rt it when the king
forsakes it? Can they be accounted real friends of the cause who are
known to favour it only, _ad nutum principis_,(338)--as the comedian, _ait,
aio, negat, nego_?(339) Is it not all one to follow the cause for the
king, and for a man's own interest and advantage? Both are alike extrinsic
and adventitious to the cause, both are alike changeable. Eccebulus under
Constantius was a precise Christian, under Julian a persecuting apostate;
and then again under the next Christian emperor became a Christian. And it
is like if he had outlived that emperor till a heathen succeeded, he
should have paganized the second time. 2. That very principle that is
pretended to unite them to the cause is in itself most dangerous, both to
the privileges of parliament and liberties of the people, and to our
religion beside. Their principle of opposition was, "They conceived the
way followed could not be warrantable without the king's consent and
warrant, that people might not vindicate their own just rights and
liberties, and their religion, without the king's concurrence, or against
him." Now then, the principle of their conjunction to the cause must be
this, because it is now clothed with authority which it had not before,
and which now makes it warrantable. This principle therefore includes in
the bosom of it, the establishing of unlimited and absolute power in
kings; the unlawfulness of defensive wars against tyranny and oppression;
the king's negative voice, and the dependent power of parliaments upon his
pleasure; all which are principles destructive of the cause and our
liberties, and the very characters(340) of our enemies from the beginning.
Thus they have changed their way, but not their principles, and are now
the more dangerous that they may not be looked upon as enemies, but as
friends. Seeing it is manifest, that it is not the love of the cause that
constrains them, and they know it was not that principle that persuaded
the king, but mere necessity, contrary to his own inclination, may we not
certainly expect, that according to their principles they will labour to
set at freedom the king, whom they conceive imprisoned and captivated by
the power of necessity within the limits and bounds of a regulated
monarchy, and to loose him from all these chains of involuntary treaties
and agreements, and rigid laws and parliaments, that he may then act in
freedom and honour according to his own inclination and theirs both?