particular Species for so the Supreme Power is called whether to the King as Supreme As for the Patriarchal Constitution and a Lineal Descent by proximity of Blood it is so near to an impossibility of finding out the right Heir to the first Father of a People that we must let that alone for ever And as for Conquest Grotius l. 1. c. 4. § 16. says He that doth usurp a Government and afterward enters not into a Compact with the People as it is evident William the Conqueror did who also pretended a right prior to his Conquest nor is there any trust reposed in him but his possession is maintained by force the right of War doth in this case still continue so that it is lawful in all things to deal with him as with an Enemy And l. 1. ch 4. § 7. N. 3. It is to be observed saith Grotius That men did not at first unite in civil Communities by any Command from God but voluntarily and from the experience which they had that private Families were unable to resist any foreign force from hence grew Civil Power which St. Peter therefore calls a Humane Ordinance though elsewhere it is called a Divine Ordinance because God did approve thereof as suitable and convenient for the good of Mankind but when God approves of a Humane Law he must be supposed to do it as Humane and after a Humane manner Concerning the Rise of our Government which is the Second Query I shall search no farther than the Reign of William called the Conqueror who in truth disclaimed that Title pretending a right to succeed by a Grant from King Edward and an Oath of Harold who swore to preserve the Kingdom for him after the death of Edward King Edward being dead many of the Nobles invited William to take the Crown but Harold contrary to his Oath assumes it whereupon he resolves to vindicate his Title by the Sword the Pope sending him a consecrated Banner and approving his Title and shortly after his landing slays Harold in battel and marching to London is proclaimed King and crowned by Aldred Arch-bishop taking the Coronation-Oath which was injoyned by King Edward and is the same in substance with that which is still administred and in the Title of his Laws made in the fourth Year of his Reign he stiles himself Heir and Cousin to Edward the Consessor Spelman's Councils p. 619. and confirmed all St. Edward's Laws And his Son Henry declares his Father's Title thus Qui Edvardo regi Haereditario Jure successit Selden ad Eadmerum p. 211. Henry the First his Son abolished the Norman Laws which his Father added as Cooke in the Proeme to l. 3. of his Reports Afterwards the Barons threatned King John to seize his Castles if he would not confirm their Laws which they did until they got the Magna Charta It appears then that our Government is not an Absolute Monarchy such as that of the Turks and the ancient Emperors of Rome whose Wills declared by Edicts had the force of Laws as is evident from 1. The Manner of Making Laws the Legislative Power being divided between Prince and People And 2. The Mutual Oaths and Obligations that pass between the Prince and People and because * Quas vulgus eligerit no Laws oblige the Subject but what are agreed on by Prince and People in Parliament 3. Nor can any Money without their consent be raised And whatever Laws have been thus made in former Ages and stand unrepealed do respectively oblige both Prince and People in future Ages So that when Laws are thus made it is not in the power of Prince or People to annul them but by the same Authority by which they were made by which it appears that the Legislative Power which is a chief Property of Soveraignty is not solely in the Prince yet may he pardon the Persons of some Offenders and remit the Penalties in some Cases wherein Salus Populi Suprema Lex which Maxim as it leaveth in the Prince a power of dispensing with the rigor of the Law as he shall see it expedient for the publick good so it leaveth also in the Subject a liberty upon just occasions as in cases of great exigency and for preventing of such hazards and inconveniencies as could not be foreseen or prevented and might prove of noisom consequence to the publick to do other wise than the Letter of the Law requireth See Sanderson's Case of the Liturgy p. 170. for which he gives this reason viz. It may well be presumed that the Law giver who is bound in all his Laws to intend the safety of the Publick and of every Member thereof in his due proportion hath no intention by the observation of any particular Law to oblige any person who is a member of the Publick to his destruction or ruine when the common good is not answerably promoted thereby Upon which ground it is generally resolved by Casuists that no Constitution meerly humane can lay such obligation on the Conscience of the Subject but that he may according to exigency of circumstances do otherwise than the Constitution requireth This leads me to the Third Querry The Third Query which is concerning the