the Divines of the Church of England that the Kings of England receive no power or Authority from the People for all Soveraign Power comes from God and the Crown of England is not Elective but Hereditary Nay they own that no Essential branch of Soveraign Power can be taken away from a Soveraign Prince the only question is whether the exercise of Soveraign Power can be regulated and limited by Laws of the Kings own making and this those who talk of a limited Monarchy must own for there can be no limited Monarchy if the exercise of Soveraign Power cannot be bounded by Laws Thus I have shewn as well as I can learn what the Sense of the Divines of the Church of England is in these Points how far they agree with the Judges reasons if they be theirs I cannot tell because I know not in what Sense they understood them As for his application of all this to the case of Liberty of Conscience I have nothing at all to say to it for since the King has declar'd his pleasure in it I will not dispute against it I am not without hope that Liberty of Conscience will not do the Church of England so much hurt as her Adversaries wish nor the Church of Rome so much good as they expected for tho' Fanaticism is a pleasing delusion Popery is not popular in this age and therefore it is not meer showing that will make Converts and I believe Liberty of Conscience it self at this time will not drive any Sober Dissenter the farther from Church And I have more hope of Gods Protection because we are upbraided as we are by this Writer with our very hope and confidence in the Divine Providence for who ever reads it can think it nothing less besides the knavery of the Quotation Doctor Hicks in answer to that Objection against the Doctrine of Passive Obedience Jovian p. 263. Where then is our security How can we be safe from the oppression of our Soveraign if we may not be allow'd to resist Among other things tells his Readers Pag. 265. that there neither is nor can be any absolute security either for the Soveraign against the Subjects or for the Subjects against the Soveraign in any Government and therefore in the second place it may be a sufficient answer to the question to show that we have all the security against the King that the King hath against us even all the security that any people in the World ever had have or ought to have and he instances in the Providence of God in the Conscience and Honour of the King and in the Laws of the Realm to which every man be he never so great is obnoxious besides the Prince himself This was all very much to the Doctors purpose it being all the Security we can have that our Prince will not oppress us which is not absolute security neither But what does this signifie to Liberty of Conscience how does this secure the Church of England if all her Enemies be let loose upon her But this Writer picking out two or three sayings from what the Doctor said of the Divine Providence without any regard to the series of the Argument concludes it with these words in Capital Letters So that they have all the security that any People in the world ever had have or ought to have As if the Doctor had taught that no People in the World ever had or ought to have any other security against the Oppression of a Soveraign Prince but only the Providence and Protection of God whereas he applies this not only to the Providence of God but To the Conscience and Honour of the King and the security of Laws The Providence of God indeed has the over-ruling determination of all things but ordinary Providence works by means and we have no reason to expect Miracles now and therefore the Providence of God does not make other securities needless The Doctor tells us Page 267. As the Princes best security against the People is the watchful Providence of God so the same watchful Providence is the Peoples best security against the Prince So that the Providence of God is an equal security to Prince and People against each other But how would any Prince look upon such a trifler who should tell him Sir all the security you have or possibly can have against your Subjects is only the Providence and Protection of God and therefore you may save Money and disband your Guards and Armies To perswade Men to part with all other securities and to venture upon the most destructive Methods in confidence of the divine Protection is like the Devils Temptation to Christ to cast himself down from the Pinnacle of the Temple for it is written he shall give his Angels charge concerning thee and in their hands they shall bear thee up lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone 4. Mat. 6. I believe both Prince and People desire all the security they can and do not think it reasonable to part with one good security because they have another We have the Kings Word his Conscience his Honour and his Laws and thank God for all and implore the Protection of his Providence without which all other Securities are nothing