the Honour of the Church in some lesser matters as the necessity of their Affairs and Counsels perswaded them yet as to the Fundamentals of both Laws and Religion they resolutely adhered to them yet was there in the People such a ferment of Rebellion infused by Malecontents perswading them of great danger both to their Religion and Laws that the People were alway ready to take fire from the sparks of groundless Fears and Jealousies and at last broke forth into such a flame as well nigh turned the whole Nation into Ashes and this was done against a Prince who as much abhorred Tyranny and Popery as any of his Subjects could it was therefore necessary that when after twenty Years Confusion we were brought as by a Miracle to settle on our first Foundations the strictest Rules and Doctrines for Obedience should be inculcated to the People Thus by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when a Stick is crooked we bend it to the contrary part to bring it strait and the Rule is generally approved Imquum petas ut aequum feras To demand more than is due that we may not receive less See his Sermon on Eph. 5.4 It is observed by Dr. Barrow that both Moral and Political Aphorisms tho' delivered in general Terms do need Expositions and admit Exceptions else they would clash with Reason and Experience The best Masters of such Wisdom interdict things apart by unseasonable or excessive use to be perverted in general forms of Speech leaving the Restrictions which the case may require or bear to be made by the Hearers or Interpreters discretion whence many seemingly formal Prohibitions are to be received only as sober Cautions So far that Learned Doctor So Bishop Usher's Sentences delivered in general terms are not always intended to be taken in their full latitude but to have their commodious restrictions according to the quality and nature of the matter in hand P. 5. of the Power of Princes And in dangerous Causes Abundans cautela non nocet which may serve as a reason for our pressing the Duties of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience in such dangerous times as we lived in in such general terms And if we should collect all that the ancient Fathers have said in the heat of Controversies and Disputations or in their Panegericks and Invectives and compare them with their Dogmata or Opinions when they wrote their mature Judgments of matters of Faith and Doctrine we might find them to contradict themselves more then the present Church doth contradict herself in these Doctrines of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience Thus for instance St. Augustine disputing against the Pelagians who defended Free-will wrote as if he had been a Manachee and defended an irresistible Fate and when he disputed against the Manachees he seemed to be a Pelagian and to defend Free-will And those who are Predestinarians in their Writings in their Sermons to the People agree with the Arminians And the Church of England which ever since the Reformation taught the Doctrine of Non-resistance in any case whatsoever have yet manifested their Judgment that this general Rule may insome cases admit exception as by the Assistance given to the Scots French and Dutch Protestants in defence of their Religion and Liberties as hereafter mentioned may appear God himself reversed the Sentence denounced in general terms against the Ninevites upon their performing of the tacite Condition of returning from their evil Ways and yet there was no variableness in God And if there be any such tacite Conditions in the Laws and Declarations of Men as is confest by many wise and good men the sence of such Law and Declarations may differ from the letter when the state of Affairs doth alter for if it had been foreseen that a King should arise that would exercise Arbitrary Power and subject the Kingdom to the Pope destroy the Religion and Properties of the Subjects a case so odious and improbable that it could not well be supposed the Doctrine of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience would not have been prest to those ends which were intended to the contrary viz. to make way for Popery and Tyranny and Confusion Tempora mutantur non nos We adhere to our first Principles still for Levitas non est destituere si aliquid novi intervenerit eadem mihi Omnia praesta idem Sum. 3ly But as to matter of Fact let it be inquired what have the Clergy acted contrary to those Doctrines While the King continued in the Government they continued their Obedience even when their Liberties and Properties were actually taken away and their Lives were at stake Since the King's departure they have been under restraint and an impossibility of defending him whom the Nobility Gentry and Commonalty and his own Army had generally deserted and joyned with the Invading Army Hitherto then they have been Passive but the grand inquiry is How they ought to behave themselves under the present Circumstances the present King in vindication of his Queen 's Right which was otherwise desparate and not to be recovered by Petition or Bill in Chancery got full possession of the Kingdom and by a National Consent in Parliament they are declared King and Queen Whether our Allegiance be due to the late King or the present Power under whose Protection we live and enjoy our Religion Laws and Liberties which were so near to be lost Some men of great Reputation for Learning and Piety think themselves obliged by their former Oaths And the present Government think they cannot be secure till the Clergy are obliged to them by new Oaths the refusal whereof