Dissentions if every Subject should be permitted to dispute the lawfulness of such Commands as are enjoyned him not by his Prince alone but by the mature deliberation of his Council especially when as it is with us every one hath his vote in chusing those Counsellor that in our names consent to the Laws This were to do what is foretold by Solomon Prov. 20.25 After vows to make enquiry It is a pernicious Opinion that hath infected too many of this Age That though we do not actively obey the Princes Commands yet if we submit to the Penalty the Law is satisfied and we are free from guilt In answer to which I say 1. That Obedience is more than Non-resistance it must be active and cheerful as in paying Tribute and Custom so in other parts of obedience to go and come and do what is commanded 2. Suffering or paying the penaltie is not the chief intention of the Law but the duty of Obedience without which the ends of Government will be frustrated viz. Peace and good Order 3. The Law of God enjoyns us to obey the Laws of men that are not contrary to his Law Now though we satisfie the Law of our Country by bearing the penalty yet the Law of God is not thereby satisfied that Law requires Repentance and Amendment i. e. that we do so no more As in that instance of frequenting Divine Service we do not think a Papist hath satisfied the Law when he pays Twelve pence neither indeed do others For it is Gods Law that is broken who commands us not to forsake the publick Assemblies and to obey them that have the rule over us For we are to obey for Conscience sake i. e. because of the obligation which the Command of God hath laid upon us And when the Magistrate calls for our obedience in this or that particular which is not against Gods Word God commands our obedience to him he having Gods Authority in such cases and to disobey is not onely to disobey man but God Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake and for Conscience sake and the penalty of disobedience is damnation So that it is an Atheistical Suggestion that Rulers and Tyrants did first invent Religion to keep men in awe For although no other Terrours are sufficient to keep men in obedience but those of Hell and eternal Damnation because men may carry on their mischievous designs so secretly or with such a high hand as to escape punishment in this life yet it is not man but God that requireth obedience even to humane Laws under the Severest Sanctions of Eternal Death .. Object But what if the thing commanded be not good then we owe no Obedience for the Magistrate is no longer Gods Minister than he commands for God When he commands against God he commands without Authority and so we may disobey him without sin Answ There are but two Rules whereby we are to judge whether the Commands of our Superiours are good or not The first is the Law of God and when we make that our Rule we must be as sure that the Word of God condemns what the Magistrates command as we are sure that God commands us to obey our Magistrate And in all reason we should chuse what is our most plain and indispensable duty before that which is doubtful especially when the penalty of not obeying is no less than Damnation for that is the wages of sin or disobedience to Gods Law 2. A second Rule is the Laws of men which do bind the Conscience when the Command is not contrary to Gods Word So that the Case to be resolved is onely this What we must do when the Magistrate commands things which we judge not expedient In which case considering especially our circumstances the Laws established being such as we our selves have consented to it is too late for us to dispute the inexpediency of them for so there can never be an establishment it being impossible to make such Laws as may not be excepted against by some especially such as transgress the Laws In such cases therefore the Magistrate not the Subject is to expound the Law It is sufficient that the Laws have a tendencie to the publick and more general good though some private men may suffer in the Execution of them And when resisting those Laws which are made will do more hurt than good we ought to obey them though we suffer unjustly in so doing As Dr. Sanderson gives an instance in Souldiers who for their Cowardise or some other crime are adjudged to be punished in a way of Decimation i. e. every tenth man now although some of those that suffer may be guiltless and valiant men yet the private inconvenience must be endured rather than a publick mischief should be tolerated Of this the Learned Casuist speaks so largely and satisfactorily that I shall refer my Reader to his last Praelection p. 356. De Obligatione Conscientiae When we are commanded to do what we apprehend not to be for our good we must have a double consideration First to the person commanding who is Gods Minister and therefore may not be resisted though in the second place he abuse his power in commanding what is not