Obligation of the Coronation Oath and the Oaths taken by the Subjects of which I shall speak joyntly because the Obligations are relative and reciprocal There cannot be a more solemn Oath than that which is taken by our Princes at their Coronation to which the Prince is obliged as to the Matter of it before his Coronation as well as the Subject is bound to the Prince tho' not not crowned the Prince is our natural and liege Lord as we are his natural and liege Subjects i. e. according to Law. The Oath as I find it taken by King Charles First of blessed Memory is this Quest Sir Will you grant and keep and by your Oath confirm to the People of England the Laws and Customs to them granted by the Kings of England your lawful and religious Predecessors and namely the Laws Customs and Franchises granted to the Clergy by your glorious King St Edward your Predecessor or according to the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospel established in this Kingdom and agreeable to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof and the ancient Customs of this Realm Answ I grant and promise to keep them Q Sir Will you keep Peace and Godly Agreement intirely according to your power both to God and Holy Church the Clergy and People A. I will keep it Q. Sir Will you to your power cause Law Justice and Discretion in Mercy and Truth to be executed in all your Kingdoms A. I will. Q. Will you grant to hold and keep the Laws and rightful Customs which the Commonalty of this your Kingdom have And will you defend and uphold them to the Honour of God so much as in you lieth A. I grant and promise so to do Our Lord the King we beseech you to pardon
sin then the breach of a mistaken and erroneous Law is a sin and damnable which is a very hard Sentence But Secondly Although the greater part of the People with their Legislators may judge the Laws made to be for the Common good yet every Man must judge of his own Actions in reference to those Laws whether they be agreeable to the Common good or no for the greater number in Councils may err there is no Infallible Judge in Civil or Religious matters If then the Law-givers may err or my Conscience tells me that they do err I am not bound to do what they Command by a blind Obedience but to use my private discretion in enquiring whether the thing enjoyned be for the Publick good or not for if I am allowed to use the judgment of my private discretion in Religious matters why not in Civil Men are not to go as Beasts where they are driven much less to act contrary to their Reason and Judgment which makes them worse than Beasts who will follow their Senses unless they are hindred by force so that I am not bound to obey a Law meerly Humane for Conscience-sake when I judge that Law contrary to the Publick welfare but I must submit to the Penalty if I cannot honestly avoid it But if a Magistrate that is obliged to govern by Laws do resolutely set himself to destroy those Laws and ruin not only the generality of his Subjects but his own Crown and Dignity we are not bound in Conscience to obey such a Magistrate because of a prior Obligation to preserve the publick welfare which was the end of Government and to which the means are subordinate It now remains that having proved that Scripture and right Reason to be the Rule of Conscience for our Obedience both to Magistrates and their Laws in foro interno that I do also prove that a respect to the Publick good not being contrary to any Law of God is our Rule for Obedience in foro externo One chief Law imprinted by God on the Reason of Mankind is the conservation of it self and for that end vim vi repellere to repel Force by Force for which end Mankind were taught to live in Societies and establish Rules and Laws for the Common Safety therefore homines conspirantes in communem utilitatem are the Subject-matter of a Common-wealth this being the end of all Societies no Civil Constitution can annul this Bond of Nature So Panormitan Quando jus Civile aliquid disponit contra jus naturae standum est Juri naturae So also when the Law makes provision for such things as the Law-givers fore-see and afterwards some things happen which could not be fore-seen and new Reasons and Accidents appear contrary to those Laws here Nature as a common Parent and Protector of Justice and Necessity alters or adds to the Law as when Sextus Tarquinius ravished Lucretia though there were no established Law against that particular sin yet Nature it self directed a severe Punishment And when the Pharisees pleaded their Vows to the Corban in bar to relief of their Parents which is a Law of Nature our Saviour pronounced such Vows null Bishop Taylor p. 296. proves That the Law of Nature cannot be dispensed with by any Humane Power 1. Because God is the Author of it 2. Because this Law of the preservation of the Common welfare is as necessary to the support of Societies as Nourishment is for the