and next to the Providence of God Laws are the best security because they are the Foundation of Conscience and Honour too and of all promises to govern by Laws for Conscience respects Laws and where there is no Law in the the case Conscience is not concern'd and can hinder nothing and to be sure the Honour of a Prince as well as Conscience is less concern'd when it is under no restraint of Laws He concludes this Pamphlet with some few Authorities for Liberty of Conscience I shall not now examine how pertinent they are for I will give no other Answer but this when he has answered all the Presbyterian Arguments against Toleration but especially that Book call'd Tolleration discus'd and the Arguments of Doctor Parker now the Right Reverend Bishop of Oxford in his Ecclesiastical Policy When he can prove that Liberty of Conscience is the Doctrine and Practise of the Church of Rome and the standing Rule of the Inquisition then I will consider further on this Argument In the mean time Sir I am Your most Obedient Servant FINIS Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the CHVRCH of ENGLAND against the EXCEPTIONS of Monsieur de MEAVX late Bishop of Condom and his VINDICATOR Quarto An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to SOME LATE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and Reformation of the Church of England Quarto An Historical Treatise written by an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHVRCH of ROME touching TRANSVBSTANTIATION Wherein is made appear That according to the Principles of THAT CHVRCH This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith Quarto A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome with an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 8vo The Law-Christian's Obligations to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 24o. The Protestant's Companion Or an Impartial Survey and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established with the main Doctrines of Popery Wherein is shewn that Popery is contrary to Scripture Primitive Fathers and Councils and that proved from Holy Writ the Writings 〈◊〉 the Ancient Fathers for several hundred Years and the Confession of the most Learned Papists themselves Quarto A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host In Answer to the Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford on this Subject To which is prefixed a large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument Quarto The Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy Chap. III Vers 15. Quarto A Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church with some reflections on Cardinal Bell rmin's Fifteen Notes Quarto whereof Ten are extant The rest will be Published in their order A Defence of the Confuter of Bellarmin's Second Note of the Church Antiquity against the Cavills of the Aâ—…viser Quarto The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scriptures asserted In Answer to the 6th 7th 8th 9th and 10th Chapters of the Popish Representer Second Part Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead Quarto A Short Summâ—ry of the Principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs
Now I am not concern'd to enquire what Dr. Hicks believes about the Dispensing Power but what he has said and our Author has not produced one word out of his Book about it and therefore I suppose he could not for his own words had been a better Authority in this case than Sir Robert Pointz I am sure where he particularly states and enumerates the Rights of Soveraignty he takes no notice of it for as he reckons them up they are these Jovian or an Answer to Julian the Apostate chap. 10. p. 201. Ed. 1. 1. To be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accountable to none except God 2. To have the sole Power and disposal of the Sword 3. To be free from all Coercive and vindicative Power 4. Not to be withstood or resisted by force upon any pretence whatsoever Lastly To have the Legislative Power that makes any form of words a Law The Soveraign Power may indeed be limited as to the exercise of this Power which may be confined to Bills and Writings prepared by others but still it is the Soveraign Authority who gives Life and Soul to the dead Letter of them Here is nothing at all about this Dispensing Power when there was a fair occasion for it Possibly this was an Omission which at that time he did not think of that not being the matter of Dispute or it may be he was not so well instructed and did not think this essential to the notion of all Soveraign Power as seems probable from his two sorts of Imperial Power either of which make an Imperial Soveraign such as is limited by the Laws of God and nature only or such as is limited by the Laws of God and nature and Civil Laws and Pactions too The Power in both sorts of Soveraigns is Imperial full perfect absolute and entire but the exercise of it is differently bounded and