how it provides for the Security of Princes and Obedience to their Governments Can. 31. If any Man therefore shall affirm either That the Jews generally both Priests and People were not the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was setled amongst them as they had been before the Subjects of Babylon and Persia or that they were not all bound to pray for the long Life and Prosperity both of Alexander and his Empire as they had been bound before to pray for the Life and Prosperity of the other said Kings and their Kingdoms whilst they liv'd under their Subjection or consequently that they might lawfully upon any occasion whatsoever have offered Violence and Destruction either to their Persons or to their Kingdoms for the long continuance and Prosperity whereof they were bound to pray or that after the Jews were deliverred from their Servitude under the Kings of Syria and the Government over them was setled in Mattathias's Posterity it was lawful for the People upon any occasion to have Rebelled against them or to have offered Violence to their Persons He doth greatly err The Justice or Injustice of the War on either side between Darius and Alexander are made no part of the question but here are two Princes both suppos'd Absolute with all Adam's Power over their respective People staking their Kingdoms upon the chance of Battle one of them is conquered and runs away yet according to our Canonists the Conqueror is not entituled to the Fatherly or Patriarchal Power over the other's People but it is suspended at least during the Life of the King that was beaten and the Authority not setled all that while and if the Monarchy was Hereditary it may be yet more difficult when to fix the Settlement If it is admitted to be Setled in the life-time of the ejected and conquer'd Prince and that it is a duty to pray for the Life and Prosperity of the Conqueror and upon no occasion to offer any Violence to his Person or Kingdom yet according to these Canonists they were bound at least during the Life of the Conquered Prince to give no active Assistance to the other in Person or Contribution And thus it might be allowable to mock God Almighty while they pray for that to which they will not contribute the means in their Power or else their Prayers were to have such a mental Reservation as some have who pray for King James while they pray for The King But if they were to pray for Alexander's Prosperity without reserve one would think it was lawful at least to Fight for him against Darius notwithstanding the Oath of Allegiance taken to Darius by reason of the Authority which he had lost If any one shall say That this Convocation-Book was innocently published at this time let him read the following Canon If any Man therefore shall affirm Can. 28. either that the Subjects when they shake off the Yoke of their Obedience to their Sovereigns and set up a Form of Government among themselves after their own Humours do not therein very wickedly or that it is lawful for any Bordering Kings through Ambition and Malice to Invade their Neighbours Or that the Providence and Goodness of God in using of Rebellions and Oppressions to execute his Iustice against any King or Country doth mitigate or qualify the Offences of any such Rebels or Oppressing Kings or that when any such new Forms of Government begun by Rebellion are after thoroughly Setled the Authority in them is not of God or that any who live within the Territories of such new Governments are not bound to be Subject to God's Authority which is there executed but may Rebel against the same Or that the Jews either in Egypt or Babylon might lawfully for any Cause have taken Arms against any of those Kings or have offered any Violence to their Persons He doth greatly Err. If this be taken according to any rational or so much as probable Account of Government in General particularly applied to the English Constitution I see no danger in admitting that People ought not to throw off the Yoke of Obedience and set up a Form of Government after their own Humours and that it is not justifiable in any Bordering King or Prince through Ambition and Malice to Invade his Neighbours And yet this would not in the least condemn either the People of England in shaking off a former illegal and arbitary Yoak while yet they retain the ancient Form and Fundamental Rights of the Government or our Present Sovereign in his Heroical Undertaking our Deliverance But if all Princes are as Absolute as their Notion makes them the Nation had no Ground of complaint and His Present Majesty's Expedition would fall under the Imputation of Ambitition or Malice 't is certain that no just cause could be assign'd for it upon their Principles and yet these would as well condemn our Dissenting Bishops of Disobedience to the Late King in not complying with the Commands of a Prince whom this Book would make Absolute And of this the Archbishop would have done well to have bethought himself when he gave his License for the Church-Militant to put on this old rusty Armor which hung up without use for above eighty years Vid. Advertisement called Anno 1603. continued to 1610. had been full three if not not six Years in hammering out and was brought forth in this Critical Time to do Wonders for their suppos'd King of Divine Right of their making at least if not of God's Whilest the Clergy in that and following times Wrote and Preached for Preferments and Condemn'd all Notions which lay in their way to it it is to be feared that they incurr'd the Curse pronounced from more Divine Authority against him that removes his Neighbours Land-mark And he that would Model the English Government by those of the East of old set up and maintain'd by Confusion would do well to transplant his Family into Turky where he may find one of the truest Patterns of the fancied Patriarchal Government But if that or the