The co-ordination principle, and the community-centered ideology generally, gave rise at the Revolution to a distinctive theory of resistance to James II, which legitimated the use of force against him. The details varied from one co-ordination tract to another, but the same line of argument was developed. It was usual to explain the source of government in terms of the parliamentarian formula; that is, government in general was from God but the species from the community. Free to frame its own constitution, the community had erected a mixed and limited monarchy with characteristics often traceable to Charles I's Answer to the Nineteen Propositions. Whoever was invested with the royal dignity had been chosen by the community, and the coronation oath was frequently cited as a visible badge of the contract between the king and his subjects. As Peter Allix, the learned Huguenot scholar wrote: ‘This consent of the people, or of the most considerable amongst the people, has constituted the forms of all lawful governments, and has legitimated those empires that were at first obtained by conquest or violence. And we may in particular add, that after this manner things have been carried in England …’ The king was obliged to protect his subjects and respect and preserve their privileges and liberties.

The surety for their privileges and liberties was the ‘shared’ legislative power, which all writers of this genre found characteristic of the English government.