regulated one by the Laws of God and Nature and the other by human positive Laws and the latter limitation doth no more destroy the fulness and perfection and Supremacy of the Power than the former because the Soveraign who is under Political limitations as to the exercise of his Power hath his Power nevertheless as absolutely fully and entirely in himself as he that is only under the limitation of Divine and natural Laws De laudibus legum Angliae C. 9. Rex Angliae principatu nedum Regali sed Politico suo populo dominatur Regnum sic institui ut Rex non libere valeat populum tyrannide gubernare quod solum fit dum potestas regia lege politica cohibetur Thus the learned Chancellor Fortescue grants the King of England to have Regal or Imperial Power though it be under the restraint and regulation of the Power political as to the exercise thereof and as a Fountain that hath Channels and Pipes made for it within which its waters are bounded in their passage and through which they are to flow is nevertheless as perfect a Fountain and hath its waters as fully and entirely within it self as any other Fountain whose waters flow from it at liberty without any such regulation so a King whose Imperial Power is limited by human Constitutions in the exercise of it is nevertheless as compleat a Soveraign and hath the Soveraign Power as fully and entirely within himself as he who is at liberty to exercise his Authority as he will To be arbitrary is no more of the Essence of an Imperial Soveraign than to be free in the course of its waters is of the Essence of a Fountain but as the Fountain of an Aqueduct for example is as perfect in its kind and generally more beneficial and useful to mankind than a free flowing spring so limited Soveraigns are as perfect and essential Soveraigns as the purely arbitrary and despotick and generally more beneficial and salutary to the world A great deal more the Reader may find to this purpose in the same place which possibly may be the reason why he did not mention this absolute Dispensing Power among the Essential Rights of Soveraignty because he might imagine that this might not be essential to all Soveraigns not to those the exercise of whose Soveraign Power is regulated by Civil and Political Laws who yet are as perfect Soveraigns as the most arbitrary and despotick Princes But I do not love to guess at other mens thoughts nor shall I undertake to justifie or condemn this Notion of his but I think the Reader by this time sees what little reason there was to appeal to the Dean of Worcester to justifie the dispensing Power His next Authority is Arch-bishop Bancroft who it seems asserted That the Judges are but the Kings Delegates and that the King may take what causes he shall please to determine from the determination of the Judges and determine them himself which the Archbishop said was clear in Divinity that such Authority belongs to the King by the Word of God in Scripture Now I wonder this Writer would produce this and that for these two Reasons 1. Because at that very time in the Presence of King James my Lord Chief Justice Coke contradicted the Arch-bishop and told the King he could not do it and gave him his Reasons why he could not as the Ch. Justice himself reports it in that place to which this Writer refers 12 Co. Fol. 64. 5. Jac. Now methinks here he loses more than he gets for if he have got a great Church-man he has lost a very great Lawyer whose Judgment is more considerable in such matters for as the Arch-Bishop could tell him what hath been done in Scripture-times under the Jewish Common-wealth that Moses and David and Solomon and other Kings of Israel administred Justice in their own Persons So the Ch. Justice could tell him what the Constitutions of this Kingdom and the regular form of Law will admit which is more to our purpose 2. I wonder a little more how he can prove the dispensing Power from this The King may judg what causes he pleases himself Ergo He can dispense with all Laws when he pleases Does the Power of hearing and trying causes and expounding and interpreting Laws include in it a power of dispensing with Laws Then it seems every Judg is by his Office a Dispenser with Laws If the King have Power of determining causes in his own person must he judg with or without Law If he judg according to the Laws how does this prove his Power of Dispensing with Laws Surely this is a Power which can result only from a Supreme absolute and unlimited Soveraignty not from a mere power of hearing and judging causes according to the true meaning and interpretation of Laws so little does this Writer understand what he writes about and it is great pity there is no more care taken that the Kings Prerogative do not suffer by such unskilful Scriblers His next man is a very great one indeed not only an Archbishop but a Martyr for