Anticyrae to which an old Romam would have advised them be too far for them to Travel in their Canonical Habit they may take a step into France where its Monarch assumes and exercises a Power according to their Primitive Stamp Yet the latter part of the foregoing Canon tells you That you are bound to be subject to God's Authority even in those new Governments which are set up after the Humours of the People So that fully to maintain their Passive Character even in the Case of Usurpation and Introducing a new Form contrary to the Fundamental Constitution they are bound to sit still and never to Assist to Restore their Rightful Prince or ancient Form of Government but should trust Providence or rather tempt it to forsake them to their utter destruction But they who would be led by the Authority of these Canons to condemn our present Settlement I hope will learn even from thence to submit to it and attempt nothing against it and then I doubt not but there are brave English Men enough to defend it from all Foreign Force FINIS
Authority was received from God who has not only in his Providence permitted but by a signal Interposition asserted that Original Constitution of our Government from whence our Laws and Allegiance are under God derived nor will it excuse his malicious as well as false Insinuation of no Title in our King not one Precedent to warrant it his being only King de facto and that those Inducements which mov'd the Compassion of our great Deliverer were Lies and Forgeries without which says he Pag. 21 they could never have driven their Master away Wherein tho he is more daring yet he is more cunning than the Gentleman who with Lay-simplicity yeilds the whole truth of the late King 's subverting the Constitution while the more subtile Clergy-man denies all and puts us to prove it after it has been found by the Grand Inquest of the Nation and confirm'd by the most Authoritative Judgment which is of less weight with him than the hastiest Church-Censure I would gladly know of him whether notwithstanding that Precept Touch not mine Anointed do my Prophets no harm he has not deliver'd or been ready to deliver many of God's chosen or anointed People over to Satan and the Secular Power without enquiring into the ground of the Sentence And whether the Unction of the Spirit is not as sacred as that which is us'd to Kings and the right to the Sacraments and Christian Assemblies from which he vvould not scruple to debar many in virtue of an Ecclesiastical Censure as Divine as a Right to a Crown But as he affirms that the late King was driven away by Lies and Forgeries he insinuates that this King's Government was founded upon them and stands in need of them for its support Pag. 21. than vvhich he may vvell say there cannot be a greater Evidence of a bad Cause yet nothing but assurance in some hidden support could make him thus insolent Pag. 5. and confident that his Tongue or Pen has not been too familiar with his Thoughts and it is very pleasant that he should still pretend to vvant Impunity for venting his lurking Scruples as if his bold Dogmatical Assertions directly against our present Government and in defiance of it were more safe than the proving matter of Fact contrary to what others alledg the falsifying their Quotations or shewing the weakness of their Inferences wherein he might with safety to himself expose his Adversary as he thinks he does Mr. Johnson for betraying that Cause which he pretends to serve But perhaps he believes that if he should be thus cautious he should lose his Reputation vvith his own Party and give the Government encouragement to punish him vvhich he may fancy that it dares not do vvhile he talks big and seems assur'd of being strongly back'd But it may not be amiss to take a nigher view of the Folly as well as Insolence of his Boast what feats he could do if the Law vvould stand Neuter for a while The Observator's ridiculous Challenge He promises in his own and believes he may in the Name of all his Brethren that are yet unsatisfy'd that their refusal to comply shall lie no longer hid in lurking Scruples and Reasons best known to themselves than till their Superiors shall be pleas'd with Indemnity to allow them to bring them forth Having as he thinks made this fair Challenge he concludes that it is Uncivility Rudeness and an ungentile Insolence to provoke them whose Hands are tied It seems they would be at liberty to condemn this Government as illegal and founded upon Injustice But if a Reason for this be demanded O Sir our Hands are tied provoke us not by asking vvhat is not in our Power we can rail and call you Rebels insinuate that your King has no Title your Laws no Authority but you are very uncivil not to allovv them vvho can give no Reason to rail on without it However this Man undertakes if he might have Indemnity in speaking out at the forfeiture of his Head vvhere he says Mr. Johnson's is due before Judges appointed by the Government to answer those Questions which he owns no Man dare be so bold as to answer and to back those Answers with such Reasons which shall ensure him the Priviledg of being for Mr. Johnson unanswerable Before the Judges have been appointed he concludes that Mr. Johnson's Head is due for writing against the late King's Title and vvith at least as much Equity we may say that his Head is due for writing against the Title of this But since he is willing to lose his Head if he cannot satisfy such Judges it is a pretty sort of Indemnity which he desires not to lose his Head for any thing which he may offer before the Judges when he consents to lose it if what he offers is not back'd with satisfactory Reasons Has he more to press or could he do it more cogently than Men of his Mind did in Parliament where there was full liberty of Speech Or is it to be suppos'd that there vvas not as good a Disposition in the Majority of them whose