King Charles the First but they are afraid of the reproach and scandal as if they did allow of that by doing the like But the Case is extreamly different the one King being a well-resolved Protestant the other a seduced Papist Charles the First gave as great assurances of his constancy in the Protestant Religion by taking the Holy Sacrament publickly and purposely for the satisfaction of his Subjects by disputing for it against Papists by charging his Children against it a little before his death and even then giving a full Testimony of dying in it But James the Second contrary to his Education and his Royal Father's Charge deserted that Religion espoused Popery and resolved to introduce it to his Kingdom which he deserted rather then he would forego that design His Father lost his life to preserve the Church and the Established Religion which King James industriously sought to destroy and in fact he had destroyed the Government Established before he deserted the Kingdom 2ly There was a great disparity in their actions tho' Charles the First was unhappily forced from the full Administration of the Government and Protection of his Loyal Subjects yet he kept within the Kingdom and endeavoured to assert his and his Peoples Rights not by the Sword only but by many Treaties and gracious Condescentions such as satisfied all sober persons even among his Adversaries as by their too late Votes on that behalf appeared He did not declare that he was Absolute and expected Obedience to his Commands without any Reserve he did not Imprison his Bishops only for Petitioning in a matter of Conscience as James the Second and the Enemies of Charles the First did Fears and Jealousies or very light Impositions on the People for urgent Necessities were made the Ground of the War against Charles the First but real and intollerable Greivances such as the Subjects could not bear nor knew how to remove 3ly There is a great disparity in the adverse Parties Charles the First was opposed by his Subjects James the Second by a free Prince to assert a just Right the better part of Charles the First 's Subjects adhered to him and dyed for him and at length the whole body of the Nation being convinced of the Injustice of the War recalled Charles the Second to succeed his Father And I hope no man will compare the Benefits we have received by the present King's proceedings with the Mischiefs that we endured and expected greater not only from the Vsurpers on Charles the First but the transactions of James the Second And such persons do as surely deserve as they will draw on themselves that Popery and Slavery which they abhor who are not satisfied with that happy Deliverance which they now injoy and by their Thankfulness and Obedience to God and the King may be confirmed to them and their Posterity so that I am well perswaded that they who ingaged against Charles the First were highly criminal and that they who since James the Second deserted the Kingdom shall ingage for him are really peccant The second Consideration is Whether the King having on these grounds begun a War and gotten quiet possession of the Kingdom and by the People acknowledging the Right of his Lady to the Succession on the Vacancy by Desertion are proclaimed King and Queen have a just Title and such as we ought to swear Allegiance to As to the Vacancy of the Government I have said enough already and all will grant that if a Crown be Forfeitable ours was forfeited Now in case of this Vacancy the Right of Succession by our Laws is in the next Heir which is the present Queen and that she ought immediately to succeed because by a Maxim in our Laws the King never dies and the sole Administration is to be in her and therefore it is objected That we cannot swear Faith and true Allegiance to any other Answ Seeing all Oaths and Acts that oblige the Subjects are in the name of the Queen as well as of the King we pay our Obedience where it is due and this may satisfie the Conscience of every one as to our present Condition at least until there be a separation made And if the sole Power should be devolved on the present King the consent of the next Heir being obtained to whom is the Injury done Not to the Princess Anne for velenti non fit injuria not to the People for the same reason they having expressed their consent but this hath its President in the Case of Henry the Seventh as is already said If in discussing the Right of Succession a question do arise concerning the Primary Will and Intention of the People at the first Institution of a Kingdom it is not amiss to take the Advice of the present People i. e. of the Nobles Clergy and Commons as Cambden says of England Anno 1571 1572. Grotius l. 2. c. 7. n. 27. And the Equity of it seemeth apparent that he who redeemed the Crown may wear it by consent of the People and the consent of the right Heir nor can the People be blamed for joyning in such consent because it hath been thought a Duty in Gratitude that such Heroes as have vindicated a People from Thraldom and become great Benefactors to them have been by consent of the People acknowledged their Kings So Aristotle Polit. l. 3. c. 10. n. 89. And in such a juncture of Affairs the whole Protestant Cause lying at stake the Kingdom of Ireland being