my Readers may be the better qualified to be my Judges I desire they would do as the Noble Bereans did Acts 17.11 Search the Scripture daily whether these things are so for as I advance nothing upon my own Authority so I do not desire any thing should be credited only because I say it for in Points of such importance 't is very fit every body should judge for themselves And if these things are so Kings must be contented to own their Power as well as Birth to be of humane extraction But yet I must beg leave to deny an Inference that some would make from that who say 'T is no act of Disobedience to God to resist our Prince nor of Obedience to God to submit to him if he does not derive his Power from God and act by his Authority and Commission for I would fain know whether it is not possible to make a humane Contract so strong that it shall be a Sin against God to break it For according to this way of arguing I might give away an Estate and settle it as firm as Law can make it and yet afterwards I might without doing the Party any wrong take it from him again without his consent because he has no Grant to shew from Heaven for it And this Instance I think may be pretty applicable to this Case The People at the first Institution and setting up of Monarchy among them make over so much of the Power and such and such Rights and Priviledges to the King which if afterwards they refuse to make good they are and ought to be lookt upon as Rebels and Traitors But on the other side suppose the Person to whom I had made over some part of my Estate should upon that pretend a Title to my whole Estate and would let me enjoy no part of it might not I lawfully resist him And what answer they would give to this may serve to the other Case and that brings me to my second General What Power and Authority it is that is actually vested in our Kings Under which the Doctrines of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience shall be consider'd II. Having on the former Head examined both the Original of Monarchy and also proved that it was Limited and Conditional among the Jews and it being agreed on all hands even by the greatest Assertors of the Prerogative that our Saviour did not make any Alteration in the Rights of Princes but what he found them possest of he gives them leave quietly to enjoy I think we may safely conclude that since he made no augmentation to the Princes Power he laid no new Obligation on the Subject but the King is to Govern and the People to Obey according to the Rules agreed and establish'd between them for the truth is there can be no universal Rule given in the Case for the Magistrates Power and the Measures of the Subjects subjection are only to be judged of by the particular Laws and Constitutions of that Kingdom for that may be very lawful in one Place which is not so in another Therefore our Saviour did give not only the Wisest but the Justest Resolution to that ensnaring Question of the Jews about Tribute that ever was when he said Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesars and unto God the things that are Gods Mat. 22.20 For although he does by name reserve nothing but Gods dues yet I think it can hardly be inserved from that Negative Argument that the People should part with their dues for the Command is only in general to give to Cesar that which of right belongs to Cesar so that I cannot think this Text gives Princes any Title to what is not their due but you see he does not pretend to tell us what is Cesar's due because no general Rule could be given in that Case the Rights of Kings and People varying almost in every Country Therefore 't is from the Statute-Book not the Bible that we must judge of the Power our Kings are invested withal and also of our own Obligations and the measures of our Subjection And here I might have a fair opportunity of expatiating and both tell you the advantages nay the necessity of Government in generals and discourse also of the several kinds that are in the World. But my design being Brevity I shall only take notice of that wherein we are particularly concerned and that is Monarchy which generally speaking is the best Government in the World. But of that there are several sorts as an Elective Monarchy and an Hereditary one and those that Reign by Succession may be distinguish'd into two kinds more an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy the latter of which I take to be the happiest Constitution under the Heavens Therefore next being born within the Pale of the true Church I think to be born an English-Man is one of the greatest Privileges any ones Birth can entitle him to a happiness that I am sure is envied by our Neighbours though I doubt not valued so much as it ought to be by them that enjoy it although they have the opportunity of a Comparison which they say is the only way to judge either of happiness or ease for if we look but on our next Neighbours of the other side the Dike we shall soon see the difference and what a misfortune it is to be subject to the Arbitrary Power of a lawless and merciless Tyrant How they came under those unhappy Circumstances at first is not my business at present to examine but I 'm sure it ought to be the business of our whole Lives to bless God that we are not yet under the like and next our Thanks to God we ought to commemorate the Courage of those Noble Patriots who from the beginning of our Monarchy have opposed the Encroachments that some of our Kings would have made upon our Laws and Liberties which blessed be God were derived intire to us and I hope we shall transmit them so to our Posterity notwithstanding all the endeavours that have been used for the subversion of them For I think I may challenge the whole World to shew so equal and so happy a Constitution of Government as is this day in England which is so exactly and harmoniously composed that I know nothing to compare it to but its self for as Vertue does commonly lie in the mean so our Legislators have wisely pickt out all the good that was in all sorts of Government but shun'd the Extreams that any one might have betray'd us to For here the Populace have liberty without a Democratical Confusion and Fury the Nobility have all the Priviledges to which Aristocracy it self could intitle them without the necessity of running into Factions and Cabals for it and the King's Power so equally ballanced between the Two other that his Power can hardly ever degenerate into Tyranny nor on the other side while he governs by Law can he ever want Authority either to protect or correct his