good or lawful For if in this case we resist we usurp the Power and invade and destroy the Order and Government that God hath set over us If we might resist when we apprehend that we are commanded things against our Religion our Laws or Liberties then there could be no such thing as Rebellion and then there would not long be any such thing as Religion Libertie or Government in the world Doubtless the Apostle was sensible what kind of Governours were in Rome when he wrote his Epistle namely such as commanded for the most part things that were impious yet we read not of any resistance and doubtless those Primitive Christians best knew the Apostles mind and practised accordingly THE REASONS For not resisting Wicked Princes BEcause 1. He is Gods Minister For the Lords sake we must submit saith St. Peter and for Conscience sake i. e. for the Obligation that God hath laid upon us as he is Gods Minister This swayed with David He was the Lords Anointed and therefore he could not lift up a hand against him nor would St. Paul speak evil of any of the Rulers of the People For to speak evil of them is accounted as Blasphemy and Disobedience is as Sacriledge And as St. Paul A resisting of the Ordinance of God Obj. As he is Gods Minister for good we are ready to obey him but when he commands what is evil he is no longer Gods Minister but the Devils and we ought not to obey him Ans He is Gods Minister still as to his Office though in respect of the abuse of it by unrighteous Actions he do the work of the Devil And many times God placeth cruel and unrighteous Kings as a just Judgment over an unrighteous people
for well-doing and take it patiently this is acceptable with God 1 Pet. 2.20 And if it be the Will of God if shall be so we must learn of David though in another case Psal 39.8 I was dumb and opened not my mouth for it was thy doing P. 5. You seem not satisfied with Hippocrates Receipt of Citò longè tardè which preserved many Confessors in the days of Queen Mary and is prescribed by a greater than Hippocrates in this very case If they persecute you in one City flee to another Matth. 10.23 You are for Fires and Fumes of Pitch and Tar c. for Imprisonment and close Confinement even of innocent persons The Papists indeed apply such Causticks in cases of Heresie Apostacy and Tyranny but I never read that the Primitive Christians used them against their Princes not against Dioclesian a Tyrant Constantius an Arian or Julian an Apostate Nay even the Doctors of Rome forbid such Medicines even in the case of Tyranny without which the other two may not much hurt a sound Christian till the Disease be universalis manifesta cum obstinatione i. e. till after they find all other means ineffectual and he is resolved to make a total overthrow of his People Concerning which we are yet in the dark as to our own Case and you give us some light to comfort us when you say p. 65. of Julian's Persecution That it was but a flea-biting a short and weak assault of the Devil and that he was rather a Tempter than a Persecutor which makes their behaviour towards him if it were so barbarous as you represent it the less excusable Until a Plague be epidemical and wasting it is not charitable nor just to confine suspected persons much less them that are sound and to deal with them as persons destined to destruction to bury them alive and to make their own Relations instruments of these severities who may justly fear the like are intended for themselves Though some intend onely to lop off a degenerate Branch yet having got the Ax in their hand others may make use of it to strike a blow at the Root and to answer your Parenthesis plain English is as well understood on this side Trent as the other so that there is more fear lest we should lose a Protestant King as we have once already than a Popish Successor for though such an one may be deprecated as a Judgment and may prove as a Plague to the Nation yet may we not presently cut Throats to prevent what may never come or if it should make use of a Remedy worse than the Disease for Rebellion is as the sin of Witchcraft 1 Sam. 15.23 That Remedy which you suppose may be effectual to prevent this mischief will prove to be of that nature which is a Compound of belying the Primitive Christians and betraying Modern ones into a sin of Rebellion which may do more hurt as Experience hath shewn us than all the Arts and Witchcrafts of Julian In writing of whose Life you have not I confess impoverished the Subject p. 6. for you have onely weeded it as Mr. Baxter hath done the Ecclesiastical History in his Profane one of the Bishops and Councils P. 7. You say you wrote this discourse onely to render that of Julian 's Succession intelligible It is a strange course you take to make his Succession intelligible which you your self confess was from God by a legal descent and most agreeable to the Laws of the Roman Empire and yet seek to overthrow it you