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
rule by Day and the Moon by Night and one Star differeth from another Star in glory And when he made the first man he gave him dominion over all the works of his hands he was to rule his Wife and she to live in subjection to him and when he became a Father his Children were to yield him obedience And when the Families of the Earth were multiplied so that one Father or Family could not claim Authority over the rest and considering the great corruption of Nature it was impossible but Violence and Injustice would be practised Mankind saw a necessity of setting up one Common Father over many Families to suppress Violence redress Injuries and distribute Justice To this purpose Mr. Hooker l. 1. c. 10. Two Foundations there are which bear up Publick Societies the one a natural inclination whereby all men desire a sociable life and fellowship the other an order expresly or secretly agreed on touching the manner of their union in living together for if when there was but one Family in the World the means of instruction Humane and Divine could not prevent shedding of Blood how could it be but when Families were increased each providing for it self strife contention and violence must grow among them To take away such mutual Grievances Injuries and Wrongs there was no way but only by growing unto composition and agreement among themselves by ordaining some kind of Publick Government and by yielding themselves subject thereunto that to whom they granted Authority to Rule and Govern by them the Peace and Tranquility of the rest might be procured No man might in reason take upon him to determine his own right therefore strife and troubles would be endless except they gave their common consent to be ordered by some whom they agreed on without which consent there was no reason one man should take on him to be Lord or Judge over another and over a multitude of Families impossible it is that any one should have compleat power but by consent of men or immediate appointment of God. All publick regiment of what kind so ever seemeth evidently to have risen from deliberate advice consultation and composition between men judging it convenient and behoofful And the corruption of Nature presupposed the Law of Nature doth necessarily require some kind of regiment and men saw that to live by one man's will became the cause of all mens misery this constrained them to come to Laws wherein all men may fee their Duties and know the Penalties of transgnessing them And tho' wise and good men are fit to make Laws yet Laws take not their constraining power from those that make them but from the power which gives them the strength of Laws And by natural Law the lawful power of making Laws whereto all Societies are subject belongs so properly to those entire Societies that for any Prince or Potentate of what kind so ever to exercise the same of himself and not either by express Commission from God or Authority derived from their consent upon whose persons they impose Laws is no better than Tyranny Laws they are not which publick approbation hath not made So far judicious Hooker in as evident a manner as any demonstration in Euclid to which add that observation of Mr. Selden Selden de Jure Nat. l. 1. c. 8. p. 106. By permission of Nature it hath been granted that whatsoever hath been by men joyned in society limited forbidden or constituted that they are bound to keep who have so consented according to the Conditions and Qualifications with which it is prescribed even as many as have and as they have given their consent But whence is it they are so bound from the Authority of a Deity i. e. of man's Superior even in those things the rise of the obligation is derived and therefore from some heads of the obligation of the Law of Nature Lod. Vives on St. Aug. de Civitate Dei l. 4. c. 5 6. takes notice of the first words of Justin viz. That in the beginning the rule of Nations was in the hands of Kings whom not popular ambition but their moderate carriage approved by the good advanced to that height of Honor on which he gives this comment That the People elected those Kings to themselves to be Guides Governors and Overseers of the Publick Interest and they were not compelled to take such a one as hapned any way to them neither did Nobility or the seeking of a party carry it every man 's own private good with the good of the Publick was so dear and near to him that it made him to make choice of none but the best And it is observable from Livy and other Roman Historians that their five first Kings were chosen by the Senate and People and that Tarquinius Superbus was by them deposed Neque enim ad jus regni quicquam praeter vim habe bat ut qui neque populi jussu neque patribus autoribus regnavit to which that of Juvenal agreeth speaking of the People Satyr 10. Qui dabat olim Imperium fasces legiones omnia In our Nation when the Romans invaded the Land the People chose Cassibilane their King. On the death of Hardicanute the third Danish King they chose Edward the Confessor and on the death of William the Conqueror they chose William Rufus and of four that succeeded the Conqueror not one had the right by neerness of descent It is objected against this Opinion of Electing our Governors That the People having no power over their own lives cannot give that power to any other Answ It is not the People that confer this power but God who by his Law hath given this power to all supreme Magistrates That he that sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed The People are only a Medium of conveying this power of the Magistrate to a particular person God is the Author of the Magistrates power to which the punishment of Murtherers is annexed for the general Rule is That the Magistrate shall bear the Sword for the punishment of evil doers and Capital punishment is in some cases just the People only apply this general Rule and determine the power to be in such a particular person for the terror of evil doers so that though I being a private person have no power over my own or another man's life yet the Magistrate hath by the Institution of his Office from God. St. Paul Acts 25.11 says as much If I have done any thing worthy of death I refuse not to die The Ordinance of Government is from God and Nature but the Species of it whether by one or more is from Men and the Rule for administration is by mutual agreement of the Governor and those that are to be governed from whence probably that which by St. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God's Ordinance as to Government in general is by St. Peter 2.13 called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Humane Constitution as to the
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