may draw on Suspension and Deprivation to the undoing not only of themselves and Families but the Established Church at home and the Protestant Interest over all Christendom if any Wars or Divisions should be occasioned by such Refusal for Prevention of which I earnestly intreat my Brethren the Clergy to lay aside all Prepossessions and Prejudices and seriously to consider the Answers given to the following Queries which the Author hath collected from * St. August l. 3. Concerning Order says there are two ways of resolving Doubts either by our own reason or the authority of the most learned Nam qui consiliis pollet nihil ipse nec audit Suadentes alios nullos homo vivit in usus the Writings of men of great Integrity Learning and Experience partly for his own satisfaction but mostly for the satisfaction of others whose welfare is as dear to him as his own that yeilding due Subjection to the King and Queen and all that are now in Authority we may lead a quiet and peaceable Life in all Godliness and Honesty The Original of Government in General GOD is the Fountain of all Government being not the Author of Confusion but of Peace and hath established Order among all his Creatures in the Angelical Nature he hath constituted several Orders Angels and Archangels Principalities Powers and Dominions in the Celestial Bodies the Sun to
and grant and preserve to us and to the Churches committed to our Charge all Canonical Priviledges and due Law and Justice And that you would protect and defend us as every good King ought to be a Protector and Defender of the Bishops and Churches under his Government A. With a willing and devout Heart I promise and grant my part and that I will preserve and maintain to you and the Churches committed to your charge all Canonical Priviledges and due Law and Justice and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my power by the assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdom by right ought to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under his government Then the King ariseth and is led to the Communion Table where he takes a Solemn Oath in sight of all the People to observe the Premisses and laying his Hand on the Book saith The things which I have before promised I shall perform and keep So help me God and the Contents of this Book Now an Oath being a high Act of Religion and called the Oath of God invoking him as a Witness and Surety for the performance and a Revenger in case of Transgression ought not but as Medicines to be taken but in cases of Necessity with good Advice and great Sincerity especially in such Solemn and Publick Oaths the violation whereof the very Heathen do abhor And what the Laws of the Church and People are the Magna Charta the Petition of Right and the Statutes of Parliament do shew to all which the Prince is sworn and thereupon the People declare their acceptance of him and some Subjects of all Orders do him immediate Homage in the Name of the rest And by the Laws of God and Men those things that are Solemnly Sworn to on express Conditions mutually agreed on do equally oblige both Parties The Subjects Obligation is expressed in several Oaths the most considerable are those of Supremacy and Allegiance from each of which the Person sworn is under a double Obligation first and primarily to the matter of the Oath which concerns both Prince and People which they are sworn to defend And secondarily to the Persons specified in the Oath whose Interest it is to defend the same viz. the King his Heirs and Successors The Oath of Supremacy was framed to assert the King's Supremacy in Opposition to the Usurpation of the Pope wherein we promise To bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King his Heirs and Lawful Successors and to our power to assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges c. granted or belonging to the King's Highness his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm This Oath was brought into Form by King Henry VIII And the Parliament then declared That it was a Declaration of the Ancient Right of the Crown which doth not at all exclude the Right of the Subject because the admission of that Usurpation would certainly bring the Subject under the Yoke of Popery and Slavery which by this Oath they are bound to their power to resist as they did in the Reign of King John and several other Kings of which hereafter In the Oath of Allegiance we swear to bear Faith and true Allegiance to His Majesty his Heirs and Successors and him and them will defend to the utmost of our Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever made against his or their Persons And do our best endeavour to disclose to His Majesty his Heirs and Successors all Treasons and Traiterous Conspiracies which we shall know or hear of to be against him or any of them And we also Swear That neither the Pope of himself nor by any other means with any other hath power to Depose the King or annoy his Countries or to give License to any of them to bear Arms to raise Tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to His Majesties Person State or Government or to any of His Majesties Subjects within His Majesties Dominions Concerning these Oaths it is observable First that they were both intended to preserve the King and his Subjects from the Usurpations of the Pope and Church of Rome contrary to their Ancient Rights which were opposed and resisted not only by many of our Kings which were themselves Papists but by the Nobles and Commons when their King would have submitted to them And if they who were Papists did so