had done more to your purpose if you had shewn what party of Christians they were and on what grounds of Religion or Law they went what Sedition or Armies the Christians had raised to oppose his Succession of all which you give us not the least notice you onely suppose that if Constantius had known Julian's Religion before he was Emperour he would have gotten a Bill of Exclusion or if not the Christians would have resisted him And from their behaviour towards him after he was Emperour which is scandalously represented as is also the carriage of former Christians you would reconcile the Christian Religion and Rebellion This you have done intelligibly enough but that the Christians did or would have resisted his Succession I find no shew of Argument or Historie onely you give us some Rhetorical expressions out of St. Cyril's Invectives from which you infer more than the Premises will bear And you do not report as it becomes an Historian but onely suggest adde and invent what may insnare your Readers I ingenuously confess I do not believe all that St. Cyril speaks in praise of Constantius nor against Julian Panegyricks and Stelliteuticks have not the authoritie of true Histories with discerning men P. 7. You say your business is to shew how wide a difference there was betwixt the Case of Christians in Julian 's time and that of the first Christians and make it as great as Laws for men and against men could possibly make it yet you confess that what you have written is contrary to what is commonly reported of them and to the carriage of former Christians It is then some such New Light as Jo. Goodwin's Doctrine of Resistance that is your Guide but you take no notice of the unalterable Laws of God which bind all men in all Ages to be subject to the Higher Powers without distinction not onely for fear of Wrath but for Conscience sake There are few men that intend a Rebellion but will pretend to have the Laws on their side and if they may be Judges in their own Case will as certainly condemn the Legislator as dispute his Laws It were well if you would keep close to your Principle That the Laws of your Country are the Measures of your civil Obedience I am sure you want none to require your active Obedience to the just Laws of your Prince nor your passive Obedience if at any time you suffer wrongfully And this is not injoyn'd by Mahomet but by Christ himself it is the Doctrine of the Cross and not of the Bow-string The violation of the Law on the Princes side doth not discharge the Obligation of the Subjects they are under a higher Law than that of the Land The chief Magistrate's obliging himself to certain Rules for administration of his Government is not the just Measure or chiefest Tye of the Subjects Obedience The eternal Laws of God and our Saviour that require Obedience and Submission even to wicked Princes and that for Conscience sake and threatning Resistance with Damnation is a safer Rule for the saving of our Souls though not for the preservation of our Lives and Estates When St. Peter drew a Sword to defend his Master in a way of resisting and revenging him against the Officers of a lawful Magistrate he was commanded to put up his Sword and threatned that they that use the Sword should perish by the Sword Matth. 26.52 And when some other Disciples
Books Libels or Writings whatsoever as they tender her Majesties good favour will avoid her high displeasure and as they will answer the contrary at their uttermost perils and upon such pains and penalties as by the Law any way may be inflicted upon the offenders in any of these behalfs as persons maintaining such seditious actions which her Majesty mindeth to have severely executed And if any person have had knowledge of the Authors Writers Printers or Dispersers thereof which shall within one month after the publication hereof discover the same to the Ordinary of the place where he had such knowledg or to any of her Majesties Privy Council the same person shall not for his former concealment be hereafter molested or troubled Given at her Majesties Palace at Westminster the thirteenth of February 1588. In the One and thirtieth year of her Highness Reign God Save the Queen Imprinted at London by the Deputies of Christopher Barker Printer to the Queens most Excellent Majesty 1588. Now either our Authors knew these things or no if not they may give me thanks for minding them of these Laws some of which are still in force which ought to bind up their hands from the like practices lest they meet with the like punishment Sure I am they are obliged in Conscience if not in Interest timely to beg pardon and make their Recantations as publick as their Crimes But if they did know these things and yet act so considently and industriously against them Miror admodum ut quorum facta imitantur eorum exitus non pertimescunt Certainly these men think themselves in some Vtopian Commonwealth ubi sentire quoe velis