Concerning Submission to Usurpers, Response 1
1. Law. Object.
The first and strongest Objection (which I shall therefore propose to the most advantage of the Objector) is that which is grounded upon the Laws, and their Obligation: For it may be Objected,
That every humane Law rightly establish'd, so long as it continueth a Law, obligeth the Subject (and that for Conscience sake) to the observation thereof in such manner and form as in the same Law is prescribed, and according to the true meaning and intention of the Law-giver therein. That a Law is then understood to be rightly establish'd, when it containeth nothing but what is honest and lawful, and is enacted by such person or persons as have full and sufficient authority to make Laws. That a Law so establish'd continues a Law, and is so in force, till it be either Repealed by as good and lawful Authority, as that by which it was made, or else antiquated by a long continued uninforc'd disuse with the tacit or presumed consent of the Law-giver. That the Act printed before the Common Prayer Book, and entituled (An Act for the Uniformity) was such a Law, being it was established in a full and free Parliament in peaceable times, and ratified by the Royal Assent, That it still continues in force, and being not yet Repealed, but by such persons as (at least in the Opinion of those that maintain the Dispute) for want of the Royal Assent, have not a sufficient right or authority to do such an Act, nor disused but of late times, and that by enforcement, and as is presum'd, much against the mind of the Law-giver. That therefore it still retains the power of obliging in part of Conscience; that power being so essential and intrinsecal to every Law, quatenus a Law, that it can in no wise be sever'd from it.
And that therefore no Minister publickly officiating in the Church, can with a good Conscience either omit any part of that which is commanded by the aforesaid Law, or use any other Form than what is contained in the foresaid Book, but must either use the Form prescribed in the Book, or else forbear to officiate.
The Answer to this Objection (granting all in the Premisses besides) dependeth upon the right understanding of that which is affirmed concering the Obligation of the Laws according to the intention of the Law-giver;Answ. which if it should be understood precisely of that particular, actual, and immediate intention which the Law-giver had declared by the words of the Law (in which sense only the Objection proceedeth) will not hold true in all cases. But there is suppos'd besides that, in Law-giver, a more general, habitual, & ultimate intention of a more excellent and transcendent nature than the former, which is to have an influence into, and over-ruling power over all particular Laws (viz.) an intention by the Laws to procure and promote the publick good. The former intention binds, when it is subservient to the latter, or consistent with it, and consequently bindeth in ordinary cases, and in orderly times, or else the Law is not a wholesome Law. But when the observation of the Law, by reason of the conjuncture of circumstances, or the iniquity of the times (contingencies which no Lawgiver could either certainly foresee, or if foreseen, sufficiently provide against) would rather be prejudicial than advantageous to the Publick; or is manifestly attended with such inconveniencies and sad consequents to the Observers, as all the imaginable good that can redound to the Publick thereby, cannot in any reasonable measure countervail: In such case the Law obligeth not, but according to the latter and more general intention only; even as in the operations of nature, particular Agents do ordinarily move according to their proper and particular inclinations; yet upon some occasions, and to serve the ends and intentions of universal nature (for the avoiding of some things which nature abhors) 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, &c. The common received Maxim (which hath been sufficiently misapplied, and that sometimes to very ill purposes since the beginning of these unhappy divisions) in the true meaning of it looketh this way, Salus populi suprema Lex: the equity of which Maxim, as it leaveth in the Law-giver a power of dispensing with the Law (which is a suspending the Obligation thereof for the time in respect of the proper and particular intention) so he shall see it expedient in order to the publick good; so it leaveth in the Subject a liberty upon just occasions (as in cases of great exigency, and for the preventing of such hazards and inconveniencies as might prove of noysome consequence to the Publick) to do otherwise than the Law requireth. And neither is the exercise of that power in the Lawgiver to be thought an unreasonable Prerogative, nor the use of this liberty in the Subject an unreasonable presumption; inasmuch as the power of dispensing with particular Laws is such a Prerogative, as without which no Commonwealth can be well govern'd, but Justice would be turn'd into Gall and Wormwood: Nor can the Supream Governour, without forfeiture of that faithfulness which he oweth to the Publick Weal, devest himself thereof.
And he that presumeth of the Law-givers consent to dispense with him for the Observation of the Law in such needful cases (where he hath not the opportunity to consult his pleasure therein) presumeth no more than he hath reason to do. For it may well be presum'd that the Lawgiver, 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 strict observation of any particular Law, to oblige any person, who is a Member of the Publick, to his destruction or ruin, when the common good is not answerably promoted thereby: Upon which ground it is generally resolv'd by Casuists▪ That no Constitution (meerly humane) can lay such Obligation upon the Conscience of the Subject, but that we may (according to the exigency of circumstances) do otherwise than the Constitution requireth, provided it be done extra casum scandali & contemptûs, i. e. without either bewraying in himself any contempt of the Authority of the Law-giver by his carriage, or giving any just occasion of scandal to others by his example in so doing.