his King and the Church the famous Archbishop Laud whose Judgment would weigh more with me than some other mens Reasons He quotes a saying of his out of his Book against Fisher but never directs us where to find it and that is a great book to search all over for one single passage but however the saying is so innocent that we may admit it to be his without farther Enquiry viz. That the Supreme Magistrate in the Estate Civil may not abrogate the Laws made in Parliament tho he may dispense with the Sanction or Penalty of the Law quoad hic nunc as the Lawyers speak Now unless quoad hic nunc signifies a general and unlimited Dispensation for all persons at all times I suppose it does not reach the plenitude of the Dispensing Power Quoad hic nunc I doubt may be expounded as a limitation of the Dispensing Power which will beget a dispute how far this Power of Dispensing may extend for which reason I wish he had concealed the Judgment of this great Archbishop tho the comfort is he was but a Divine and therefore his Judgment not Authentick in such matters any farther than this Author has made it so by appealing to it especially since he does not give his own Opinion in the case but refers to the received opinion of Lawyers at that time which whether it then was for an absolute Dispensing Power must be first known before we can know what the Archbishops Opinion was But he makes a much greater flourish with Archbishop Vsher who wrote an Excellent Book concerning the Power communicated by God to the Prince and the Obedience required of the Subject out of which he has transcribed four or five Pages how much to his purpose shall be presently examined But I must first mind him what another of his Witnesses The Right Reverend Dr. Sanderson Bishop of Lincoln has observed in his Preface to that Book Sect. 9 12 13. In the 9 Section he takes notice of several Objections which either were or might be made against this Book The Second is That it is not yor Divines at all to meddle in these matters whereof they are not competent Judges nor do they come within the compass of their Sphere They ought to be left to the cognizance and determination of States-men and Lawyers who best understand the constitution of the several Governments and the force and effect of the Laws of their own several respective Countries and are therefore presumed to be best able to judg the one by constitution in whom the Soveraignty resideth and the other by the Laws how that Soveraignty is bounded and limited in the exercise thereof In answer to this he says Sect. 12. True it is that for the more ease of the Governors and better satisfaction of the people in securing their Properties preserving Peace amongst them and doing them Justice the absolute and unlimited Soveraignty which Princes have by the Ordinance of God hath at all times and in all Nations been diversly limited and bounded in the ordinary exercise thereof by such Laws and Customs as the Supreme Governors themselves have consented to and allowed As with us in England there are sundry cases wherein a Subject in maintenance of his Right and Property may wage Law with the King bring his Action and have Judgment against him in open Court and the Judges in such cases are bound by their Oaths and Duties to right the Party according to Law against the King as well as against the meanest of his Subjects So that it seems this Bishop thought that the exercise of the Soveraignty might be limited by Laws and by such Laws as would hold good against the King himself in his own Courts and therefore that all Laws were not dispensable at the Kings pleasure and this Preface was wrote long after his Cases of Conscience of which more presently And he adds That the debating and determining of every doubt or controversie belongeth to the Learned Lawyers and Reverend Judges who are presumed to be best skilled in the Laws and Customs of the Land as their proper study wherein they are daily conversant and not to Divines who as Divines are not competent Judges in these matters nor do they come within the compass of their sphere By which one would guess that this Reverend Bishop did not apprehend that he himself had been guilty of determining so nice a Point of Law as the Dispensing Power tho this Author has discovered for him that he has Well but how does he bring off the Arch-bishop after all this for medling with such nice points As to that he tells us Sect. 13. That there is no need of bringing him off That in relation to the present Treatise all that he had said about Divines determining Law Cases as far as they related to Conscience might well enough have been spared wherein the Reverend Author without medling with these Punctilio's of the Law undertaketh no more but to declare and assert the Power of Soveraign Princes as the Godly Fathers and Councils of the ancient Catholick Church from the evidence of Holy Scripture and the most judicious Heathen Writers by discourse of Reason from the light of Nature have constantly taught and acknowledged the same as to the unprejudiced Reader