quoe sentias loqui licet where they think according to their own lusts and talk as lavishly as they think In magna fortunâ minima licentia Every action of our Superiours every word yea the very thoughts and intentions of their hearts are arraigned censured and condemned as if they onely were to be accountable But as for the Mobile Nos numerus summus magno dominamur Atridi The confidence of their numbers makes them confident of impunity and the Priviledges of the People far exceed the Prerogative of the Prince Quidvis impune facere hoc Regium est Though other Restraints have proved ineffectual all the wholsome Laws of the Land all the sad experiences of the national plagues of the Sword Fire and Pestilence which have fallen or rather have been drawn down on our own heads by our Ingratitude and Rebellion against God and our Superiours have been baffled yet those stronger ties of Gods Commandments so plainly so frequently and under such intolerable penalties bound upon our very Souls and Consciences should yet constrain us to live more piously and peaceably than hitherto we have done Or at least the Mercies of God who saved and redeemed us with an out-stretched Arm and hath set over us the meekest and most merciful Prince on the Earth His patience and long-suffering towards us after so long and heinous provocations his defeating the hellish Plots of our Adversaries who unweariedly watch for an opportunitie to devour us should at last lead us to Repentance and cause us to consider and do in this our day the things that belong to our peace before they are hid from our eyes Against the Sophistrie of such unreasonable men for Resistance I shall oppose the Doctrine of the Apostle for Obedience and Subjection which he delivers Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers For there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation v. 5. Wherefore we must needs be subject not onely for wrath but also for conscience sake OF OBEDIENCE ACTIVE PASSIVE Due to our SUPERIOURS THose few directions of the Apostle Rom. 13.1 2 c. are so full and plain that there needs no Comment on them if men were not resolved against their dutie and employed their wits to palliate their sins and destroy their Souls For from that Text we are taught 1. That all lawful Government the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is from God The powers that be are ordained of God 2. That God often gives this Power to wicked men The Powers that were in being when the Apostles wrote were such as Nero and Claudius Heathen Persecutors 3. That in every Government there is a Supream or higher Power that judgeth all and can be judged of none for without such a Power no Government can subsist 4. That such Powers must be cheerfully obeyed in all things not contrary to the Will of God paying them Custom Tribute Honour and Fear as to Gods Ministers 5. That in things contrarie to the Will of God as we ought not to obey so we ought not to resist 6. That the penaltie of Resistance is the Wrath of God eternal Damnation 7. That we are obliged as well not to resist in things contrarie to God's Will as cheerfully to obey in things agreeable thereunto for conscience sake that is in consideration of the Command of God which layeth an Obligation on our Conscience 1. That all Government is originally from God This seems to be granted by our Author and therefore I shall say the less concerning it Mr. Hunt also asserting p. 38. that it is impossible any thing can be of mans appointment which is of Gods ordination There can be no such thing as a Co-legislative power of men with their Maker Government therefore says he is of God but the Specification thereof is of men and the best definition that can be made of Government is in the words of both the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is Gods Ordinance but a Humane Creature Wherein he contradicts himself as it were even in the same breath having said immediately before It is impossible any thing can be of mans appointment which is of Gods ordination understanding it as he doth not of the Species but of the Original Right and Authoritie of Government For p. 36. he demands Where is the Charter of Kings from God Almighty to be found for nothing but the declared Will of God can warrant us to give up the Rights and Liberties of the people If they are lawful I am sure it is villanie to betray them Here you plainly see the people are encouraged to resist their Prince on pretence of defending their Rights and Liberties or else they are declared Villains and Traitors But let us examine the ground of this Assertion He quotes 1 Pet. 2.13 Where he says the Apostle stiles Kings as well as Governours under them the Ordinance of man which cannot have any other sence but that men make them and give them their power and therefore says he when the Apostle calls the power of Government Gods Ordinance it is because in general God approves of Governments as if there were any Governours which were advanced