I have been somewhat the longer in explaining this point, not only for the better clearing of the present doubt, but also in respect of the usefulness of this consideration for the preventing and removing of many scruples that may happen to conscientious men in such times as these, wherein so many things are (and are like to be) commanded and forbidden contrary to the establish'd Laws, and those (as they are perswaded) yet standing in force. The best rule that I know to guide men in their deliberations and actions in such emergent cases (according to what hath been already delivered) is advisedly and impartially to weigh the benefit & inconveniencies, as well on the one side, as on the other, as they stand in relation unto the Publick Good: and if after such examination and comparison made, it shall then evidently (or but in the judgment of probability) appear, that the Observation of the Law, according to the proper intention of the Law-giver therein, though with hazard of Estate, Liberty, or even life it self, hath a greater tendency to the Publick Good, and the preservation of Church or Commonwealth in safety, peace, and order, than the preventing of the foresaid hazards, or other evil consequents, by doing otherwise than the Law requireth, can have; or (which cometh to one) if the violating of the Law shall then appear to be more prejudicial to the Publick Good, than the preservation of the Subject's Estate, Liberty, or Life can be beneficial hereunto: In such case the Subject is bound to hazard all he hath, and undergo whatsoever inconveniencies and calamities can ensue thereupon, rather than violate the Law with contempt of that Authority to which he oweth subjection.
But if it shall (after such comparison made) evidently (or but more probably than the contrary) appear, That that preservation of such a persons Life, Liberty, Estate, would more benefit the Church or Commonwealth, than the punctual observation of the Law at that time, and with those circumstances, would do; it were an unseasonable, unreasonable, and pernicious scrupulosity for such a person to think himself in such a case obliged for the observing of the Law (perhaps but once or twice) with little or no benefit to the Publick, to ruin himself, whereby to render himself unuseful and unserviceable to the Publick for ever hereafter.
To bring this Discourse home, and to apply it to the business now under dispute. Suppose we ten, twenty, or One hundred godly Ministers, well affected to the establish'd Liturgy, and actually possess'd of Benefices, with the Charge of Souls thereto belonging, should, thinking themselves in Conscience obliged to the use of the whole Form of the Book, as is by the Act appointed, without any addition, omission, or alteration whatsoever (notwithstanding the present conjuncture of Affairs) resolve to use the same accordingly, it would be well considered what the effects and consequents thereof would be.
Besides other evils, these three are visible, which must all unavoidably follow one upon another, if any body shall be found (as doubtless within short time there will be found one or other) to inform and prosecute against them.
1. The utter undoing of so many worthy persons, fit to do God and his Church good service, together with all those persons that depend upon them for their livelyhood, by putting the fruits of their Benefices, wherewith they should buy themselves bread, under Sequestration.
2. The depriving of those persons of the opportunity of discharging the duties that belong unto them in their Ministerial Calling, in not permitting them, after such Sequestration, to teach or instruct the people belonging to their Charge, or to exercise any thing of their Function publickly in the Church.
3. The delivering over the Sheep of Christ, that lately were under the hands of the faithful Shepherds, into the Custody of ravenous Wolves, when such Guides shall be set over the several Congregations, as will be sure to mis-teach them one way or other (viz.) either by instilling into them Puritanical and Superstitious Principles, that they may the more securely exercise their Presbyterian Tyranny over their Judgments, Consciences, Persons, and Estates, or else by setting up new Lights before them, to lead them into a maze of Anabaptistical confusion and frenzy.
These consequents are so heavy to the Sufferers, so certain to ensue upon the use of Common Prayer, and so much without the power of the Law-givers (in this state of Affairs) either to prevent or remedy, that it is beyond the wit of man what benefit to the Publick can accrue by the strict observation of the Act, that may in any proportion countervail these mischiefs. In which case, that man must needs suppose a strange austerity in the Law-giver, that dares not presume of his consent to disoblige him (for the time) from observing the same. It would be also well considered, Whether he that by his own over-nice scrupulosity runs all these hazards, be not (in some measure) guilty of his own undoing, of deserting his station, and of betraying his flock, and do not thereby lose much of that comfort which a Christian Confessor may take in his sufferings, when they are laid upon him by the Hand of God, and not pull'd upon himself by his own hands. And more I shall not need to say as to that first Objection.