support of their Bodies 3. Because Natural Laws are the dictates of Natural Reason and no man hath power to alter Reason which is an Image of the Divine Wisdom and therefore unalterable As to the Law part the Act 11 Hen. 7. c. 1. says That it is not reasonable but against all Laws Reason and good Conscience that Subjects going in War with their Soveraign Lord for the time being should lose or forfeit any thing for doing their Duty and Service of Allegiance and it was Enacted That from thenceforth no Person attending on the King for the time being and doing him true and faithful Service of Allegiance in his Wars should in no wise be convict or attaint of High Treason nor of other Offence for that cause but to be for that Service utterly discharged of any vexation trouble or loss The Lord Bacon p. 144. of his History of Henry VII gives a Reason of this Law For that it was agreeable saith he to reason of State that the Subject should not enquire of the justness of the King's Title or Quarrel and it was agreeable to good Conscience that whatever the Fortune of the War were the Subject should not suffer for his Obedience The Spirit of this Law was wonderful Pious and Noble being like in matter of War to the Spirit of David in matter of Plague who said If I have sinned strike me but what have these Sheep done Neither wanted this Law parts of prudent and deep fore-sight for it did the better take away occasion for the People to busie themselves to prie into the King's Title for that however it fell their Safety was provided for Besides it could not but greatly draw unto him the love and hearts of the People because he seemed more careful for them than for himself The Lord Cook p. 7. in the Third Book of Institutes on the word Le Roy speaking of Treason says That the Act for Treason is to be understood of a King in possession of the Crown and Kingdom for if there be a King regnant in possession although he be Rex de facto only and not de Jure yet is he King within the purview of this Statute And the other that hath Right and is out of possession is not within this Statute And if Treason be committed against a King de facto and not de jure and after the King de jure cometh to the Crown he shall punish the Treason against the King de facto and a Pardon granted by the King de jure that is not also King de facto is void It is the Opinion of all Lawyers that in rebus dubiis melior est conditio possidentis Judge Hales gives the same sense of that Statute in his Remarks on the Pleas of the Crown Chapter of Treason Now both these were great Lawyers and wrote under such as were Kings de jure and in peaceable times The Argument then is this If Treason may be committed against a King in possession or de facto and not against the King de jure being out of the possession then I owe Allegiance to the King in possession and not to the King out of possession though King de jure The Rule of the Law is this I owe Allegiance to him that gives me Protection whether I live at home under a King de facto or live as a Stranger abroad under one that is a King de jure I owe Allegiance unto each while I am under their Protection for thus in Calvin's Case Seventh Book of Cook 's
Reports one Shirly a French-man and some Subjects of the King of Portugal having conspired with Lopez for the death of the Queen were Indicted for acting contra Legiantiae suae debitum against their due Allegiance and were found Guilty and Executed And this the Law calls a local Allegiance When Cities and Souldiers are taken in War they may to preserve their Lives swear to the Conqueror never to bear Arms against him by which Oath the condition of their former Prince is no way made worse for had they refused such an Oath they should have lost their Lives which by this means being preserved they may be in a condition to serve their Prince in any thing else but in fighting against him who spared his Lise Besides it is well known that many good and wholesome Laws were made by such as were Kings only de facto not de jure which are still in force with us as they were with the Subjects that lived in their several Reigns whence it follows that we owe and ought to yield Allegiance to the King de facto and observe his Laws and to Pray for him as King. On the Deposing of Richard the Second in a Provincial Synod in Canterbury under Henry the Fourth whose Title was only de facto it was decreed that Prayers should be made pro ipsius Regni salute as he had desired And Arundel then Arch-Bishop of Canterbury tells the King that the Clergy did pugnare precibus sacrificiis apud deum pro victoriis ei obtinendis Aethelwolfe Anno 854. was made King while his Elder Brother was living yet Elston and Swithon Bishops prayed solemnly for him So the Bishops prayed for Will. Rufus his elder Brother living St. Anselme also though banished by Henry the First did him Homage and prayed for him And although our five first Kings