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
simply made yet it doth Subjacere civili Intellectui as Jer. 18.7 8. where God speaks conditionally of plucking up and destroying a Nation If that Nation turn from their evil ways I will repent of the evil c. The Conditions may exclude the event and the Oath remain good So that if the Prince to whom we swear do wholly pervert the end of the Oath and require us to act contrary to the ends for which we sware we are not obliged to obey him contrary to our Oaths These things premised will lead to a full understanding of the Declaration required in the Act for Uniformity viz. I do declare that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King c. i. e. This is only a declaration of a Man's private Judgement according to the best information which he hath at present nor can any man suppose that the position which is indefinite can reach to every Kingdom and therefore may be false as to such Kingdoms viz. that of Poland where in some cases Resistance is permitted and in our Nation where the Laws are made the measure of the King's power because as Baldus Confil 1.245 says Clausula deplentitudine potestatis semper intelligenda est de potestate bona Laudabili 2ly It may be dubious or rather out of doubt because it is possible for a King exuere Regis personam as in case of Resignation Desertion or great Distraction such as the late King of Portugal who in his Madness slew divers Subjects and in such cases Nature dictates that we may vim virepellere as David defended himself against Saul And the Deposing of the King of Portugal was approved as by other Nations so by the English particularly So that this Declaration though in general terms may admit of exception as other such Declarations do as when I declare according to the fourth Commandment That it is not lawful to do any manner of work on the Sabbath-day yet Periculum vitâ tollit Sabbatum and such cases of necessity may happen as may make some kind of Work lawful to be done on that day And it is a good Rule in Law and Equity that Omnia dicta quantum vis universalia equitatem admittunt interpretem So when I declare according to the Apostle That Children ought to obey their Parents in all things the exception against things sinful is understood And if a King in his Lunacy committing several acts for the Destruction of his innocent Subjects may be restrained so may such a Prince Qui Sobrius ad evertendam rempublicam accedit If our Promise confirmed by Oath be grounded on a condition whereto it related that condition not being performed makes the Promise void L. 2. c. 13. n. 16. Gr. de J. Belli Or if the quality of the person cease the Oath sworn to that person in relation to his quality doth cease also L. 2. c. 13. n 18. Every Contract though sworn is to be understood with this reserved condition That matters continue in the same state but not if they be changed A wise Man saith Seneca changeth not his Resolution all things continuing as they were at the time that he made it nor can he be said to repent because at that time no better Counsel could be followed than that he resolved on L. 2. c. 16. n. 27. Eadem mihi omnia praesta idem sum 3ly Nor can a man declare it to be a traiterous position in some cases though he himself do abhor it in other cases to take up Arms by the King's authority against his person or against those that are commissioned by him because such Commissions may be granted to persons that by Law are disabled to take such Commissions or the Commissions may be forged as in the late Irish Rebellion or they may be extorted from the King being under the power of his Enemies and in fear of his life such was the case of Edward the 5th when Richard Duke of Glocester seized on his Person raising a War and granting Commissions in the King's Name Suppose that his Mother Queen Elizabeth who had then the Broad Seal brought to her by the then Arch-bishop of York had raised another Army to free the King from the Usurper's power could this either justifie the Duke and his Party or condemn the Queen and her Adherents And what hath happened may happen again As in the Case of Ireland where Commissions are granted to Papists who are unqualified Query Whether it may not be lawful for the Protestants of that Nation to defend by Arms such as by those Commissions assault them for the destruction of their Religion Laws and Liberties So that notwithstanding this Declaration if there be Laws and Oaths and certain contingent Cases whereof the Subject that makes the Declaration is ignorant which do allow a defence of the Crown Religion Laws and Liberties such defence may be lawful notwithstanding the Declaration as in case it should happen that the King wholly deserts and renounceth the Government Which leads me to answer your Sixth Query Whether it being granted that the King 's being studiously bent on the Alteration and Subversion of the Government established in Church and State do amount to a Renunciation of the Government After that Grotius had urged all the Arguments he thought of for Non-resistance he thought fit to admonish his Reader of something lest he should think that he had offended against that Law of Non-resistance when indeed he had not and the Admonitions are these First Such persons as are under compact with the People if they offend against the Laws may be restrained by force And if a King abjure his Kingdom and desert it all things are lawful against him as against a private person for which he quotes Barclay who was the greatest assertor of Monarchy who says If a King alienate his Kingdom or subjects it to another he loseth it Grotius his words are Si Rex reipsà tradere regnum aut subjicere moliatur quin ei resisti in hoc possit non dubito nam aliud est perium aliud habendi modus qui ne mutetur obstare potest populus id enim sub imperio comprehensum non est Seneca l. 3. Controvers Et si parendum in omnibus patri in eo non parendum in quo efficitur ut non sit pater And Barclay says A Kingdom may be lost if a King be carried on to the destruction of the People Consistere enim non potest voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi Again If the King have one part of the Empire and the People another the King attempting to destroy the Peoples right a just force may be opposed and this saith he I think to have place although it be affirmed that the power of War or Militia is in the King for that is to be understood of foreign War for he that hath right hath power to defend that right Grotius on Hester 8.11 concerning 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
