue to effect it by force, the peo­ple may resist him by force.

Carpzorius, an approved Author, De Capit. Caes. c. 1. p. 15. says, There is no King in the Christian [Page 52]World, whose Power some Compact made with the se­veral Orders of the People, may not restrain and li­mit, and which are not bound by the Capitulation. Reinbech says the same of the Empire, That Caesar is bound by the Laws. And Bodine, concerning France, Principem contra leges nihil posse & rescrip­tis ejus nullam rationem haberi debere nisi aequitate perinde ac veritati consentanum sint.

The Historian may be satisfied from these Men, that much more than hath been practised by our Nation, hath its Approbation in such a Case as we were reduced to.

But to return home, that saying of King James is very memorable, That the King is for the Common­wealth, and not the Common wealth for the King.

Albericus Gentilis, Professor of Civil Law, saith, That he that would keep himself out of danger, must meet and prevent it; which is a point of greater Wis­dom and Courage, than to expect it, and revenge it. —If our Adversary have declared his Will, and is preparing a Power to hurt us, we may not tarry to receive the first blow, but anticipate the Evil as Gla­diators do. Yea, it hath been always the Practice to put a stop to the Ambition of great Monarchs, who have unjustly invaded one Man's Dominions, lest he should attempt others; hence the Princes of Christendom have been careful to preserve an equal Pallance between growing Empires. Thus Baldus says, It is a fault to omit the defence of another, but of our selves a treachery. And Siracide, Eccles. 4. Free [Page 53]him to whom Injury is done, out of the hand of the inju­rious. And Constantine says, We ought to account of the Injuries done to others, as our own. Thus Justine answered the Persians, That he ought to defend the Christians, whom they would compel to forsake their Religion. And Queen Elizabeth defended the Hol­landers against the Spaniards, who if they had bro­ken down that Pale of Religion (as Lipsius calls it) would have extended their Tyranny farther.

King Charles the First, in answer to the Nineteen Propositions says, The Lords being trusted with Judi­catory Power, are an excellent skreen between the Prince and the People, by just Judgment to preserve the Law: Therefore the Power legally placed in Both Houses, is more than sufficient, to prevent and restrain the power of Tyranny. Dr. Ferne pleading his Cause, grants, That personal Defence, against the sudden As­saults of the King's Messengers, if illegal, tho' the King be present, is lawful, even to warding off the King's blows, and to restrain him, and to preserve the innocent.

Peter Martyr on Rom. 13. We may not anxiously dispute by what Right or Wrong Princes have obtained their Power, but rather make it our business to obey the present Magistrates.

Judge Vaughan: In Cases that depend on Funda­mental Principles, Millions of Presidents to the contrary are to no purpose.

Judge Jenkins says, We hold only what the Law holds, the King's Prerogative, and the Peoples Liber­ties are both determined by Law. And so King Charles the First's Declaration at York says, That his Preroga­tives are built on the Laws of the Land: And when the Parliament would have him grant an extraordi­nary Power to some Lords-Lieutenants, he tells them, If they would have him grant more Power than by the Law of the Land was in him, it was fit that the same should by some Law be first vested in him, with full Power to transfer the same. The same Judge Jenkins speaking of the Oath of Supremacy, says, We do not swear that the King is above all Laws, nor above the safety of the People, but his Majesty, and we will swear to the contrary. The Law and the Safety of the People, are the King's Honour and Safety, and Strength: And when Hobbs extended the Pow­er of the Prince above the Law; the Earl of Claren­don answers, That in dangerous Circumstances Men are not to resort so much to the Words of Submission, as to the Intention of the Law Givers, which could not be that the Prince should have Power to take away the Lives of his innocent Subjects; nor could such a Sub­mission be ever supposed to be the mind of the Contractors. This may serve in answer to the Declaration, That it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever, &c. which was past the House, not without great opposition, by a mercinary Party of Pensioners, and was destru­ctive of many ancient Laws, and an alteration of the Government; making it absolute, and in itself null: For as Sherringham, who learnedly defended Charles the First, says, Those Laws which are made for [Page 55]the benefit of the Prince and People, are Fundamental, and Foundations cannot be altered, without the Ruine of the whole Building. If therefore that Declarati­on, or any other Act is contrary to the Fundamen­tal Laws, it is invalid.