resolutely defend themselves against Popish Usurpations of a Pecuniary and Temporal concern much more ought we when not only our Liberties but our whole Religion as Protestants is invaded Secondly That by these Oaths we are bound to defend them to the utmost of our power against all such as shall offer any Violence or Hurt to His Majesty's Person State and Government or to any of His Majesty's Subjects Thirdly Because it is mentioned in the Oath that these Priviledges were granted or annexed to the Crown viz. by the first Constitution agreed on by Prince and People Fourthly Because it is said that neither the Pope of himself nor by any other means with any other which may infer although the King himself should joyn with him as King John did may do violence or hurt to the State and Government or to any of His Majesty's Subjects from whence I inferred that the Subjects were primarily obliged to the matter of the Oath and then to the King's Person because the King in Person may joyn with the Pope to do violence and hurt to the Subjects in which case the Oath binds the Subjects to the utmost of their power to defend and maintain their Rights and Priviledges which for their better Security were granted or annexed to the Crown not for their utter subversion and it is incredible that any Prince would oblige his Subjects by Oath to which he himself hath sworn also or that he would expect the performance of it from his Subjects which he himself with all his power is resolved to vacuate and destroy And in such a case we must recur to the Law and Dictates of Nature for preservation of our selves and the common welfare against unfaithful and cruel Men for there is such a Law Prior and Paramount to any particular Constitution and for the end whereof all Government was instituted this is always accounted inculpata tutela so Natural and Necessary that it cannot be annulled by any Civil Constitution Et qui se cum defendere possit occidi permittit illum damnari posse non aliter ac si seipsum occidisset he is a Felo de se guilty of Self-murder And doubtless if it had been proposed to the Law-makers whether they intended to oblige themselves to assist and defend the King's Person in case he should joyn with the Pope and French King to set up the Inquisition and bring in French Dragoons they would never have enacted such a Law and therefore we may presume they never intended such Obligation Fifthly That we are bound to
incipit bellum And it is to be considered that the Bishop wrote this in the Case of Charles the First from which this of James the Second differs toto caelo To those that are not yet reconciled to the now Established Government I shall offer these Considerations First Whether the present King had not a just cause for Invading the Kingdom Secondly Whether having Invaded it and obtained a full and peaceable Possession by a general consent of the People he hath obtained a rightful Title The Causes that do justifie the Invasion are these 1. The Vindication of his Lady's Title which was in a manner endeavoured to be ravished from her by a Prince whose Birth was so much suspected and whereof the Nation was so generally convinced 2. The Invitation of the Subjects Lords Spiritual and Temporal with many Commons groaning under an Arbitrary Power Popery and Slavery for which cause many Lords and Commons had left the Kingdom and sought protection from the present King and came in with him 3. The present King was made the Head of the Protestant Party by those Princes who undertook the Defence of the Reformed Religion against the Popish Princes that had confederated to root it out and a better method could not be taken than to begin with England where if the designs for Popery had succeeded the Protestant Cause had been almost desparate which is now in a hopeful way of Establishment These Causes are so sufficient to justifie the Invasion that I think no good Protestant will doubt of them and as little doubt can be made of the second Consideration that he who on such just Grounds Invades a Kingdom and having gotten a full and quiet Possession is by the general Consent of the People accepted and declared their King hath a lawful Right and Title for first Ubi desinunt judicia incipit bellum and as Law Suits so War may be waged for prevention of Injuries not yet done As Livy says Justum est bellum quod necessarium est pia Arma quibus nulla nisi in armis relinquitur spes When it is manifest our sitting still will make our Condition worse we may adventure on the danger of War. The War was begun by the French King and his Confederates against the Prince England was like to be in the Confederacy by what the King acted and endeavoured against the Protestant Religion And Tune tua res Agitur This is the first Cause that Justifies the War on the present King's part the second Cause is the Recovery of the Right which his Lady and himself had to the Succession which was in a manner taken from them Grotius de Jure Belli l. 2. c. 1. sect 2. De rebus repetendis proves this at large in a considerable Paragraph to which I refer the Reader And of this I shall give but one or two Instances among many in the Scriptures Abraham's War on the King of Elam who had spoiled Sodom was just Gen. 14. And so were the Wars of Israel against the Assirians and other Nations that invaded their Dominion and would have kept them from them of this there can be no doubt nor can secondly the Vindication of a People oppressed by their Prince against the Laws of God and the Land if a Father seek the destruction of an innocent person his Son may piously