Votes carry'd our Settlement to listen to such unanswerable Reasons as he can expect from any appointed to be Judges of the Controversy but perhaps observing what Indulgence his Principle has met with he may hope that he or Men of the same Leven might influence the Nomination of the Judges and 't is evident that therein must lie the only colourable ground of his confident and ridiculous Challenge Tho there is no Reason to apprehend that Innuendoes should be now Innuendoes as they have been in those times which he justifies when they were admirable Engines to dive into the bottom of the Heart and fetch up those secret Intentions which no foregoing Discourse led to yet as one of the other Gown I should advise him for the future not to make his Pen so familiar with his Thoughts as he does vvhere speaking of Mr. Johnson's Assertion That King William is the rightfullest King that ever sat upon the English Throne Pag. 3. which he may very well be without supposition of coming to it in a manner different from all others since the Consent with which he was crown'd was the most universal that had been known in any Age he says he is content never to desire a greater advantage than to reduce an Adversary to the Absurdity of making no difference between a Title and no Title Wherein I fear he vvounds himself while he thinks to hit Mr. Johnson in the Eye for his due Application of the self-evident Distinction between Law and no Law and tho there is no Law to reach Mr. Johnson for his Reflections upon the late King and his Title this Writer may find a Law to punish him And if he would be at the pains to consult our Records Law-Books and old Historians he may find full warrant from the Constitution to make a good Title in our King upon the
Preservation of the Constitution in vertue of which they might declare King William and Queen Mary King and Queen of England and Ireland with all their Dependencies tho J. 2. was alive at the time of such Declaration 2. That this rightful Power was duly exercis'd in the late Assembly of Lords and Commons and afterwards regularly confirmed by the same Body in full Parliament 1. As to the Nations rightful Power I shall not go about to refute the fond Notion of an absolute Patriarchal Power descending from Adam to our Kings in an unaccountable way because tho if this were true there could be no more Compact between Princes and their People than is between Fathers and Children for establishing the Rights of Fatherhood Patriarcha non Monarcha Ed. An. 1681. Two Treatises of Government In the former the false Princeples and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer and his Followers are detected and overthrown Ed. Anno 1690. Heylyn 's Certamen Epistolare p. 386 387. yet the difference between a Patriarchal and Monarchical Authority is so well stated and prov'd by my Learned Friend Mr. Tyrril that few besides the unknown Author of the two late Treatises of Government could have gained Reputation after him in exposing the false Principles and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer and his Admirers one of which Dr. Heylyn in his Letter to Sir Edward Filmer the Son speaking of his Father says His eminent Abilities in these Political Disputes exemplified in his judicious Observations on Aristotle's Politicks as also in some Passages on Grotius Hunton Hobbs and other of our late Discoursers about Forms of Government declare abundantly how fit a Man he might have been to have dealt in this Cause which I would not willingly should be betrayed by unskilful handling and had he pleased to have suffer'd his excellent Discourse called Patriarcha to appear in publick it would have given such Satisfaction to all our great Masters in the Schools of Polity that all other Tractates in that kind had been found unnecessary This he says might have serv'd for a Catholicon or general Answer to all Discourses of this kind Since Sir Robert Filmer and Dr. Heylin were our late Observator's Predecessors in guiding the Inferior Clergy 't is not to be expected that they should nicely enquire into the Errors and Contradictions of their Leaders but the Doctor 's scandalous Reflections upon the Reformation in England and the Misfortunes of Charles the First in some measure at least occasion'd by the Countenance given to Sybthorpism Manwarism and Filmerism may justly raise a Prejudice against these Men and their Doctrines in the thinking Laity and those who are not able to think of themselves may take every Morning some Pages of the two Treatises of Government for an effectual Catholicon against Nonsense and Absurdities which have nothing to recommend them but Stile and Names cried up among a Party Vid. Dr. Heylyn's Stumbling-Block of Disobedience and Rebellion Wherefore I may well think that I may pass over the Stumbling-Blocks which such Men lay in the way to my Proof that the Power whereby this Nation is govern'd is originally under God derived from the People and was never absolutely parted with Hooker 's Ecclesiastical Polity lib. 1. f. 10. Many have cited the Authority of the Judicious Hooker till it is thread-bare to prove that it is impossible there should be a lawful Kingly Power which is not mediately or immediately from the Consent of the People where 't is exercised The present Bishop of Worcester whose Name will undoubtedly be held in no less esteem in future Ages Irenicum p. 132. is as express in his Irenicum That all civil Societies are founded upon CONTRACTS and COVENANTS made between them which saith he is evident to any that consider that Men are not bound by the Law of Nature to associate themselves with any but who they shall judg fit That Dominion and Propriety were introduced by free Consent of Men and so there must be Laws and Bonds fit Agreement made and Submission acknowledged to these Laws else Men might plead their natural Right and Freedom still