endure wicked Princes as we do Inundations or Scarcitie which are of Gods sending These you say p. 20. are full and pregnant proofs and I think ad hominem cogent for if as you observe from Eusebius the Empire was to descend as other Paternal Inheritances then it must be more unlawful to resist or exclude a Prince from enjoying his Inheritance than any private person And then surely no sound Christian could have joyned in an Address to Constantius to exclude a person appointed as it were by the Voice of God as you say of Constantine that he was declared absolute Emperour by the 〈◊〉 and long before that by God himself the great King of all p. 21. And St. Augustine says the same viz. God that gave the Empire to Constantine gave it to Julian Onely by the way I do not think that your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither will in the sence of the Greek Fathers bear your interpretation of the Law of Nature for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used by Greek Authors for Custom And I believe that Father whom you mention intended no more than a Right of Succession for two or three Generations which carried the name of a Law as it doth also in our Common Law where Consuetudo Lex est And it is well known that when the Heirs of the Emperors have been living the Roman Souldiers have created their Emperours out of Obscure Families but these are no Patterns for us Christians to follow nor for us in this Nation above others For William the Conqueror claimed the Crown not so much by his Sword as by Right of Succession if you will believe the Author of that Fanatical book called The Rights of the Kingdom to King Edward whose Kinsman he was and his Heir by Will as appears by the Laws of St. Edward and William p. 197. So that in this respect the Descent of the Crown of England is much more firm and established than that of the Empire having been continued through more Generations and confirmed by many Laws which whoever shall infringe takes off the Government from its Hinges and leaves all to Confusion For when a private Estate is intailed on a man and his Heirs it is necessary that to bar the Heir and alienate the Estate the original Intail must be cut off and then he that is in possession may dispose of the Inheritance to one or more And perhaps this was the intent of the Bill for Exclusion to make it an Act for the Dissolution of Monarchy and reduce us to a Commonwealth again And it were better we should suffer some Inconveniencies if the Will of God be so which yet are uncertain than against the Will of God to do things unjust and draw more certain troubles on our own heads For in the Contest between the Houses of York and Lancaster when the first alway pleaded the Right of Descent the other alleadged the Acts of Parliaments there were infinite troubles which cost the lives of above 200000 men whereof eight were Kings and Princes forty Dukes Marquesses and Earls besides Barons and Gentlemen and after all the Kingdom fixed on this Maxime Jus Sanguinis nullo Jure dirimi possit i. e. The Right of Bloud cannot be abrogated by any Law And the Author of the Rights of the Kingdom says that in the days of Henry the Third and Richard the First when was a motion of some great men that a Bastard might inherit the Parliament at Merton cried out Nolumus leges Angliae mutare p. 264. Therefore I wonder that the same Author p. 98. making a Supposition That if any one man of all the Commons in Parliament should usurp the Crown with all its dues He mentions not the whole House for that hath been done already What should I what may I do saith he and answers Nothing but mind my Calling and attend the Judgment of the highest Court that I know that may command my Body and Judgement much It is a Maxime in our Law That the King never dies The King and his Heirs are looked on in the eye of the Law as an Individual and to prevent Tumults and Disputes they are joyned in most of those Acts that concern the Dignity of the Crown and publick Peace and the Son hath sometime been Crowned in his Fathers life-time Yet we plead not Providence in the long continuance of the Succession nor the Law of the Land upon which for other matters you lay the stress of your whole Discourse but upon the Law of God Deut. 17.8 where it was ordained as a Statute of Judgment i. e. say Fagius and Munster a firm and immutable Law and as the Vulgar Sanctum Lege perpetua That IF A MAN DYE WITHOVT CHILDREN THE INHERITANCE MVST BE GIVEN TO HIS BRETHREN And Ainsworth from Solomon Jarchi says The Brother of him that was dead or his Brothers seed shall inherit All this hath been observed by the Law of Nations where Kingdoms are hereditary That as it is unjust so it hath been always unhappie to alter the Succession and even in private estates the disinheriting the right Heir hath been very much condemned and