by the perusal of the Book it self will easily appear From whence one would guess that Bishop Saunderson did not apprehend that Archbishop Vsher had determined any one point of Law about the absolute or limited exercise of the Soveraign Power according to the Constitution of these Realms and therein he had our Author differ who has found the Dispensing Power plainly determined by the Archbishop But whoever consults the Book it self and it will reward any man's pains who will do it will find that the Bishop was in the right and those Reasons which the Bishop urges will convince him That he was so For he will find that the Archbishop does not meddle with the particular Laws and Constitutions of these Kingdoms but only urges the Authority of Fathers and Councils and the Holy Scriptures and the consent of Heathen Writers which can no more determine what the particular Laws and Constitutions of these Kingdoms are than the Laws of England can the Customs of the Roman Empire The Archbishop only considered what Rights belong to the Soveraign Power wherever it is by the consent of Scriptures Fathers Councils and Heathen Writers who followed the light and conduct of natural Reason and took it for granted as the Bishop observes he well might That the Kings of England are Soveraign Princes and therefore have all the Rights of Soveraignty belonging to their Crowns But how the exercise of this Soveraign Power is limited by the particular Laws and Customs of Nations and by the consent and grants of Soveraign Princes themselves which Bishop Sanderson asserts has at all times and in all Nations been diversly limited and bounded this the Archbishop says nothing of
abrogate Laws by their Proclamations I am sure Dr. Barrow said no such thing tho our Author did believe or would have his Readers believe that he did unless he quoted it to no purpose And that is not improbable by his next Quotation which is to as little purpose as one could wish P. 318. The power of enacting and dispensing with Ecclesiastical Laws touching exterior Discipline did of old belong to the Emperor and therefore not to the Pope which is the design of it and it was reasonable that it should because old Laws might not conveniently sute with the present state of things and the publick Welfare because new Laws might conduce to the good of the Church and State the care of which is incumbent on him because the Prince is bound to use his Power and Authority to promote Gods Service the best way of doing which may be by framing Orders conducible thereto And what is all this to a Power of dispensing with Acts of Parliament whether they concern Church or State Who ever but the Pope denied the Princes Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs If the Oath of Supremacy indeed prove the dispensing Power then not only a few Bishops and Doctors but the whole Church of England teaches it if it does not our Author might have spared this Quotation And so he might his next P. 400. It is a Priviledg of Soveraigns to grant Priviledges Exemptions and Dispensations No doubt but it is and they may in many Cases do it by Law which owns this Authority in the Soveraign There are many legal Priviledges Exemptions Dispensations in the Power of the Prince Ergo What Thus much for Dr. Barrow and the Pope's Supremacy which was never favourable to the Prerogatives of Princes The The next in course is The Reverend Doctor Sherlock Master of the Temple who says in a positive manner It does not become any man who can think three consequences off to talk of the Authority of Laws in derogation of the Authority of the Soveraign Power The Soveraign Power made the Laws and can repeal them and dispense with them and make new Laws The only Power and Authority of the Laws is in the Power that can make and execute Laws Soveraign Power is inseparable from the Person of a Soveraign Prince Here our Author breaks off for he durst go no further it immediately following And though the exercise of it may be regulated by Laws and that Prince does very ill who having consented to such a regulation breaks the Laws yet when he acts contrary to Law such Acts carry Soveraign and irresistible Authority with them while he continues a Soveraign Prince Now it is all out and let him make his best of it But to expose the Shuffling Arts of this Writer it will be convenient to consider what the Dr. was a proving when these words dropt from his Pen. The Case of Nonresistance of the Supream Powers chap. 6. p. 186. Having at large proved the Doctrine of Non resistance from Scripture Testimonies and the common Principles of Reason in the Sixth Chapter he answers some Objections against it The Second Objection is That a Prince has no Authority against Law as is urged in Julian the Apostate There is no Authority on Earth above the P. 109. Law much less against it It is murder to put a man to death against Law and if they knew who had Authority to commit open bare-faced and down