restrain his Father from that act which would not only ruine the innocent in this World but himself in the World to come So that this War for the asserting the Title of the Prince and Princess to the Crown and for the defence of our Religion against the Confederacy of Popish Princes to extirpate it which is matter of Fact may appear most Just for tho' Religion may not be propagated by Arms yet it may be defended where it is Established by Law against forreign Powers that conspire the destruction of it Grotius l 2. c. 25. n. 4. approves a War on behalf of Confederates For he that doth not repel an Injury from his Confederates if he can is as much in fault as he that doth the Injury He commends Constantine for making War on Maxentius and Licinius who persecuted such of their Subjects as were Christians only for their Religion Grotius l. 2. c. 20. n. 39. Injuries begun only are not to be vindicated by Arms unless the matter be both very weighty and be already proceeded so far that from what is already done either a certain mischief tho' not yet what was intended hath already befallen or some extraordinary danger do threaten thereby If an Enemy hath once assaulted me and comes armed with a resolution to kill me I am not to tarry till he comes within reach of me and receive his Weapons upon my naked breast but seasonably to prevent him And l. 2. c. 25. n. 8. Those Princes who are free may make War for themselves or others And tho' we should grant that Subjects might not take Arms for their own Defence against their Prince no not in case of greatest necessity which yet is doubted even by those whose purpose it was to defend Regal Power yet it follows not that other Princes may not take Arms in their defence that which is unlawful for one to do for himself by reason of a personal impediment may be lawful for another to do for him As in Affairs of the Church the Bishops are said to take on them the care of the Vniversal Church so beside the care of their particular Dominions Kings assume the general care of Humane Societies Seneca resolves Bello a me peti potest qui a mea gente sepositus suam exagitat And Cicero That War should be undertaken only that we may live in Peace and not be injured It will be objected That God will take care of our Religion Deorum injuriae diis curae perjurium satis habet deum ultorem Answer So it may be said of other Sins which God will punish yet the Laws are justly executed on the Offenders by the Magistrate as all grant And if it be objected That such Offences are punished not so much as committed against God as for the damage done to men Ans It is observed that not only such Offences are punished by men as are directly committed against other men but such as by consequence may be prejudicial to others as Self-murder Sodomy c. for tho' the principal end be to procure God's favour by punishing such Crimes yet it is done also to prevent the influence and notable effects on Humane Societies See l. 2. c. 20. n. 44. It may be farther objected That if we wholly forsake the King we shall justifie the Rebellion against King Charles the First who was charged with designs of bringing in Popery and Arbitrary Government Illegal Impositions Evil Counsellors c. Ans I suppose the Objectors that are so tender of committing any act of Disloyalty against King James the Second will by no means approve of what was done against
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
preserve them to the King and to his Heirs and Successors and him and them to defend to the utmost of our power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their Persons their Crown or Dignity Supposing then there be an Attempt made to deprive the Heir Apparent of the Right of Succession there is an Obligation on the Subjects not only to disclose and make it known to such Heir and Successor but him and them to defend to the utmost of our power To this purpose Bishop Taylor says second Vol. p. 137. Where the right of Succession is in a Family by Law or Time immemorial no Prince can prejudice his Heir or the People committed to him for it cannot without consent be alienated because Persons cannot be disposed of as Slaves or Beasts so that in this and some other cases the King loseth his Authority and then the force of the Obligation ceaseth also And how good an Opinion the Ancient Clergy and others had of the Peers and People that fought in defence of the Magna Charta and against the Usurpations of the Popes may appear by the Writers of that and the succeeding Ages concerning Simon Montfort The Chronicle of Meilrois lately Printed by the Bishop of Oxford p. 231. says Occubuit cum multis ex magnatibus Anglicis qui venerant ad bellum ut certarent pro justitiâ Angliae cujus post modum Justitiae infallibile signum fuit crebra miraculorum exhibiti diminutus exhibita circa Hugonem summum Angliae dispensatorem Simonem de Montfort qui occubuerunt pro justitia decertentes idio nonnulli eorum meruerunt à deo miraculorum exhibitionem of which Miracles they give divers instances And long after these Writers which lived in the time of the Barons Wars Polidore Virgil who lived in the days of Henry VIII gives this Testimony to Simon de Montfort p. 317. of the Basil Edition Inhaesit hominum mentibus constans opinio hunc Simonem de Montfort qui ob patriam jus jurandum for it seems they were under the like Oaths vitam amisissent interiisse Martyrem id quod vita sanctitas non patitur negandum jam tum fueri qui ejus memoriam ut dici cujuspiam colere ceperunt compluresque id fecissent cui Regis iram non perti muissent For if the Prince