possessed by Papists and many Divisions in our own Nation there is need of more than the Authority of a single person The Act of 13 of Eliz. asserts it to be in the Power of the Parliament to alter or limit the Succession And as to matter of fact such alteration hath been made for in the Cases of Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth the Succession was altered because one of them was Illegitimate Again Quod fieri non debuit factum Valet The necessity of Affairs that inforc'd it may speak much in defence of it As Josephus says of the Jews submitting to the Roman Emperours That having submitted to them they ought not to make resistance And if by tract of time an Empire which was unjustly acquired may justly be submitted to because of an implicite Consent of the People to such an Empire I see no cause but the express actual Consent of a People to a Prince may justly oblige them Such a Consent of the Senate and People to the Roman Emperours was the ground of our Saviour's Injunction for paying Tribute and of the Apostles requiring Subjection to them And so we may conclude as Hushai did 2 Sam. 16.18 Whom the LORD and this People and all the Men of Israel shall choose his will I be and with him I will abide FINIS
〈◊〉 Authority to them to whom Obedience is to be yielded for Conscience-sake as our Saviour also Commands to give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar ' s. On which occasion also he mentioneth that Statute of Henry VII which indemnifieth those Subjects which acted under the King in being And he adds a Sentence from Nicetas Choniates nec Imperatorem qui absit quaerendum nec qui adsit pellendum esse So that I think the Cases in the 22 of Matth. and Rom. 13. may satisfie Conscience as to our present case for if those Caesars who were then in Possession were to be obeyed for Conscience-sake even then when the Right did belong to the Senate then we may also obey the King now in being tho' there be another to whom it is supposed the Right of Government doth belong without wounding our Consciences Now if the present Power be God's Ordinance we must obey for Conscience's sake for if we believe that God hath an over-ruling Providence in the Government of the World to set up one and pull down another though we see not a Reason of the Alterations that are made yet we must believe that there are great and just causes and such as are directed to good ends especially where it appears that God by such Revolutions brings Order out of Confusion and the changes that are made are effected more visibly by the Counsel of God than Conduct of Man. Another Rule of Conscience is the Glory of God that which tends most to the advancing of God's prescribed Worship the purity of his Ordinances a sound Faith and holy Life we may with a good Conscience submit to It is a saying of Polycarp when he was near his Martyrdom We owe all due Obedience to Princes and Potentates yet not so as thereby to endanger our eternal Salvation The Law of Charity is another Rule of Conscience which as it obligeth us to do good unto all men so more especially to them that are of the houshold of Faith for whom we should lay down our very lives that we may prevent their misery and destruction St. Paul could wish himself accursed from Christ for his brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh Rom. 9.3 And what he suffered and did for his Brethren according to the Faith of Christ appears as by his great Afflictions so by his ready complyance in the case of Circumcising Timothy Acts 16.3 because of the Jews which were at Lystra and Iconium though he were of a Persuasion that Christ could profit them nothing that were circumcised seeing that such became debtors to do the whole Law. And Acts 21.23 when St. James and the Elders informed him that the Jews would be offended by his teaching them that they ought not to Circumcise their Children nor to walk after their Customs he was perswaded lest he should offend them to purifie himself and in the Company of others to go into the Temple to shew that he kept the Law. From whence we learn that it is out Duty to part with many Opinions of our own not absolutely necessary to Salvation for the propagation of the true Religion I speak not this as if it were Lawful to do any evil that good may come of it which the Apostle utterly condemns but only on supposition that the late King hath rendred himself uncapable of the Government and that the present King and Queen considering the Circumstances wherein we were are regularly advanced to the Government that we ought to pay our Allegiance to them The Question whether Humane Laws do bind the Conscience is much discoursed of by Divines who resolve that they do not bind the Conscience immediately by their own Authority but mediately by vertue of the Command of God who enjoyns Obedience to the Higher Powers But then if the matter of the Law be unjust or if it be not for the Publick Good which is the end of all Humane Laws they are not Obligatory to Conscience for the Rule for Conscience in things Political is the Publick welfare So the Ancient Roman Law Salus Populi Suprema Lex which is the same with that of the Apostle He is the Minister of God to thee for good i. e. not for thy Private Good only but for