which would be destructive to the very Nature of those Societies When Men then did part with their natural Liberties two things were necessary in the most express Terms to be declared 1. A free and voluntary Consent to part with so much of their natural Rights as was not consistent with the well-being of Society 2. A free Submission to all such Laws as should be agreed upon at their entrance into Society or afterwards as they see Cause But when Societies were already entered into and Children born under them no such express Consent was required in them being bound by virtue of the Protection which they find from Authority to submit to it and an implicit Consent is suppos'd in all such as are born under that Authority The Account which the Learned Cragius gives of the first Institution of Kingly Government seems to deserve not to be omitted Quum multa iracundè multa libidinosè multa avarè fierent c. Cragius de Feudis f. 2. Vid. The like account in Sir Will. Temple 's admirable Treatise of Monarchy among his Miscellanies So Bracton Rex à regendo non à regnando Jus dicebant When many things were acted wrathfully many things lustfully many things avariciously the best Man of a Society was chosen who might take Cognizance of the Offence or Injury and determine what was equal among Neighbours Thus were Judges constituted in every City for the sake of distributing Justice These were call'd Kings for Kings at the beginning were no more than Judges having their Denomination from ruling Each presided over his own City that is administred Justice Hence that multitude of Kings in Holy Writ To descend from generals to the Romans in particular whose Emperors were suppos'd to have been the most absolute and that the Obedience to Higher Powers required in the Gospel is to be taken from the measures of Subjection due to them Dr. Hicks Dr. Hicks his Jovian the great Maintainer of the Absolute Power of Monarchs takes a great deal of Pains to shew that the Empire was not Hereditary and by Consequence that their Power was immediately vested in the particular Emperors by the Consent of the Legions or other People who set them up Saravia as careful of the Rights of Princes owns Saravia de Imp. Author f. 159. That by the Roman Law the Crime of Laesa Majestas or Treason is defin'd to be that which is committed against the People of Rome and its Security Where he confines it to Crimes against the People only Vid. Tacitus p. which indeed agrees with the dying Speech of an old Roman in Tiberius his time But that in the Eye of our Law there may be a Laesa Majestas Vid. Glanv p. 1 Crimen quod in legibus dicitur crimen Laesae Majestatis ut de nece vel seditione
and correct and that in other matters they share with the King in every part of the Soveraignty He adds If we have need of farther proof the name Parliament which all our Ancient Histories give the Assembly of States may furnish us with one This is the name which the English give this Assembly which partakes of the Soveraignty with their King The French and the Ancient Britains had the same Laws and the same Language they Governed themselves by States gave the same name to their Assemblies And without doubt they had the same Authority Nay it is certain that the States had formerly in France the same Power that the Parliaments have in England As this Author makes the Liberties of the English Nation and the Power of its Parliament an Argument of the Right of the French Nation Bodin who wrote after their Parliament at Paris had taken the place of the Assembly of States makes England a parallel to France Turky Persia Muscovy Bodin de Repub lib. 2. c. 4. ed. A Lyon p. 302. Ib. Cap. 3. p. 286. This was H. 2. for the absolute Soveraignty of their Princes but that he was little acquainted with the History of the Govenment of England appears in that he supposes that Henry who procured his Son to be Crowned in his life time to have been the Son of W. 1. Bodin p. 300. Even where a Prince is the most absolute he admits That if he Govern Tyrannically he may be lawfully killed by a Foreign Prince and that it is a noble and magnificent action for a Prince to take Arms to rescue a people unjustly oppressed by the cruelty of a Tyrant as did the Great Hercules who went about the World exterminating the Monsters of Tyrants and for his high exploits has been Deified So did Dion Timoleon Aratus and other generous Princes who have bore the Title of Chastisers and Correcters of Tyrants This says he was the sole cause for which Tamerlain Prince of the Tartars denounced War against Bajazet King of the Turks And when he Besieged Constantinople said he came to chastise his Tyranny and deliver his afflicted people And in fact he vanquished him in a pitch'd Battel in the Plain of Mount-Stellian and having killed and put to flight Three Hundred Thousand Turks he kept the Tyrant in a Golden-Cage till he died Ib. p. 301. And in such case it matters not whether the Virtuous Prince proceed against the Tyrant with Force or Art or way of Justice True it is if the Virtuous Prince has taken the Tyrant he will have more Honour if he make his Process and punish him as a Murderer or Parricide or Robber rather than to make use of the Law of Nations against him This passage in Bodin shews beyond contradiction That if he were now alive and not of the Romish Superstition he would have extolled and justified the Heroick undertaking of King William for the delivery of this Nation But the ground of the justification is That even the most absolute Soveraign may injure his Subjects as no doubt but he would if he treated them contrary to natural equity and his own established Laws Jovian p. 226. whereas the Author of Jovian having set up an Imperial Power above all Political Constitutions says In this Realm the Sovereign cannot wrong or injure his Subjects but contrary to the Political Laws And by consequence