The Dissenters have the first occasion after this to show their submission under extraordinary pressures. Queen Elizabeth discountenanced them continually, and as good a queen as she was, put some of them to death. King James I hunted them quite out of the kingdom, made thousands of them fly into Holland and Germany, and at last to New England.... Under the reign of King Charles I, the case altered, the King and Parliament fell out about matters of civil rights and invasion of the liberties and properties of the people; the Puritans or Dissenters, call them what we please, fell in unanimously with the Parliament. 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....