one as is a Minister for the publick Good only For a right understanding of those Scriptures of the New Testament which speak of Obedience to Magistrates as Matth. 22.21 Rom. 13.1 1 Peter 2.13 We are to consider the occasions of inditing them that of our Saviour was occasioned by such as accused him for any Enemy to Caesar that he would make himself a King and sought by this question to insnare him which our Saviour perceiving he only demands to see a piece of the Money with which they traded and finding Caesar's Image on it conceived him to be the Magistrate then in power commands to give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's Moreover the Jews having from the beginning been governed by one of their Nation and as they boasted never in Subjection to any other thought it an Usurpation in any to exercise Dominion over them which made the Roman Power very jealous of them there being at that time great expectation of a Prince that should Govern the World and the frequent Seditions and Rebellions of that Nation against their own and the Roman Magistrates increased these Jealousies Judas of Galilee having made a great Insurrection and the Christians being called Galileans were thought to be of the same Spirit And as for the Gentiles that were converted to Christianity to which they were invited partly by the Priviledges of their Christian Liberty that they should not be the Servants of Men and partly by the Apostles Prohibition of going to Law before Unbelievers some weak and others licentious as the Gnostiks would acknowledge no Magistrates and as St. Chrysostome observes some of the Galileans would rather die than pay Tribute to the Romans St. Chrysostome hath divers observations on this 13 Romans very considerable first he stops the mouths of such as did object that the Apostle did abase his Christian Brethren by subjecting them to Earthly Princes for whom the Kingdom of Heaven was prepared To this the answer is That the Apostle did not so much subject them to those Princes as to God who appointed them Then he raiseth a question Is every Prince then ordained of God I say not so for I speak not now of any Prince but of the matter itself for that some should command and others obey this I call the Ordinance of God and he explains his meaning by the instance of Marriage that the Man and Woman are joyned by God i. e. Marriage is God's Ordinance not that all such as cohabit as Man and Wife are joyned by God but only such as are married according to the Laws of Wedlock Thus the Apostle doth not say there is no Prince but of God but there is no Power but of God. And on v. 5. for Conscience sake he thus comments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they might not be ungrateful to their Benefactors So St. Chrysostome from whose Comment we may observe that although Government be God's Ordinance yet the person in Government is not always so he only is God's Minister who doth administer the Government for the common Good. 2. That we owe Subjection to the person invested with the Government who takes care for the publick Welfare for Conscience sake i. e. as an acknowledgement of the Benefits that we partake of under his Administration of the Government Nor doth it appear that our Saviour Mat. 22.21 did determine that Caesar was the Supeme Power de Jure for if in a private case he refused to decide a controverted right Who made me a Judge or Divider over you Luke 12.14 much less is it probable that he intended to determine such a publick case And that the Apostle had no other respect but to the person in possession of the present Power may be doubted from what followeth As for the Observation of some Criticks that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is constantly used for a Person in Lawful Authority we find it otherwise for St. Luke speaking of the power of darkness i. e. the Devil Luke 22.53 his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the power of the Devil Nor could the Devil derive a Lawful Authority as he could if this word would bear it when speaking of the Kingdom of the World he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all this power will I give thee as if he had power to set up an universal Emperor over the World. And St. Luke is observed to have written most exactly agreeable to the Greek Idium of any of the Evangelists So that it cannot be inferred from this Scripture that the Persons then in Power were rightful Magistrates Grotius de Jure Belli p. 93. c. 4. § 20. In re controversa Judicium sibi privatus sumere non debet sed possessionem sequi sic tributum solvi Caesari Christus jubet Matth. 22.20 quia in possessione erat Imperii nummus ejus habuit imaginem From whence it followeth in the judgment of Grotius that our Saviour's Command to pay Tribute to Caesar was grounded on his being in possession of the Empire And if this be so as I cannot from the Command of our Saviour Matth. 22. or from Rom. 13. see any Reason to the contrary it will follow that it is our Duty in licitis honestis to yield Obedience to the present Powers Michael Salon an eminent School-man is of the same Opinion That the Romans possessed Judea by Tyranny when our Saviour enjoyned the paying of Tribute Q. 60. Art. 6. de justitiâ Jure where yet he affirms That the Catholicks of England were bound to obey the just Laws of Queen Elizabeth whom he calls an impious Woman Besides I think it will be a very difficult Task for any Man to shew where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed to any Person that is out of the Possession of the Power seeing it ordinarily signifieth the Person that is actually in possession of the Power For thus the Apostle speaks of the Powers that are in being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to them he says we must be subject not only for fear of wrath which implyeth that we ought to prevent our Ruin to obey the Power that is in possession But then the Question is how this obligeth the Conscience when the Subject is formerly obliged to a Prince de Jure Now the Rule for directing Conscience is the Word of God and if that do enjoyn Obedience to the Prince in possession the Subject may safely yield it and ought to do it for Conscience-sake Puffendorf is of the same judgment p. 1009. de Jure Gentium where he says That the Senate and People of Rome were deprived of their Ancient Right through fear or want of strength not by approving the Dominion of the Caesars So Emanuel Thesaurus says that the People of Rome under Tiberius did tempori seraire non Regi And it is well known says he by what means the ancient Caesars invaded the Empire yet St. Paul Rom. 13. attributes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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