do evidently violate not only the Coronation-Oath but act contrary to the tenor of the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance and actually subject the People to that Jurisdiction and Usurpation against which they are sworn what is the extent of that Clause in the Oath of Supremacy viz. To our power to assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges and Authorities granted or beloning to the King's Highness c Doubtless they that granted them and by Oath are bound to assist and defend them being granted may oppose such as attempt the destruction of them when not only the King's Prerogative but the Peoples Religion their Laws and Liberties are assaulted and in a way to be utterly ruined And Treason may be committed against the Government as well as against the King and also the King 's Eldest Son. It is well known how resolutely our Ancestors in the darkest times of Popery being themselves Papists did defend the Nation against the Incroachments of the Church of Rome when their Kings would have parted with this Right which they affirmed he neither could nor should do and in defence of them they were prodigal of their Lives Query Whether these Premises being undeniable the Subjects that according to their Oaths did timely endeavour the case being otherwise desperate to vindicate as well the Right of the Crown to the King his Heirs and Successors as their own Religion and Liberties did not act according to their Oaths and Duties not by resisting their Prince but by defending the Succession and themselves against such Instruments as acted contrary to the tenor of those Oaths If Judges Juries c. had performed in their several places as the Law and their Oaths obliged them the King might have kept his Throne We have a Maxim in Law That the King can do no wrong because he is supposed to do all things by his Ministers and they to act all according to the Law But when a King shall choose such Ministers as will act against the Laws and defend them therein there cannot be a greater wrong done to the Subject 5. In Answer to your Fifth Query which concerns the mutual Obligations between the Prince and the People by vertue of these Oaths and the Declaration hereafter mentioned It is to be considered as Bishop Sanderson says in the Case of the Engagement p. 90. That Allegiance is such a Duty as every Subject under what form of Government soever by the Law of Nature oweth to his Country primarily and consequently to the Soveraign Power by which that Common-wealth is governed who is Caput Communitatis as is necessary for the preservation of the whole Body And speaking of the Obligation of Laws which will hold also in the case of Oaths That if the intention of the Law-giver should be understood precisely of that particular actual and immediate intention of the Law-giver in making a particular Law it will not hold true in all cases but there is to be supposed in the Law-giver a more general habituate and ultimate intention of a more excellent and transcendent Nature than the former which is to have an influence into and an over-ruling Power over all Laws viz. an intention by the Laws to procure and promote the Publick Good. The former intention bindeth where it is subservient to the latter or consistent with it and consequently bindeth in ordinary Cases and in orderly Times But where the Observation of the Law by reason of the conjuncture of Circumstances or the iniquity of Times Contingencies which no Law-giver could either certainly fore-see or if fore-seen could not sufficiently provide against would rather be prejudicial than advantagious to the Publick or is manifestly attended with more inconveniencies and sad consequents to the Observers than all the imaginable good that can redound to the Publick thereby can in any reasonable measure countervail in such case the Law obligeth not but according to the later and more general intention only Even as in the Operations of Nature particular Agents do move ordinarily according to the proper and particular inclinations yet upon some occasions and to serve the ends and intentions of Universal Nature for the avoiding of something which Nature abhorreth they are sometimes carried with motions quite contrary to their particular Natures as the Air to descend and the Water to ascend for the avoiding of vacuity Concerning the Coronation-Oath I shall add here what Bishop Taylor l. 3. p. 144. says That a Prince's swearing to govern by Laws is very ancient of which he gives divers instances and says Kings are bound by natural Justice and Equity without
the Head of the Empire is bound by the Laws and how should the King of England be above all the Christian Kings It was too much for him to aspire to be like the most Christian King. Henry the First acknowledged That if he would submit to the Pope his Nobles would not permit it And the Lords and Commons under Edward the First signified to the Pope concerning his claim to Scotland that they neither ought nor would permit it although the King should attempt it And under Henry the Third it is recorded That if the King and Nobles should agree to it yet the Commons would not permit the entrance of Adomer the Pope's Legate into England Bodmin treating of the King of France says Principem contra leges nil posse rescriptis ejus nullam rationem haberi debere nisi aequitate perinde veritati consentanea sint Bracton of the King of England says Rex est sub lege quia Lex facit Regem This Bracton who lived in the Reign of Henry the Third was of the judgment That the Barons had a power to restrain the Kings