beginning at William the Conqueror came irregularly to the Crown The first by Conquest the second and third while their elder Brother lived the fourth reigned when his Predecessor had a Daughter living which was Maude the Empress the fifth while his Mother the right Heir was living yet were the stated Forms of Prayers still continued in the Ancient Missals respectively Nor can we well be excessive in our deference to those who under God have been the chief Instruments of the Common Safety for if the Law of Nature which obligeth every particular person to self-preservation and much more to the preservation of the Publick Welfare in which case we may vim in repellere be prior and paramont to any subsequent Law of a more private concern we of this Nation which were so near to destruction had all reason imaginable to secure our selves against such violent and illegal attempts as were made not only against our selves but against the whole Protestant interest throughout all Europe having such dreadful instances of Persecution in the neighbouring Nations of France and Piedmont for the Question is not whether we should chuse Sin rather than Affliction in which case the Apostle hath determined that we may not do evil that good may come of it but whether of two temporal evils the least is to be chosen or whether when we are left without a Governor we should set a Bramble over us to rent and tare our flesh or the healing Olive under whose branches we might set down in peace and security It is very observable what God says concerning Jehoiakim the wicked Son of a good Father Josiah Jer. 22.15 Shalt thou reign because thou closest thy self in Cedar did not thy Father eat and drink and do justice and judgment and then it was well with him But thine eyes and thy heart are not but for thy covetousness to shed innocent blood and for oppression and violence to do it therefore thus saith the Lord concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah King of Judah they shall not lament for him saying Ah Lord or Ah his Glory I shall therefore leave it to the serious consideration of my Brethren whether it be more eligible to pray for them in our Liturgy who have preserved us in the free use of it or for such as would have taken it from us and imposed the Mass book and Legends instead of that and the Scriptures by which we should have been reduced to this dilemma either we must obey to the violation of our Conscience or for our disobedience we and our Families must be utterly destroyed If yet upon consideration of what hath been here said and what our own judgments may add we are still in aequilibrio and do doubt to whom the Title of the Crown doth of right belong I doubt not but the Law of Charity to our selves our Families and love to the Protestant Religion may be of great weight to turn the Scales and warrant our resolution in a case so doubtful Bishop Sanderson Praelect 5. p. 176. puts this Question When any one takes the Government on him having by force driven out the lawful Prince or so streightned him that he cannot pursue his right which is invaded not on a doubtful right but by manifest wrong what shall a good Subject that hath sworn Allegiance to the oppressed Prince do in this Case His Answer is It seems to me that it is not only lawful for a good Subject to obey the Laws of the Prince in being and to do what he is commanded modo non sit factu turpe aut injustum if the thing be not in it self evil or unjust But also that if the condition of humane affairs require it there may be a necessity of obeying or he may be judged to fail of his duty and whereas he had said that Laws made by him that wanted lawful power did not bind in Conscience he answers that these things are not repugnant because though the Subject be bound to do what the Law requires yet he is not bound to that Law but to himself and his Country The Obligation is annexed to the Law that concerns himself and is truly a Law which he thus explains Seeing it is the duty of a pious and prudent man to consider not only what is lawful but what becomes him and may be expedient to others a good Subject may be bound to do that for the welfare of himself and fellow subjects to which by Law he is not bound which obligation ariseth from the duty he oweth to himself and to his Country that Wars and Rapines may be prevented and we may live peaceable under them without violating the Faith we owe to the rightful Heir But then he raiseth the Question Seeing no man can serve two Masters especially of contrary interest how can we please the one without displeasing the other His Answer is It may be presumed that the rightful Prince will consent because the Subject herein doth not so much serve the Possessor as the Common-wealth the safety whereof no less concerns the injured Prince than the present Possessor and probably more for as the
〈◊〉 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