right murders this would direct them where to pay their Passive Obedience But it would be the horrid'st Slander in the World to say that any such Power is lodged in the Prerogative as to destroy Men contrary to Law To this the Doctor answers Now I perfectly agree with them in this also that a Prince has no just and legal Authority to act against Law that if he knowingly persecute any Subject to death contrary to Law he is a Murderer and that no Prince has any such Prerogative to commit open bare-faced and down-right Murders But what follows from hence Does it hence follow therefore we may resist and oppose them if they do This I absolutely deny because God has expresly commanded us not to resist And I see no inconsistency between these two Propositions that a Prince has no legal Authority to persecute against Law and yet that he must not be resisted when he does He who exceeds the just bounds of his Authority is lyable to be called to an Account for it but he is accountable only to those who have a Superior Authority to call him to an Account Thus the Soveraign Prince may exceed his Authority and is accountable for it to a Superior Power But because he has no Superior on Earth he cannot be resisted by his own Subjects but must be reserved to the Judgment of God who alone is the King of Kings In answer to what is said That an Inauthoritative Act which carrys no obligation at all cannot oblige Subjects to Obedience thereby meaning Passive Obedience he urges That it is very false and absurd to say that every illegal is an Inauthoritative Act which carrys no obligation with it This is contrary to the practice of all human Judicatures and the dayly experience of Men who suffer in their Lives Bodies or Estates by an unjust and illegal Sentence Every Judgment contrary to the true meaning of the Law is in that sense illegal and yet such illegal Judgments have their Authority and Obligation till they are rescinded by some higher Authority This he explains at large and comes at last to P. 195. enquire Whence an illegal Act or Judgment derives its Authority and Obligation The Answer is plain It is from the Authority of the Person whose Act or Judgment it is Which he proves and confirms in four Propositions 1. That there must be a Personal Power and Authority antecedent to all human Laws For there can be no Laws without a Law-maker and there can be no Law-maker unless there be one or more Persons invested with the Power of Government of which making Laws is one branch For a Law is nothing else but the publick and declared will and command of the Law-maker whether he be the Soveraign Prince or the People Which shows in what sense the Dr. affirmed That Soveraign Power made the Laws and can repeal them and dispense with them and make new Laâ—… viz. That there is no such thing as a Law without a Lawgiver who can make and repeal and dispence with Laws and without whose Authority too the Law can have nâ—ne For without doubt the same Power that makes Laws can repeal and dâ—spense wiâ—h them too 2. And hence it necessarily follows That a Soveraign Prince dâ—… not receive his Authority from the Laws but Laws receive theâ—… Authority from him For the Law has no Authority nor can give any but what it receives from the King and then it is a wonderful Riddle how the King should receive his Authority from the Law 3. Hence
it foll ws That the being of Soveraign Power is independent on Laws That is As a Soveraign Prince does not receive his Power from the Law so should he violate the Laws by which he is bound to Govern yet he does not forfeit his Power Hâ— breaks his Faith to God and to his Country but he is a Soveraign Prince stâ—ll And in this sense the Dr. affirmed That Soveraign Power is inseparable from the Person of a Soveraign Prince 4. Hence it plainly appears that every illegal Act the King does is not an Inauthoritative Act but lays an Obligation on Subjects to yield if not an Active yet a Passive Obedience For the King receives not his Soveraign Authority from the Law nor does he forâ—…t his Authority by breaking the Law and therefore he is a Soveraign Prince still and his most illegal Acts though they have not the Authority of the Law yet they have the Authority of Soveraign Power which is irresistâ—ble and unaccountable Now this shows in what sense the Doctor immediately adds It does not become any Man who can think three consequences off to talk of the Authority of Laws in derogation to the Authority of the Soveraign Power Which does not signifie that the Law cannot abridge the Kings dispensing Power nor have the Authority of a Rule to him which he does not meddle with but that no Law can have such Authority over a Soveraign Prince as to un-king him or deprive him of his Soveraign Authority and make all his illegal Acts inauthoritative if he breaks it For that is the direct answer to the Objection and he seems to have looked no further and indeed to speak the truth his Argument holds no further for it does not follow that the King is not bound to keep the Laws but he is a King still and cannot forfeit his Sovereign and irresistable Authority though he breaks them But if this Doctors Judgment be of any force we may learn what his Opinion was if he be not now better informed by his answer to the fourth Objection though possibly he will not thank me for my pains in transcribing it P. 207. 