Exorbitances lib. 3. ch 26. Rex habet superiorem deum item legem per quam factus est Rex item Curiam suam viz. Comites Barones suos The Barons proceeded in their Wars on this Principle That they had a power to restrain their Kings from subverting the Laws and Religion established And what Opinion the Religious Men of that Time had of those Wars may appear by the Opinion that the Chronicle of Mailros had of Simon of Monfort of which I have spoken before This may suffice to resolve the Conscience in respect of the Law. Thus have I given an Account of the Judgment of many learned Men concerning the Queries proposed How far they may prevail with others I cannot presage But I plainly perceive that many very learned and good Men are yet of another Opinion and indeed there are many very difficult Arguments both from Scripture and Laws which by the several Interpretations given of them by learned Men of this and former Ages may confirm them in their prejudices Therefore my humble Request to them that are yet unsatisfied is That laying aside all Prejudices they would maturely consider of the Arguments Pro and Con and after diligent Enquiry and hearty Prayers follow the dictates of a well-informed Conscience Si quid novisti rectius istis Candidus imperti si non his utere mecum In the mean time let the Apostle's Rule be observed by the Parties of different Persuasions Rom. 14.1 c. which he gives in the Chapter immediately after the Rules for Obedience Him that is weak in the faith receive but not to doubtful disputations for one believeth that he may eat all things another who is weak eateth herbs Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not And let not him that eateth not despise him that eateth Who art thou that judgest another mans servant Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind POSTSCRIPT THE Arguments that have been proposed may prevail with some persons to alter their Judgements concerning their Obligations to the late King and if so they will be sensible of the necessity of transferring their Duty to the Established Government which they may do with all cheerfulness and confidence of Acceptation and Favour for their present Majesties cannot but judge that they who were so conscientiously Dutiful to the late King while he kept his Station among them tho' he industriously sought to Ruine them as to their Civil and Religious Interests and were doubtful how they might Desert him when he had abandoned and deserted them I say they cannot but judge upon their ingaging to be true and faithful to them who have redeemed them from Slavery and Popery and have adventured all their Substance and their very Lives that they might secure to them their Laws Liberties and Religion which doubtless they will make their chief business because it is their interest so to do As to such who having weighed these Arguments are yet in Aequilibrio and doubt whether the late King or their present Majesties have the better right in such a case a man is to act according to his reason and discretion and then tho' he may be mistaken yet his mistake is pardonable now his discretion will teach him to recollect all the inconveniencies and Miseries that will most probably follow on his refusal to submit to the present Government if he still adhere to the interest of the late King and he should prove successful then in all probability he will intail Popery and Slavery not only on himself and Family but on the whole Nation for succeeding Ages and on the Protestant Nations throughout all Europe whereas if he live in due Obedience to the Established Government in conjunction with the Body of the Nation and study to be quiet and to do his own business following Peace and Holiness all those Evils may be prevented and the Lord will bless our Sion and we may see the good of Jerusalem all the days of our Life yea we may see our childrens children and peace upon all the Israel of GOD. These Considerations ought to turn the Scales which hung in equal ballance before To such a doubting person I shall propose this Case Suppose a person that hath been given to Quarrels and Brawels found dead and some wounds and bruises found by Inquest on his body whereby it is presumed that he was murdered and a Neighbour of his a person of a sober and peaceable conversation being known to have been in his company near the time and place where he was found dead is arrained for the Murder but no Evidence of the matter of Fact produced against him only some probable Circumstances the question is whether a Jury man that hath only some Circumstances to guide him in his Verdict may find such a person Guilty of that Murder which if he do he may draw the Guilt of shedding Innocent Blood on himself and undo a Neighbour's Family I think an Ignoramus would be more justifiable than a Sentence of Guilt Where the case is dubious we should choose that part which infers the least danger in case we should err as Aristotle says and thence he concludes It is much better to Absolve the Guilty than to Condemn the Innocent And Minus malum rationem induit boni In rebus dubiis pars tutior eligenda I know that Bishop Sanderson in his Judicium Ox. p. 44. hath determined That when a King is hindred from protecting his People Culpa non sua sed alienâ nec voluntatis defectu sed potestatis for want of Power we are not freed from our Allegiance but in case there is not only a defect of Power to protect us but a plain declaration of a Will to destroy us this will plainly overthrow that determination as the Bishop himself hath in other of his Writings done Ubi desunt judicia