the Publick Good attending continually on this very thing i. e. the Publick Good wherein thy Private Good is concerned for the Laws do not respect this or that particular man's case but the Common good and good Laws may be grievous to this or that particular Man in some cases which yet highly conduce to the Publick Welfare and better is a private Inconvenience than a publick Mischief Those Laws therefore that tend most to the Publick welfare are the Rule of Conscience in Political Affairs And for the same Reason that when a Magistrate makes a Law against God's Law in Religious Matters it doth not bind the Conscience For the same Reason when a Magistrate makes a Law against the Publick welfare it doth not bind the Conscience in Political Affairs The Reason is because the Magistrates Power is derived from God and God hath limited and determined that Power for the Publick Good as its great end and such Laws as are contrary to that end have no Authority nor do oblige the Conscience It is truly said that some things are commanded because they are good other things are good because they are commanded Now our Obedience to Governors is good because it is commanded but a respect to the Publick welfare in all Laws is commanded because it is the chief good and end of Government and so is Prior and Paramount to all Politick Laws and hence it is that the Casuists do resolve that Humane Laws do not bind the Conscience when things grievous and intolerable are commanded But then the Question will be Who shall judge whether the Laws made are conducing to the Publick Good or not when not only the Magistrate but the Representatives of the People have pre-judged it and therefore past it into a Law Answ There are few Laws like those of the Medes and Persians unalterable what was for the Publick Good at the time of making the Law may afterward on the alteration of Times and Accidents prove to be otherwise and when the Reason of a Law ceaseth the Obligation of it ceaseth also as to Conscience There was a Law made against the use of that pernicious Weed of Hops as the Law termeth it because it was thought prejudicial to the Health of the Subject and though the Reason of the Law might be good as to some particular Men Yet long Experience taught that the use of Hops was more beneficial to the Publick and therefore though that Law was not repealed yet the use of Hops was continued Now the Question is whether such Brewers as continued the use of Hops against the Statute did sin or not in so doing If they did not sin it was because their Consciences were not obliged by that Law if they did
true Mother of the Child had greater tenderness of its life than the pretended Mother so the true Prince may be presumed to have a greater regard to the welfare of the People than the Vsurper Claudian to Honorius Tu civem patremque geris tu consule cunctis Non tibi nec tua te moveant sed publica vota As a Mariner is supposed to intend the guiding of his Ship to a safe Harbor and a Physician to intend the Health of his Patient so is a Prince presumed to intend the prosperity of his People which is the great end of Government Bishop Bilson goes farther speaking of the Roman Cruelties says They are such as are able to set good men at their wits end and make them justly doubt since you refuse the course of all good Laws Divine and Humane whether by the Law of Nature they may not defend themselves against such barbarous blood suckers For whatever is attempted on us without Law is force and we may vim vi repellere as in the case of a Sheriff taking possession on a Judgment if a Prince should commission armed men to oppose him in the execution of his Office he may lawfully resist them and the Law doth indempnifie him the Princes Private Will cannot make void his Publick Will formerly declared and published in his Laws This hath been the sence and practice of our own and other Protestant Nations of our own in the Case of the Queen of Scots who brought French Forces into Scotland to withstand the Reformation endeavoured by the Nobles the Clergy of England gave a Subsidy of 6 s. in the Pound to defray the Charge of that War and call it her using all prudent and Godly means 5 Eliz. ch 24. ch 27. The Temporalty call it The princely and upright preservation of the Liberty of the Realm and Nation of Scotland from eminent Captivity and Desolation And for abating Hostility and Persecution within the Realm of France there were Forces sent under the Earl of Warwick to New-haven to assist the French Protestants which was then accounted a Godly and prudent means to abate Hostility and Persecution practised against the Professors of God's Holy Gospel And in the 35 of Eliz. ch 12. was another Subsidy granted by the Clergy for the Queen's Charges in the prudent and needful prevention of such Attempts as tended to the Extirpation of the sincere Profession of the Gospel both here and elsewhere And Ch. 13. the Temporalty gave this Reason for their Subsidy Besides the great and perpetual Honour which it hath pleased God to give your Majesty abroad in making you the principal Support of all Just and Religious Causes against Vsurpers besides the great Succours in France and Flanders which we conceive to be most Honourable in regard of the ancient