unfortunate And yet p. 22. you say the Fathers had the Conscience to set aside such a Title They could not do it with a good Conscience the thing being in it self evil for as the Law of God forbids to countenance a poor man in his Cause so doth it also to defraud the rich or follow a multitude to do evil neither to speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment None of us would judge it reasonable to be deprived of his right contrary to Law and why then should we think it lawful to deprive another of that right to which we owe the preservation of our own Athenagoras more clearly shews what was the consent of the Fathers in this case We pray for your Empire and that the Son as it is just may succeed in his Fathers Throne And yet they both were Pagans But what would the Consent of Fathers and the sense of the primitive Christians signifie against the Decree and Laws of Heaven who cannot more plainly declare his will to us than by the voice of Nature by his written Word by pointing out as by his finger in his Providence in making Heirs to Kingdoms as well as other Estates by a long and legal discent and as St. Augustine said God that gave the Empire to good Constantine gave it also to Julian So Tertullian Inde est Imperator unde Homo antequam Imperator And Irenoeus By whose command they were born Men by his they are ordained Kings And yet all this Crack of the Fathers and Primitive Christians and p. 31. the whole Christian world produceth nothing but a flash of Rhetorick from an Invective in Gregory Nazianzen against Julian from which if we appeal to the same Author in a more temperate and Christian Zeal when he delivered himself
are and not else Now I humbly conceive seeing the Writ De Haeretico comburendo is taken away in time and the Laws protect us in our Religion it is a needless thing to go to Smithfield and there be burnt for an Heretick It is better if it pleased God that we should die as Hereticks if with St. Paul we truly worship God in a way that is so called than to go to Tyburn and be hanged as Traitors and Regicides For though that Law be taken away yet the Law of God stands firm which enjoyns us to submit our selves not onely for fear but for Conscience sake and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Peter in the case of our submission for Conscience sake as well as for fear of wrath is determined by St. Paul with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye must needs be subject P. 77. And so far it is fit to inform the Popish Crew lest they should be mistaken in the good Protestant Religion of our good Church as Coleman calls it I pray let them not be informed that we obey more for fear than for Conscience sake No nor that we are afraid to dye for our Religion of God call us to do it As to your Parenthesis that we have no apprehension of persecution from any other quarter I tell you we have felt a greater persecution in our Age from Geneva than from Rome and if the one have since the Reformation in this Nation killed a thousand the other have slain ten thousand Your next Reflection is on the Pulpit-law as you say the Lord Faulkland called it of Sibthorp and Manwaring and complained it had almost ruined the Nation That noble Lord was indeed a great lover of his Religion and Country and therefore was an enemy to Arbitrary Government But when he perceived that the outcry against Arbitrarie power in the King was made with a designe to grasp it into other mens hands and they began to exercise it not onely on the Gentry Clergie and Nobility of the Land but the Royal Family also he repented and so faithfully adhered to the King in defence of his Authority that he lost his life in the Quarrel It was the Pulpit-law in 41. and 42. that destroyed us and brought in Arbitrary Power But how near doth our Author come to put a border of Treason on his impolitick discourse p. 78. where he says The Arbitrary Doctrine of those times to which both he and Mr. Hunt impute the beginning of the Late War did not bring any great terrour with it it was then but a Rake and served onely to scrape up a little paltrie passive money But now it is become a Murdering-piece loaden with I know not how many bullets Who are they I wonder that preach up such an Arbitrarie Power or who are they that make such a Murdering-piece of it Is it not rather a Fiction of some men who would find a pretence for a second War For if as Mr. Hunt says p. 52. That the Panick fear of a change of the Government that this Doctrine to wit of Arbitrary Power before 41. occasioned and the Divisions it made among us was the principal cause of the Late War is it not evident that the same fears are now made Panick or Popular to prepare the hearts of the People for another War What else mean the bleatings of the Sheep and the lowing of Oxen the Vulgar Murmurs and loud Cries of the Multitude as if it were intended we should be ruled by a Standing Armie and