4. The next objection against the Doctrine of Non-resistance is this That it destroys the difference between an absolute and limited Monarchy between a Prince whose Will is his Law and a Prince who is bound to govern by Law which undermines the Fundamental Constitutions of the English Government To this he answers The difference between an absolute and limited Monarchy is not that Resistance is lawful in one case and unlawful in the other for a Monarch the exercise of whose Power is limited and regulated by Laws is as irresistable as the most absolute Monarch whose Will is his Law and if he were not I would venture to say that the most absolute and despotick Government is more for the publick good than a limited Monarchy But the difference lies in this that an absolute Monarch where by absolute it is plain he means a despotick Prince for otherwise a limited Monarchy may be called and often is an absolute Sovereignty is under the Government of no Law but his own Will He can make and repeal Laws at his pleasure without asking the consent of any of his Subjects he can impose what Taxes he pleases and is not tied up to strict Rules and Formalities of Law in the execution of Justice But it is quite contrary in a limited Monarchy where the exercise of the Soveraign Power is regulated by known and standing Laws which the Prince can neither make nor repeal without the consent of the People c. No you will say the case is just the same For what do Laws signifie when a Prince must not be resisted though he break these Laws and govern by an arbitrary and lawless Will He may make himself as absolute as the Great Turk or the Mogul when ever he pleases For what should hinder him when all mens hands are tied by this Doctrine of Non-resistance now it must be acknowledged that there is a possibility for such a Prince to govern arbitrarily and to trample upon all Laws And yet the difference between an absolute and limited Monarchy is vastly great 1. For this Prince though he may make his Will a Law to himself and the only Rule of his Government yet he cannot make it the Law of the Land He may break Laws but he cannot make nor repeal them and therefore he can never alter the Frame and Constitution of the Government though he may at present interrupt the regular administration of it And this is a great security to Posterity and a present restraint upon himself 2. For it is a mighty uneasie thing to any Prince to govern contrary to known Laws He offers as great and constant violence to himself as he does to his Subjects The breach of his Oath to God and his promises and engagements to his Subjects makes the exercise of such an arbitrary Power very troublesom And though his Subjects are bound not to resist him yet his own guilty fears will not suffer him to be secure And arbitrary Power is not so luscious a thing as to tempt Men to forfeit all the ease and pleasure and security of Government for the sake of it 3. Though Subjects must not resist such a Prince who violates the Laws of his Kingdom yet they are not bound to obey him and serve him in his Vsurpations Subjects are bound to yield an active obedience only according to Law though they are bound not to resist when they suffer against Law Now it is a mighty uneasy thing to the greatest Tyrant to govern always by force And no Prince in a limited Monarchy can make himself absolute unless his own Subjects assist him to do so 4. And yet it is very dangerous for any Subject to serve his Prince contrary to Law though the Prince himself is unaccountable and irresistible yet his Ministers may be called to an account and be punisht for it and the Prince may think fit to look on quâ—…tly and see it done or if they escape at preâ—ent it may be time enough to suffer for it under the â—ext Prince which we see by experience makes all Men wary how they serve their Prince against â—…aw None but Persons of desperate Fortunes will do this â—…ated and these are not always to be met with and 〈◊〉 â—eldom fit to be eâ—…plâ—…d 5. And therefore 〈◊〉 may observe that by the â—undamental Laws of our Government 〈…〉 Prince 〈◊〉 govern 〈…〉 so he is irresistible 〈◊〉 shews that our wise Law-makers dâ—d nâ—t think that Non resistance was destructive of alâ—…ited Mâ—…y Not long since this was â—…gh 〈…〉 Dâ—ctriâ— and I am sure it is very necessary to keep Peâ—…e 〈…〉 Prince 〈◊〉 for which reason I 〈…〉 though it doth not reach the height 〈…〉 And now I find our Author begins to run â—ow when 〈◊〉 â—akes up with Doctor Nâ—lson who says In the Kings Power it is to remit