And here ‘tis worthy of remark, that the first difference between the King and English Parliament did not respect Religion but civil property nor were the majority of the House Puritans, but true Church Protestants and English men. (There were but four Dissenters in all that Parliament).... (p. 408).
But the Parliament finding the Puritan party stuck close to their cause, they also came over [to] them when things came to a rupture ... the Whigs in 41 to 48, took up arms against their King, and having conquered him and taken him prisoner, cut off his head, because they had him: the Church of England took up arms against their King in 88, and did not cut off his head, because they had him not. King Charles lost his life because he did not run away; and his son, King James, saved his life because he did run away.... Nay if arguments may be allowed to have equal weight on both sides, the Whigs have been the honester of the two, for they never protested any such blind, absolute and undisputed obedience to Princes, as the others have done.
It has always been their opinion, that Government was originally contrived by the consent and for the mutual benefit of the parties governed, that the people have an original, native right to their property, the liberty of their persons and possessions, unless forfeited to the Laws; that they cannot be divested of their right but by their own consent; and that all invasion of this right is destructive of the Constitution, and dissolves the Compact of Government and Obedience (p. 411).
They have always declared that they understand their allegiance to their governors to be, supposing they govern them according to the Laws of the Land; and that if Princes break this Bond of Government, the Nature of it is inverted, and the Constitution ceases of course....
This has been the avowed doctrine of the Dissenters, and indeed is the true sense of the Constitution itself; pursuant to this doctrine, they thought they had a right to oppose violence with force; believing that when Kings break Coronation Oaths, the Solemn Compact with their people, and encroach upon their civil rights, contrary to the Laws of the Land, by which they are sworn to rule, they cease to be the Lord’s Anointed any longer; the sanction of their office is vanished, and they become Tyrants and enemies of mankind, and may be treated accordingly (p. 412).
SECTIONS OF DISSENTERS, 1705
(Ibid., The Shortest Way to Peace and Union, p. 456.)
The General body of the Dissenters are composed of four sorts, and those four so opposite in their tempers, customs, doctrine and discipline that I am of opinion ‘tis as probable all four should conform to the Church of England as to one another.
There is the Presbyterian, Independent, Anabaptist and Quaker.... The Independent could never bear Presbyterian Government, that has been tried already; for they once pulled it down by the ears as intolerable. The Anabaptists in general, declare the Presbyterian would set up persecution from the old principle, that Presbyteries are “Jure divino” and therefore to them, a Presbyterian Government would be all one with Popery. The Presbyterian would never brook an Independent or Anabaptist Government, because they count the one Sectary, and hardly admit the other to be Orthodox Christians. None of the three would bear the thought of a Quaker King, the Novelty would make mankind laugh at the proposal; the splendour and magnificence of a Court, and the necessary defence and offence which the Confederacies and interests of nations require, are things so inconsistent with this plain dealing Professor, that he must cease to be a Quaker when he began to be a King.