Subjects or means to reward Vertue or discourage Vice which are the great Ends for which Civil Government was at first instituted And as the several parts of our Government have such a mutual dependance one upon the other so they have the same opportunities of reciprocally endearing and obliging one another So that I have often thought with reverence be it spoke that we have a kind of Trinity in our Government as well as in our Faith to which I 'm sure they ought to have another resemblance and that is their Unity for their Power is so equal in the great Point of Legislature that one cannot properly say that one is greater or less than another for as all have Negative Voices so neither nor both the Houses without the King nor the King without the Two Houses can do any thing but the Consent of the whole Three is necessary both to the making and abrogating a Law for all Three Parties being equally obliged to execute and obey those Laws when made it was very reasonable they should all give their Consents to them before they were made And since the Legislative Power is in all Nations esteemed the Supreme and ours being so divided it seems to be a little improper to call any One of the Three the Supreme Power It must be acknowledged indeed that the Executative Part of the Power is by the Consent of the other Two committed to the King and that only by way of Trust and under such Limitations that it cannot properly be call'd the Supreme Power although he may fitly enough be stiled the Supreme Magistrate of the Nation because he and none but he has the Power to make men keep the Laws and to punish them for the Breaches of the Law but that under such Restrictions and Limitations that the Title of Chief Magistrate of the Nation is given to him much upon the same account that the Mayor of a Town is call'd the Chief Magistrate of that Town for without all doubt all the Members of that Corporation and the Inhabitants of that Town are obliged to obey their Mayor when his Commands are according to their Charter and he has also power to punish the willful Breaches of it in any that are within his Jurisdiction but yet every body knows his Power is limited and so truly is our King 's and that in the most important things and where he would certainly chuse to shew his Power were it absolute that is in the raising of Money and punishing of Capital Offenders for of all things the Sword of Justice should be solely in the Power of the supreme Magistrate if he were really absolute but that we know our Kings have not for he hath no other way to right himself than what the meanest Subjects have For suppose he should accuse any one of High Treason he must first Indict him and then undergo all the tedious Forms and Processes of Law before he can Convict him So that I cannot say that the King has in that particular any priviledge beyond the Subject for Traitors are to have as fair play for their Lives as any other Offenders although the punishment as it ought to be is more severe when 't is inflicted for the King being a publick Person and one that by his undertaking the Administration of the Law is more expos'd to danger for by the very Execution of Justice he certainly provokes the Offender and if he be of any Quality and Rank his Friends and Relations too So that truly by the Rules of Equity both the Law and the People ought to set a double Fence about the King's Person and take particular care to secure him from those Hazards to which his High Place and Office may render him more liable than more inferiour people So that those particular Laws which are made in favour of the Prince are rather the Effects of the Justice and Kindness of the People than Evidence of the Priviledge and Prerogative of the King several Instances of which the Reign of our late King Charles the Second might furnish us with but as it would be tedious to repeat them all so truly all may be comprized in that one of putting the Militia into the King's Power for the remembrance of the late Rebellion and the sad Effects of it were then so fresh in every bodies memory that they thought there could be no greater Inconvenience than that of the King 's wanting Power to maintain that Authority with which the Law had invested him and so for his farther security they past that and several other Acts which were extreamly for the King's advantage And surely none of our Non-Resistance Gentlemen but must own that they were a considerable Addition to the Prerogative And whosoever shall pretend they were the Right of the Crown before teaches the King to be ungrateful as well as unjust I know it is alledg'd by some That a Soveraign Prince receives not his Authority from the Laws but the Laws receive their Authority from him From which they would infer That a King is neither subject to nor bound up by the Laws any farther than he pleases But I must beg leave to deny both this their minor Proposition and the Conclusion although I grant the major from which they say the other Two will necessarily result but for my part I cannot see the necessity of such Consequences although I should grant there was a personal Power antecedent to all the Civil Laws for that was the Paternal and not the Regal Authority For sure none will affirm that is the Law of Nature as the former certainly is for without all doubt the People had power to Elect a King before there could be any such thing as a Soveraign Prince born in the World. So that 't is evident that the power of the People is not only antecedent to that of Kings but also that the Kings did receive and derive their Authority at first from the People So that 't is no incongruous much less impossible supposition That Kings do derive their Authority from the Laws for certainly they must owe their power to that which gave it a Being and that is that Original Contract which is made between the People and the Person or Family they shall think fit to advance to the Kingship which ought to be the Boundary of the Prince's Authority as also of the Subjects Submission But however the Case may stand in other Countries God be thank'd us so in England For our Ancient History tells us what sad Confusion there was in this poor Island after the Conquest of the Romans when every little Captain set up for a King and there was always such inveterate hatred between those small neighbouring Princes if they deserve to be call'd so that they would rather call in and submit to Forreigners who devour'd and enslav'd all sides than yield to one another And on this account both Danes and Saxons were at first call'd in And although the Saxons