not at all if the Political Laws are to give way to the Imperial Wherefore I wonder not to find him a Subscriber to the late Bishop of Chichester's Paper which condemns Swearing Allegiance to our present King and Queen But Bodin as he justifies our King William in freeing us from an oppressing Monarch no less clears the Subjects of England in joyning with him upon supposition that the Constitution of our Government is not rightly understood by him Bodin p. 301. But says he as to Subjects we ought to know whether the Prince be absolutely Soveraign or whether he is not absolutely Soveraign For if he is not absolutely Soveraign it is necessary that the Soveraignty be in the people or in the Lords In this case there is no doubt but it is lawful to proceed against the Tyrant by way of Justice if we can prevail against him or by way of Deeds and Force if we cannot have Reason otherwise as the Senate did against Nero in one case and against Maximin in another so that the Roman Emperors were nothing else but Princes of the Common-wealth that is to say the First and Chief the Soveraignty remaining with the people and the Senate As I have shewn this Common-wealth may be called a Principality Altho Seneca speaking in the person of his Scholar Nero says I alone among all Men living am elected and chosen to be God's Vicegerent on Earth I am Arbiter of Life and Death I am able at my pleasure to dispose of the estate and quality of any Man True it is that in fact he usurped this Power but of right the State was but a Principality where the people were Soveraign As also is that of the Venetians who condemned to death their Duke Falier and put to death others without form or figure of Process Insomuch that Venice is an Aristocratical Principality where the Duke is but Cheif and the Soveraignty remains with the States of the Venetian Noblemen And in the like Case the German Empire which also is but an Aristocratical Principality where the Emperor is chief and first the Power and Majesty of the Empire belongs to the States who in the year 1296. deposed the Emperor Adolph and after him Wenceslaus in the year 1400. in form of justice as having jurisdiction and power over them How much soever Bodin was mistaken in relation to the Government of England he seems herein less a Stranger to that of the German Empire The Learned Conringius in his account of the German Judicatures Hermanni Conringii Excercit De Judiciis p. 251. tells us 't is difficult to give an account of them for some Ages next after the time of the Francs But beginning with the Causes of Kings themselves whom he shews according to Ancient Custom to have been subject to some jurisdiction upon the account of their Government The Causes says he Ib. p. 252. of their Kings belonging to the administration of the Government as anciently so afterwards were frequently agitated in the Great Councils of the Kingdom So the Emperor H. 4. was accused in a Great Council and by its Authority divested of his Royal Dignity The same befel Otto 4. and * This about the year 1251. No new Emperor was chosen till Anno 1273. after Twenty two years vacancy Prideaux Introd p. 245. Frederic 2. But says he Two things sometimes hapned much differing from the ancient Usage One is That the Power of the Council of all the States began to pass to the Electors only after Charles 4. Novo more The Duke of Bavaria made
one that Reigns to profess himself bound by the Laws Our own Authority does so depend upon the Authority of Law And in truth for the Governing Power to submit to Law is greater than Empire And by the Promulgation of this present Edict we make known to others what we will not allow our selves That J. 2. had before his Departure broken the Fundamental Laws and that now he not only ceases to protect but before the Judgment pass'd upon the Breach was in a Kingdom which foments and strengthens a Rebellion in Ireland part of the Dominions belonging to the English Crown I think no body will deny Nor till they can answer what I have shewn of the mutual Contract continued down from the first Erection of the Monarchy here ought they to deny that he thereby broke the Original Contract which bound the People to him and him to them What results from this Breach is now more particularly to be considered That it is a Discharge from all Allegiance to him requir'd by any Law and confirmed by any Oaths is evident not only from the former Authorities but from the Condition going along with such a mutual Contract as I have prov'd to be with us between Prince and People Or rather to use the Words of the Learned Pufendorf The Obligation is not so much dissolv'd as broken off Peufendorf de Officio Hominis Civis p. 201. by the perfidiousness of either Party for when one does not perform that which was agreed on neither is the other bound to performance For the Prior Heads of things to be perform'd in Contracts are in the subsequent by way of Condition As if it should be said I will perform if you will perform first This he more fully explains in another Book Pufend. Elementa Juris prudentiae p. 85 94. Vid. Puf Supr de Interregnis p. 274. where he distinguishes between an Obligation imperfectly mutual as he supposes it to be between an Absolute Prince and his Subjects and one perfectly mutual as he takes it to be where the People have conferr'd a Power on any Terms Of such Obligations he says These since they have a mutual respect to the things agreed on Pufend. Elementa Juris prud p. 94. and suppose mutual Faith it is evident That if one Party violate the Faith which he plighted the other is no more bound And therefore he is not perfidious who stands not to those Contracts which the other has broken For all the Heads of one and the same Contract run into each other by way of Condition c. In that Book of his which is counted the Standard of the Law of Nations Pufend. de Jure Gentium