And now we come to that Declaration of the Lords and Commons, who as it became the Masters of the Assembly, have fixed our Government, as a Nail in a sure place: They found us as Sheep with­out a Shepherd, and in the midst of many grievous Wolves, ready to devour both them and us; they considered that the late King had exercised a Power of suspending Laws; committed the Bishops for Pe­titioning to be excused from concurring to that Pow­er; That he erected a Court for Ecclesiastical Causes, by Commissioners; Levied Money without Consent of Parliament; kept up a Standing Army; disarm­ed Protestants, and armed Papists, and Quartered them contrary to Law; violated the Elections of Parliament; broke the Seal, or cast it away, and deserted the Government and Kingdom; and did thereupon declare, that he had abdicated the King­dom, and left the Throne vacant; they being as­sembled in Parliamentary manner, did for the Re­dress of those Grievances (other means being deny­ed them) as their Ancestors had done in like Cases) declare the Prince and Princes of Orange, to be King and Queen of England, &c. And appointed the present Oath to be taken, instead of the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance; which Methods have been taken in the like Cases by all Nations, as well as our own.

And I know not what Authority or Reason should determine our Judgments, if these cannot; for let us suppose, that the late King at his departure (whetherit were forced or voluntary) had left behind him in Writing, under his own hand, a Declaration to the following effect, which consisting of undenia­ble Matter of Fact, is no less Authentick:

—We do declare to all the World, That the the Church of England as by Law Established, hath on all occasions signally manifested all due Loyalty to Our Royal Father, and Brother, as well as to Our self, particularly in opposing the Bill for Excluding Us from the Throne, and assisting Us in suppressing the Rebellion of Monmouth, for which Reasons we thought fit and just at Our coming to the Crown, solemnly to declare Our Royal Intention to support and defend it in all its Rights, and confirmed our Declaration by our Coronation-Oath; but having wholly devoted Our Self to the Romish Religion, and Papal Authority, We were absolutely resigned to the Conduct of such, as by that Authority were appointed to Counsel and Direct Us, who having convinced Us of a Power to 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 [Page 57]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 [Page 58]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 [Page 59]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 doubt but it was the intention of the Legislators to exclude them out of those Laws, which were made with respect to a more particular occasion, as the [...] face to those Laws plainly sheweth.

It is notoriously known, how hardly the Church was beset by two busie and powerful Factions when those Laws were enacted, who, though they agree in Principles tending to Rebellion; yet, that they might undermine the Church, they found Patrons, and an Interest in Court and Council, in the Reign of Charles and James the Second; and how opposite soever the Factions were to each other, they were [Page 62]still ready to unite against the Church, as their Common Enemy; in which case it was requisite, that the Members of the Church should use all ho­nest means to retain their Superiours in a good Opinion of their undoubted Principles of Loyalty, and to press the same Duty on such as were suspe­cted to be of a contrary Mind; against whom the Parliament especially intended those Tests and De­clarations; for who can suppose them such Mad­men, as to make a Law upon a particular emer­gent Occasion, as should cassate and destroy all other Laws for the preservation of their Religion, Lives, and Liberties, and to establish Tyranny, Po­pery, and Idolatry, by Law, if the King will have it so; for which end he may by the killing letter of that Law, when ever he pleaseth, bring in what Foreign Forces he pleaseth to eat us up, and no Re­sistance must be made; if this Law be strictly un­derstood, without any Reserve, or Consideration of the Occasion of making the Law, and the intention of the Law-givers, which undoubtedly was their own and the preservation of the Nation.

And wise Men think, that if there should be such a pack of Law-makers, as to serve a turn of their own, should have no regard to the over-turning and perverting, as well of the Duties we owe to God, our Neighbours, and our selves, as the An­cient Fundamental Laws of the Land, that they are utterly void, and we should sin more in swear­ing to keep such Laws, than in not observing them.