That his Majesties Guards are a grievance That the dissolution of a Parliament gave us cause to fear that the King had no more business for Parliaments Hunt p. 22. and p. 60. of our Author That Parliaments should sit till they have done that for which they were called i. e. says our Author in his Marginal Note till all Grievances are redressed and Petitions answered And then for ought I know they might sit for ever and so no more need of a King What means the denying him a Supply when Tangier was like to be lost and not onely with-holding their own but denying him to dispose of his Credit or Revenues for his just occasions What mean our new Associations and Bandying into Parties and advice even to the Clergie not to suspend all the legal securitie they have upon the life of our present King Hunt p. 49. All these strongly argue that they have a suspition of Arbitrary Power and that by our Author's confession was in 41 and therefore may be suspected to be made use of now as an incitement to Rebellion And though our Author p. 78. confesseth That the malignitie of this Doctrine cannot be discovered under his Majesties gracious Reign yet he thinks fit to put him in mind of the Securitie he hath given the Nation by his Coronation-Oath which all Protestant Princes value look upon as Sacred and likewise of many gracious Promises that he will govern according to Law All this caution argueth more than Suspition it looks like an Accasation though I know no defect but the neglect of executing the Laws against Transgressors But if it do not fall out in his Majesties Reign it will appear in its colours and we may feel the sting of it if it please God so sharply to punish us for our sins as to let us fall under a Popish Successour p. 78 79. We have I confess deserved such a punishment for kicking against our Protestant Princes but by the blessing of God we may not have such a One For who shall be King or Queen of this Realm of England hereafter you tell us none but God himself knows p. 21. of the Preface But you tell us of another may be the Successor may be a Papist and then he may persecute but he may not be or if he be so yet I have proved he may not persecute and our Author hath granted p. 75. That it can never happen but by our own Treacherie c. Such a formidable Persecution as you suggest is a thing impracticable and morally impossible it hath never yet been acted by any Prince Papist or Heathen the Marian Tempest did not so destroy Protestants though it had been but newly planted but in Queen Elizabeth's Reign it grew up again and covered the Land in a few days Now to disturb our Peace and Settlement with two such may be 's as are more likely may not be to suppose such things as are morally impossible is unreasonable and to fear where no fear is saith Mr. Hunt p. 250. But such suppositions as our Author makes ought not at all to be supposed for there is greater hurt to be feared from them as Mr. Faukner says p. 545. of his Christian Loyaltie than from the thing supposed since it is much more likely that such designes should be imagined and believed to be true when they are false as they were in the unjust Outcries against our late gracious Soveraign than that they
whose Authoritie alone the Laws are executed for it is he that beareth the Sword And Plutarch says of him that he doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not onely govern according to the Laws but hath a power above them He hath so indeed for the good of his Subjects to whom the rigorous execution of the Laws in many cases would be an insupportable burden if by the Kings Authoritie they might not be moderated and interpreted by Rules of Equitie against which our Dissenters have the least reason of any men alive to object And if we grant him this power for our good how can we deny it to him for his own That Learned Casuist Bishop Sanderson whose modesty in other Resolutions is eminent in resolving this Question Whether it be lawful for the Prince in cases extraordinary to do any thing besides or against Law undertakes to prove the Affirmative with an extraordinary confidence and which is more to prove it by that abused Maxime which some would invert against the King Salus Populi Suprema Lex That the Peoples Safetie is the highest Law And if I prove not this as your selves shall confess from that very Maxime saith he then say that I cannot see at noon-day and censure me to have been not a Defender of this good Cause but a Betrayer and Praevaricator Which thus he doth First he tells us the Original of that Sentence viz. from Cicero de Legibus in these words l. 3. Regio Imperio duo sunto iique praeeundo judicando consulendo Praetores Judices Consules appellantur Militiae Summum Jus habento nemini parento Ollis Salus Populi Suprema Lex esto Now to whom doth this power belong to them says the very Letter of those Laws to whom the Imperial power was committed that is to the two