p. 1105. he asserts it to be lawful for Subjects to oppose their Prince by Force which is a sufficient departure from Allegiance if he goes about Modum habendi potestatem immutare V. Grot. de Jure Belli Pacis de summitatem habendi plenitudine p. 62. Dissertationes de Interreg p. 272. Supra i. e. to change that Manner in which he by the Contract enjoys the Power from less to more absolute And in his Tract de Interregnis cited above he allows of this If the King abdicate all Care of the Commonwealth becomes of an hostile mind towards his Subjects or manifestly departs from those Rules of Governing upon the observance of which as upon a Condition the Subjects have suspended their Obedience Nor is the German Author Knichin less plain whose Words are If the Magistrate have absolute and full Majesty due Subjection ought by no means to be denied him thô he be impious Rudolphi Godofredi Knichen opus polit f. 1226. Nor may he be cast out and another substituted in his room Much less can a new form of Government be introduced But if he were Constituted by the People under certain Pacts and Promises sworn to him by the People and therefore is bound to certain Rules of Laws and either to do or avoid any thing contain'd in those Contracts whether Fundamental Laws or things particularly concerted as for Example the Emperor in our Empire They not being observ'd but studiously enormously and obstinately violated the hopes of amendment after many of the Subjects Prayers and Admonitions plainly vanishing he may rightfully be removed by the States and People c. The Reason is because he was Promoted to the Government by such Agreement and that sworn to according to the Laws of the Agreement or Contract The Nature of which consists in this That if that Party for whose sake or cause they are Constituted violate them the other Party of very Right is freed from the Observance of those things which are granted by such Laws Philippi Paraei Vindicatio p. 50 and 51. Nor does Philip Paraeus come short of this in his Defence of his Father David where he speaks very particularly of the Effect of the mutual Compact Sir R. Poyntz his Vindication of Monarchy Ed. Anno. 1661. What is said by the Learned Knight Sir Robert Poyntz to disable such Authorities as I have Cited in truth confirms them The Doctrine of the Civilians concerning the nature of Contracts he handles with Judgment but if he fails in applying their Distinctions the Foundation of our Government being different from that which he goes upon then he will prove an Authority on my side P. 86. The Doctors of the Law says he are much perplexed in debating these two Rules in Law One is That in vain he requireth the performance of a promise or contract to whom he refuseth the performance of that which he ought on his part to perform The other is That a Man is not bound to perform his Oath if that be not performed in consideration whereof he did swear And unto these Rules they assign divers Exceptions and Limitations One is That regularly ubi contractus est perfectus c. and a mutual Obligation arises 't is not rescinded by the failure of either Party And that in contractibus innominatis Innominal Contracts such as are without any Condition expressed it is not lawful agere ad resolutionem Contractûs P. 86. to act towards the Dissolution of the Contract by reason of a Contravention on one side sed vel ad implementum contractûs vel ad interesse but either towards the compelling performance or the obtaining satisfaction for the breach The Contract between Prince and People he supposes to be both 1. A perfect Contract and 2. An innominal one Consequently indissoluble notwithstanding any Breach on the King's side But if it be look'd on barely as a perfect Contract without Consideration of its being without Condition expressed by the same Reason even the Rebellion of a Subject would not discharge the King's Duty to protect him any more than the King 's subverting the Constitution will discharge the Subjects Allegiance Which shews that this is meant only of Instances which are not of the Essence of the Contract
upon the Innocent Prince E. 5. in whose Name he first took the Government upon him and either terrified or cheated the People into a Compliance with his Pretences Tho I have not the vanity to believe that any thing of my own can weigh with them who have thought otherwise before especially if they have listed themselves on a Side contrary to that which no Disadvantages can make me repent of Yet I cannot but hope that the Authorities which I have produc'd will occasion some consideration till they are either evaded or disprov'd And being all legal Objections are answered nor can any scruple of Conscience be here pretended without much less against Law What hinders but that we should exert our utmost in the Service of that Lawful Government from which we receive Protection and may expect Rewards for vertue at least the Defence of it if we do not madly quit the ground which we have gain'd from them who have hitherto made Vertue the greatest Crime Wherefore for us now to look back after we have set our hands to the Plow would be not only to distrust that Providence which has given such a wonderful Encouragement to Perseverance but were enough to tarnish all our Actions with the Imputation of making the publick Interest a Pretence for carrying on our own 'T is an happiness indeed when they are twisted and thrive together But the Cause is such as a man ought not to fear to dye nay to starve for it And how improsperous soever a man's endeavours for this may prove yet it may be a comfort to have sown that Seed which may grow up for the benefit of future Ages Nor ought he to repine because another man hath guilded over his Name by what he has got by the ruin of his Country or may have insinuated himself again into Opportunities to betray it Let it be enough for him how much