League the Justice and Equity of the Causes c. And in 39 Eliz. ch 27. they say This Land is become since your Majesty's days both a Port and Haven of Refuge for distressed States and Kingdoms and a Rock and Bulwark of Opposition against the Tyranny and ambitious Attempts of mighty Vsurping Potentates And in 43 Eliz. ch 17. The Clergy say Who hath or should have a livelier sense or better remembrance of your Majesty's Princely Courage and Constancy in advancing and protecting the free Profession of the Gospel within and without your Majesty's Dominions than your Clergy And we cannot doubt but they would have acted the same thing for their own Preservation which they approved and encouraged others to do The Protestants of Saxony and Lantgrave being seven Princes and Twenty four Cities declare That the Emperor was reciprocally bound to them as they to him and that he had dissolved their Obligation of Allegiance by casting them out of their Possessions and endeavouring to destroy their Religion which unjust Attempts have not God for their Author Nor are we otherwise bound to Caesar than on his performing the Conditions on which he was created Caesar Sleidan lib. 18. The Magdeburg Divines affirm the same Sleidan l. 22. Where the Laws and Constitutions of a Government allow of a defence the Gospel doth so too for it doth not alter the Laws of a State which may be an Answer to what is urged from Rom. 13. for the Obligation of all Subjects is such as the Laws under which they live do require The Oath of the Subjects of the King of Poland hath this Salvo in the Oath of the King Quod si Sacramentum meum violavero incolae Regni mei nullam nobis obedientiam praestare tenebuntur In Richard the Second's time the Parliament declared in a Statute of Praemunire That the Crown of England hath been so free i. e. from the Incroachments of the Pope at all times that it hath been in no Earthly Subjection but immediately subject to God in all things touching the Regalty of the Crown and God defend say they that it should be submitted to the Pope and the Laws and Statutes of the Realm be by him defeated and avoided at his pleasure in perpetual destruction of the Soveraignty of the King his Crown and Dignity and of all the Realm and therefore they declare That they and all the Leige Commons of the Realm will stand with their Lord the King and his Crown and Regalty in the cases aforesaid viz. purchasing of Bulls from Rome executing Judgments given in that Court Translating of Bishops c. and in all other cases attempted against him and his Crown and Regalty in all points to live and to dye And they pray the King and him require by way of Justice to Examine all the Lords in Parliament as well Spiritual as Temporal severally and all the Estates of the Parliament how they think of the causes aforesaid which be so openly against the King's Crown and in derogation of his Regalty and how they will stand with the King in upholding the Rights of the said Crown and Dignity And we find by a Letter of King John's to the Pope That if the King would yet the Barons would not submit to King or Pope in those cases How contrary to this Statute of Praemunire did they act that instead of a strict enquiry after such as endeavoured to subject the Nation to the Usurpations of Rome did closely and particularly examine both Lords and Commons whether they would submit to the introducing that Usurpation and upon their Refusal were presently discharged of their respective Offices and excluded from the Prince's favour Was not this to subvert a Fundamental Constitution of the Government And by that Act to incur a Praemunire Carpzorius an approved Author de Capital Caesarea says c. 1. p. 15. There is no King or Supreme Prince in the Christian World whose Power some certain Compact made with the several Orders of the People may not restrain and limit and which are not bound by the Capitulation Reinkinck says the same of the Emperor de Reg. Secul l. 1. Class 3. p. 76. That Caesar
incipit bellum And it is to be considered that the Bishop wrote this in the Case of Charles the First from which this of James the Second differs toto caelo To those that are not yet reconciled to the now Established Government I shall offer these Considerations First Whether the present King had not a just cause for Invading the Kingdom Secondly Whether having Invaded it and obtained a full and peaceable Possession by a general consent of the People he hath obtained a rightful Title The Causes that do justifie the Invasion are these 1. The Vindication of his Lady's Title which was in a manner endeavoured to be ravished from her by a Prince whose Birth was so much suspected and whereof the Nation was so generally convinced 2. The Invitation of the Subjects Lords Spiritual and Temporal with many Commons groaning under an Arbitrary Power Popery and Slavery for which cause many Lords and Commons had left the Kingdom and sought protection from the present King and came in with him 3. The present King was made the Head of the Protestant Party by those Princes who undertook the Defence of the Reformed Religion against the Popish Princes that had confederated to root it out and a better method could not be taken than to begin with England where if the designs