Consuls for the time being Come now says the Bishop all you that are the Patrons of Popular confidence read weigh and examine every Word Syllable and Comma and shew where you can find the least hint of any power granted to Subjects against their Princes will either to judge concerning the safety of the people or to determine and do any thing against the Laws Doth not the whole series both of Things and Words loudly proclaim that the Supream Authoritie which is above all Law and that the care of the Publick safetie properly belongs to him alone to whom the Imperial power the right of the Militia and that Supream Authoritie which is subject to none is granted When the Law commands one thing says Aeneas Sylvius de Ortu Imperii c. 20. and Equity another it is fit the Emperour should temper the rigour of the Law with the bridle of Equity Seeing no Decree of the Law though made by never so deliberate advice can sufficiently answer the various and unthought-of plottings of mans nature and it is manifest that the Laws which aforetime were just in after-times may prove unjust harsh and unprofitable to moderate which it is needful that the Prince who is Lord of the Laws interpose his Authority And where it is said that a Law though it be severe should be observed this respects inseriour Magistrates not the Emperour to whom the power of moderating the Laws is so connexed that by no decrees of man it can be pull'd from him Bishop Sanderson gives a pertinent instance to this purpose in his Book de Oblig Consc p. 384. That when upon discovery of the Gunpowder-plot the Traitors fled some of them were pursued by the High Sheriff of Worcester-shire who having hunted them from place to place came to the Confines of his Countie beyond which he was not to pass with his Souldiers by the Law yet fearing that they might otherwise escape he pursues them into another County takes them and brings them Prisoners Yet knowing he had transgressed the Law and lest others in matters of less moment should be encouraged to do the like or himself be exposed to future trouble he presently goes to the King and obtains his Pardon What excellent Chymists were they who out of those golden Laws should draw out so many Swords and Axes against their Soveraign and Fellow-subjects on such a vile pretence And is not our young Empyrick neer of kin to them who by his Mountebank-Receipts would poyson the People with a conceit that they may by the Laws arm themselves against the King if they shall judge that he doth transgress those Laws that then he is no longer a Minister of God but of the Devil and may be persecuted as a Midnight-Thief or Highway-Robber or in the words of Gregory as a common Cut-throat pag. 25. And that he is hardly to be blamed who shews himself so courageous for God and for that Religion which he approves as to assassinate his Prince To conclude it is the judgement both of Divines Civilians and States-men that there must be in Kings and Governours a Supream Power to mitigate the rigour of the Laws and to suspend the execution of them to pardon some Delinquents and in case of necessity to provide for the safety of the People besides and against the Laws and that to arm the People and teach them on pretence of the Law to resist their Prince is a pernicious Tenet destructive to Government It is Criminal saith Mr. Hunt p. 41. and no less dangerous to the being of any Polity to restrain the Legislative Authority and to entertain principles that disable it to provide remedy against the greatest mischiefs that can happen to any Community No Government can support it self without an unlimited Power in providing for the happiness of the people No civil Establishment but is controlable and alterable to the Publick Weal Whatever is not of Divine Institution ought to yield and submit to this Power and Authority And this is all that I or any of my Brethren that I know of ever intended to say of the extent of the Kings Power That such distempers as are incurable by common and prescribed Remedies such as the Kings Evil usually is must have extraordinary applications such as the Kings hand and none but his may successfully administer Nor doth any among us plead that the King is above the Directive power of the Laws but onely that he is not under the Coercive power of them For which cause Antonie would not permit that Herod should be called to an account of what he did as a King for then he should in effect be no King at all for what power can judge him who is the Supreme power on Earth The Emperour saith Tertull. is solo Deo minor inferiour to God onely and under the power of God onely In cujus solius potestate sunt à quo sunt secundi post quem primi And St. Ambrose spreaking of David applieth it to other Kings He was a King and obnoxious to no humane Laws because Kings are free from punishment for their offences being secured by the power of their Empire If the People have power to