The Historian reflects so severely on some Di­vines, as if he came with a Commission from James the Second, to execute on them the consequences of the Doctrines of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience; they are Arraigned and Condemned as Apostates, Traytors, and perjured Persons; and when time serves, they shall not want an Execu­tioner. In the mean time, he directs a fatal blow at one single and obscure Person, but through him wounds all the rest, who, though they be many Heads, yet all standing on the same Neck, and our Historian thinks he hath got the Advantage which Nero wished for; however, he thinks he deals friend­ly with him, if, as Butchers are wont to use their Swine, who scrape them a little before they cut their Throats. Mr. Long (says he) is so well known for his Zeal in this good Cause (viz. of Non-Resi­stance, and Passive-Obedience) to all that have seen his Answer to Mr. Johnson and Hunt, His no Pro­testant but Dissenters Plot, and other such Treatises, that it is wondred that of late he should own himself the Author of the Solution of the Popular Objections, &c.

Answ. They who have known Mr. Long ever since the War began against Charles the First, know that he hath inviolably practised those Doctrines him­self, to which in those Writings he perswaded others, and shrunk not from them after the Prince of Orange came to Exeter, as the present Bishop of Salisbury, and several Members of the Church of Exon can attest; and continued to Pray for the late King, un­til [Page 64]he received Order for the contrary, though he were publickly disturbed for so doing; but when he considered that the late King had deserted the Government, and left us in Confusion, that the States of the Kingdom had admitted their present Majesties to the Throne, even then, though our Governours were changed, he changed not his Opi­nion of the Doctrine of Non-Resistance, and Passive-Obedience, but thought that it ought to be trans­ferred from the Person of the late King, to the pre­sent King and Queen; so that it is no wonder that he owns himself the Author of the Solution of Po­pular Objections, wherein if any thing be urged by him that seems to comply with the Opinion of Mr. Johnson, &c. it was an Argument ad hominem, and in such a case as happened after Mr. Johnson had writ­ten, and was scarce thought possible to happen, and we hope never will more.

And though he needed not that Apology of St. Austine's making retractations, and to confess, Er­rare possum Hereticus esse nolo, yet he thinks it much better to do so, than with Bellarmine, to make such Recognitions, as should declare his Obstinacy in a dangerous Error, as the Historian doth.

And as to the particular Quotations from a Sermon of that Authors, the Reader may observe, that they were aimed at the Popish and Fanatical Doctrines of Resisting and Deposing Lawful Prin­ces, for the good of the Kirk, and Mother-Church, and do not touch a hair of them that did neither Resist nor Depose, nor are any way guilty, unless [Page 65]their not sighting with Popish and Irish unqualified Miscreants for the utter Destruction of our Church and Religion, and the establishing of Popery and Slavery, be a Crime of that Magnitude, as to be accounted Perjury and Treason, which seeing the late King's Souldiers very honourably and worthily refused, it could not be expected from those who were to sight under another Banner.

What remains then, but that we study to be quiet, and to do our own business, not provoking, not envying, or slandring one another, but leaving the Government of the Nation to God and our Su­periours, make it our business to govern our selves according to the Laws of God and the Land, and to follow the things that make for Peace, and where­by we may edisie one another; and not publish Hi­stories, with a design to foment Divisions, to alie­nate the Affections of the People from their present Governours, and to run us again into Confusion.

And although the Author of the History do con­ceive that either we have been too sinful, in not as­sisting the late King (though it were out of our Power) or not Passive enough in our Obedience to him, yet I shall still think it my Duty to Pray, that neither he nor we may sin in resisting Lawful Authority, nor suffer under an Unlawful and Ar­bitrary Power, Lead us not into temptation.

And I hope that all good Protestants will joyn with me, not only in this Prayer, but in that Thanks­giving of the Royal Prophet, Psal. 66.8, 9, &c. [Page 66] O bless our God, ye People, and make the voice of his praise to be heard, which holdeth our Soul in life, and suffereth not our feet to be moved, for thou, O God hast proved us, thou hast tryed us as Silver is tryed. Thou broughtest us into the Net, thou layedst Affliction on our Loyns, thou causedst Men to ride over our heads, we went through fire and water, and thou broughtest us out into a wealthy place. I will go into thy House with burnt-offerings, I will pay thee my Vows.