for Popery had succeeded the Protestant Cause had been almost desparate which is now in a hopeful way of Establishment These Causes are so sufficient to justifie the Invasion that I think no good Protestant will doubt of them and as little doubt can be made of the second Consideration that he who on such just Grounds Invades a Kingdom and having gotten a full and quiet Possession is by the general Consent of the People accepted and declared their King hath a lawful Right and Title for first Ubi desinunt judicia incipit bellum and as Law Suits so War may be waged for prevention of Injuries not yet done As Livy says Justum est bellum quod necessarium est pia Arma quibus nulla nisi in armis relinquitur spes When it is manifest our sitting still will make our Condition worse we may adventure on the danger of War. The War was begun by the French King and his Confederates against the Prince England was like to be in the Confederacy by what the King acted and endeavoured against the Protestant Religion And Tune tua res Agitur This is the first Cause that Justifies the War on the present King's part the second Cause is the Recovery of the Right which his Lady and himself had to the Succession which was in a manner taken from them Grotius de Jure Belli l. 2. c. 1. sect 2. De rebus repetendis proves this at large in a considerable Paragraph to which I refer the Reader And of this I shall give but one or two Instances among many in the Scriptures Abraham's War on the King of Elam who had spoiled Sodom was just Gen. 14. And so were the Wars of Israel against the Assirians and other Nations that invaded their Dominion and would have kept them from them of this there can be no doubt nor can secondly the Vindication of a People oppressed by their Prince against the Laws of God and the Land if a Father seek the destruction of an innocent person his Son may piously restrain his Father from that act which would not only ruine the innocent in this World but himself in the World to come So that this War for the asserting the Title of the Prince and Princess to the Crown and for the defence of our Religion against the Confederacy of Popish Princes to extirpate it which is matter of Fact may appear most Just for tho' Religion may not be propagated by Arms yet it may be defended where it is Established by Law against forreign Powers that conspire the destruction of it Grotius l 2. c. 25. n. 4. approves a War on behalf of Confederates For he that doth not repel an Injury from his Confederates if he can is as much in fault as he that doth the Injury He commends Constantine for making War on Maxentius and Licinius who persecuted such of their Subjects as were Christians only for their Religion Grotius l. 2. c. 20. n. 39. Injuries begun only are not to be vindicated by Arms unless the matter be both very weighty and be already proceeded so far that from what is already done either a certain mischief tho' not yet what was intended hath already befallen or some extraordinary danger do threaten thereby If an Enemy hath once assaulted me and comes armed with a resolution to kill me I am not to tarry till he comes within reach of me and receive his Weapons upon my naked breast but seasonably to prevent him And l. 2. c. 25. n. 8. Those Princes who are free may make War for themselves or others And tho' we should grant that Subjects might not take Arms for their own Defence against their Prince no not in case of greatest necessity which yet is doubted even by those whose purpose it was to defend Regal Power yet it follows not that other Princes may not take Arms in their defence that which is unlawful for one to do for himself by reason of a personal impediment may be lawful for another to do for him As in Affairs of the Church the Bishops are said to take on them the care of the Vniversal Church so beside the care of their particular Dominions Kings assume the general care of Humane Societies Seneca resolves Bello a me peti potest qui a mea gente sepositus suam exagitat And Cicero That War should be undertaken only that we may live in Peace and not be injured It will be objected That God will take care of our Religion Deorum injuriae diis curae perjurium satis habet deum ultorem Answer So it may be said of other Sins which God will punish yet the Laws are justly executed on the Offenders by the Magistrate as all grant And if it be objected That such Offences are punished not so much as committed against God as for the damage done to men Ans It is observed that not only such Offences are punished by men as are directly committed against other men but such as by consequence may be prejudicial to others as Self-murder Sodomy c. for tho' the principal end be to procure God's favour by punishing such Crimes yet it is done also to prevent the influence and notable effects on Humane Societies See l. 2. c. 20. n. 44. It may be farther objected That if we wholly forsake the King we shall justifie the Rebellion against King Charles the First who was charged with designs of bringing in Popery and Arbitrary Government Illegal Impositions Evil Counsellors c. Ans I suppose the Objectors that are so tender of committing any act of Disloyalty against King James the Second will by no means approve of what was done against