soever slighted and contemn'd while he lives to embalm his Memory by a steddiness to Truth and the Interest of his Country not to be shaken by cross accidents to himself or the Publick Cause Let him still act uniformly while others live in perpetual Contradictions or Varieties their Actions and their Principles thwarting themselves or each other or varying with the State-weathercocks Let them violate the Laws out of Loyalty unchurch all Protestant Churches but their own out of Zeal against Popery narrow the Terms of Communion to spread the National Religion confine all advantages to that Communion for the Publick Good make their King the Head of a Party to strengthen his hands against his Enemies Deliver up Charters and Retake them gelt of their Noblest Priviledges in performance of their Oaths to preserve them fight against their King and yet urge the Obligation of Oaths requiring an unalterable Allegiance to his Person assert that the Power is inseparable from him and yet may in his Absence without his Consent be transferr'd to a Regent not to be Reassumed when he should think fit to return grant that he has broken the Contract yet contend that he retains that Power which he received from the Contract Or that tho the Contract be broken the Throne is not vacant Or if it be vacant yet an Heir has a Right and so it is vacant and not vacant at the same time Or that after one has broken a Condition upon which he took an Estate to himself and his Heirs in Fee-Simple or Tail another shall enjoy it as Heir to him and that in his Life-time invite a Deliverer yet reject the Deliverance Upon such Principles as these I find an Eminent English Prelate censur'd as a Deserter of his Church for going about Letter to the B. of L. according to his great Learning to justifie the Oaths taken to the present Government And thus the Cause of J. 2. is made the Cause of the Church of England Certain it is whatever is now pretended 't is more difficult to justifie the taking up or promoting Arms against a Deliverer than an Oppressor And if Arms against the last were lawful even with the prospect of involving Thousands in the Miseries of War much more are they in Defence of that Power which has restor'd those Liberties which the other Invaded and reassured the Publick Peace And whoever first engaged and now draw back not only brand themselves for Traitors but make it evident that Ambition Revenge or some ungenerous Design animated their Undertakings And as I doubt not but they will meet with their due Reward perhaps that Success which has attended the Heroical Actions of our present King may go further with such men to keep them to their Duty than the most demonstrative Proofs of Right which they generally measure by the Event And as no Cause or Action is just in their eyes which is not prosperous they in the language of the Poet are always on the side of the gods But few are in this Point such Philosophers as Cato Victrix causa Diis placuit sed victa Catoni FINIS APPENDIX N. I. Vid. sup CAP. I. F. 4. Thô those Authors which I have referr'd to in the Book have sufficiently expos'd Sir Robert Filmer's Notions yet the following Observations made by me some Years since upon the first applying of my Thoughts to such Studies may be more suited to meaner Capacities at least they who will not give themselves time to read those Elaborate Treatises may be diverted with this Summary of Inconsistencies which Numbers swallow down as blind Men do Flies Sir Robert Filmer and some of our Divines plaid against one another in relation to Ecclesiastical and Civil Power and Sir Robert against Himself SInce Sir Robert Filmer's Writings are recommended to the World by the Elogium of the Infallible Dr. Heylin Vid. Heylin 's Ep. to Sir Ed. Filmer Certamen Ep. p. 208. Ut sup Cap. 1. that Man that professed in print that he could not reckon the early Death of the Wonder of his and following Ages Edw. the 6 th for an Infelicity to the Church of England Pref. to Hist of Ref. You cannot but think that this his Monarch in Politicks whose Death he laments was not so ill principled in himself nor inclin'd to embrace such Counsels but that his Affections to the Church were as exemplary as his Books have manifested them to be to the State But me-thinks Dr. Heylin by subscribing to Sir Robert's Judgment in Politiques and consequently to his Anarchy of a mixt Monarchy does thereby confess that the Church is wholly subject to the Law of the State and that the Civil Power is comprehensive of the Ecclesiastical the dividing of the Power being utter Anarchy and Confusion Nay that excellent Discourse call'd Patriarcha Ep. to Sir Edw. Filmer which the Doctor by way of Prophesy for I am sure 't is not to be imagin'd in the way of Nature tells us would when publish'd give such satisfaction to all our great Masters in the Schools of Polity that all
Worship which though not contain'd in Scripture were us'd in the Primitive Church which is an Individium vagum which some confine to the Life-time of the Apostles some extend to the whole first three Centuries some even to this according to the Doctrine of Infallible Tradition Suppose for Example that in such Assemblies as are form'd with or without leave of the Civil Power the Sign of the Cross be used as a Symbol of dedicating to the Service of Christ those who are let into Catholick Communion and this they judg useful to the present and according to the Primitive Church it will be a Question Whether the retaining of this against a particular Interdict of the Civil Power which is supposable at least is to be justifi'd upon these Grounds Put this Argument into Form and you will find he has more or less in his Conclusion than in his Premises Rightly taken I conceive it lies thus If the Gospel contains a Divine Establishment of Publick Christian Service such Publick Christian Service as has therein Divine Establishment no Authority upon Earth hath any right to prohibit But the Gospel does contain a Divine Establishment of Publick Christian Service Therefore such Publick Christian Service as has therein Divine Establishment no Authority upon Earth has Power to prohibit This being taken for granted he proceeds What no Authority upon Earth has right to prohibit may be done or perform'd notwithstanding the Interdict of the Civil Power But such Service ut supra no Authority upon Earth hath right to prohibit therefore it may be perform'd notwithstanding the Interdict of the Civil Power But he concludes contrary to the Laws of Arguing That those Christians who rightly worship God in the True Catholick Communion according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church have a right to hold such Assemblies for the Christian Worship as appear useful for the Church's Good Now if hereby he means that they who worship God according to the Scriptures even though taking in the Practice of the Apostles have not this Right unless they do it in the manner us'd till or at the end of the first three hundred Years after Christ which is the modestest acceptation of Primitive Times Here by adding of Circumstances his Conclusion has really less than the Premises because it ties up them whom the Scripture has left free and takes from the Authority of Scripture where the Foundation was laid and undermines it by going to support it with the specious words of Apostolical and Primitive which still are of doubtful Acceptation Whereas some believe that no manner of Worship is to be term'd Primitive which was not truly Apostolical that is us'd by the Apostles themselves others call every thing within those three Centuries at least Primitive and therefore Apostolical But to be sure here is a very false way of Arguing if he uses any or else 't is gratis dictum But take it for an Argument and then to his purpose there is more in the Conclusion than in the Premises for the Premises are only of such Publick Service as is contain'd and establish'd in the Gospel and thence he would conclude that whatever has been practis'd in the Primitive Church in the Publick Service of God may be continued notwithstanding the Interdict Nay he would go farther That they may in their Assemblies practise according to their own Judgment of what is useful for the Church's Good If it be said that he means no more than that they may hold such Assemblies for Christian Worship as appear useful that is of Five besides a single Family 22 Car. 2. c. 1. or more as appears useful if he means not that they may assemble and worship in such a manner as appears useful he excludes the Worship out of the Assembly and then it may be a Silent Meeting if the Civil Power please and is less than his Premises warrant I must confess he seems to intend the amusing rather than satisfying his Readers by putting in the true Catholick Communion for he must mean either that what-ever Publick Service is according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church is in true Catholick Communion and so vice versa that what-ever is in true Catholick Communion is according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church so that the Church becomes the Rule to the supplanting of Scripture or else that to worship God rightly and warrantably notwithstanding a Civil Interdict 't is not enough to be according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church unless it be in the true Catholick Communion that is with such Terms of Communion as Christ himself or his Apostles made Catholick and universally obliging and indeed in this sense though he has not observ'd it he comes up fully to the Force of his Argument The great Sanderson whose Judgment where it was according to that lumen siccum the general want of which is to be deplored is of great Authority has gone about to split the Hair between two Extreams in relation to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and lays down what he says is most consentaneous to the Doctrine of the Church of England and moreover to the Laws of the Kingdom Sanderson de Obligatione Conscientiaa Pag. 209. Quod Doctrinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Regni insimul Legibus maximè sit consentaneum Which by the way is an insinuation that the Church of England holds some Doctrine not consentaneous to Law and it may be the Canons of 1640 might be instanced in Now his Notion is that the jus condendi Leges Ecclesiasticas that is the Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs is in the Bishops Presbyters and other Persons duly elected by the Clergy of the whole Kingdom and duly assembled in a lawful Synod Upon this I would be bold to ask the Question Pag. 188. How this agrees with his Concession That the King is Supream Head and Governour over all Persons and Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil since his own Argument is That he who is Supream has the Power or Right to make Laws But the King is Supream wherefore P. 192. according to him the King and not the Clergy hath this Power This I think is the unforc'd Consequence from his other Assertion Potestatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse potestatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc est jus ferendi leges quae obligant totam communitatem esse penes eum solum Pag. 186. sive sit is singularis persona ut in statu Regiminis Monarchici sive plures ut in aliis qui cum summâ potestate toti communitati praest Nay he argues that it must needs be so in reason Praecipuus actus gubernationis praecipuam requiret potestatem c. Est autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive legum latio actus gubernationis supremus praecipuus Non ergo potest exerceri nisia persona habente aut saltem in virtute ex authoritate habentis supremam authoritatem jurisdictionem in communitatem sibi