had establish'd an Heptarchy among us yet they found they were too many for this small Plat of Ground for they were always encroaching and fighting with one another wherefore growing weary of that Horne tells you in his Mirrour chap. 1. How they chose themselves One King to maintain and defend their Persons and Goods in Peace by Rules of Law and made him swear That he would be obedient to suffer Right as well as his People should be And these are the Terms on the which our first Monarch properly so call'd for truly before they did not deserve the Name of Kings for I 'm sure their power was not so great or perhaps so extensive as that of a Lord Mayor of London did ascend the Throne and that the same Terms and Conditions were agreed to and confirmed by his Successors might be easily proved would it not take up too much time but yet King Edgar thought it worth their while to collect and transcribe them And we find William the First was willing to wave his Title of Conquerour and by confirming the Ancient Rights and Priviledges of the People be receiv'd as their Legal not their Conquerour or Arbitrary Governour For although Conquest may give one power it cannot of its self give one Right to rule a Nation for the Consent of the People either tacite that is when they like their new Governour so well that they never offer to resist but quietly comply and submit to his Government receive the advantage of his Protection and Laws and pay him in return what his Laws require or explicit that is when they make Conditions and Terms for themselves before they will submit is so necessary that no King can be long safe without it And since the way of explicit Contract has been the general Method of our Predecessors therefore whatever Objections are made against that known saying of Bracton Lex facit Regem it will hold good in Law and I verily believe none of our Kings would exchange the Title that the Law gives them to the Crown for all the Evidences the Clergy can furnish them with out of the Gospel to prove their power absolute and arbitrary Therefore since 't is the Law that must tell us with what power our Kings are invested perhaps Bracton may give us as good an account of it as any body when he says The whole Power of the King of England is to do good and not to do hurt which he explains by adding Nor can he do anything as a King but what he can legally do lib. 3. c. 9. From whence I suppose the old Maxim That the King can do no wrong first sprung For while he acts by Law 't is evident he cannot and for what he does against Law he does not do it as a King. Nay the same Bracton seems to think That he actually unkings himself by it for he says Non est enim Rex ubi dominatur Voluntas non Lex By which certainly he does not mean that he ceased to be a good King for that he need not have been at the pains of telling us for our own sad Experience would soon have convinced us of it but having told us before That he can do nothing as a King but what he can legally do without all doubt his meaning was that we are not to look upon him nor obey him as our King when he commands any thing contrary to Law. But there has been so much writ on this Subject already that as it would be hard to say any thing new upon it so it would be both tedious and superfluous to repeat the old But I suppose I may safely take for granted what all sides allow and that is That ours is a limited Monarchy For all must own that if our Kings act as they ought to do they must keep within the Boundaries of the Laws And where the Regal Authority is circumscribed and the King's Power as King has its Non ultra yet that the Peoples Obedience should know no Measures but is extended ad infinitum is to me I must confess a very unintelligible Doctrine For if we are equally obliged to render Obedience either Active or Passive to the Kings Commands which are contrary to the Law as we are to those which are consistent with it and authorized by it I must crave leave to say that Law is a very superfluous because a very insignificant thing nay certainly if the Case be so it were much better be taken away for perhaps it may betray some poor ignorant People who 't is possible may think it gives them some Right when indeed it gives them none But if they shall think fit to make any distinction between the Obedience we are to render to the King when he speaks like a King by the Consent and Authority of the Laws and what we are to pay him when he speaks in his Personal and Private Capacity If I say they shall think fit to make any distinctions in the Case I should desire them to set the Boundaries for truly according to the Doctrine of Passive Obedience in the Latitude they now take it I know no body else that can fix them But I would fain know of them whether there is not such a Rule in Divinity That where there is no Law there is no Transgression And if no Transgression certainly no Obligation to undergo any Penalty for the same Text tells us in the same Verse Rom. 4.15 That the Law worketh wrath that is that the Law obligeth to the Punishment threatned to the Breakers of it But Where there is no Law there is no Transgression and consequently no wrath and if they will please to apply this to the Point in hand I think I need not add any thing to it but proceed to shew that besides the general and implicit Obligation that our Laws lay upon all that have any share in the Government or any Interest in the State our Kings have a more particular and actual Obligation to govern by them and to submit to them For that August Ceremony of their Coronation was not intended only to please and amuse the Vulgar with the Gaiety and Splendor of the Shew but was instituted for Wiser Ends that by the Magnificence and Solemnity of the Action it might fix upon the Hearts both of King and People the remembrance of those Vows and Engagements they at that time mutually make to one another and I do not at all doubt but the Custom was derived from the Jews and is the same thing that I have so largely treated on in my First Part For here King and People make a solemn Covenant before the Lord and that nothing may be wanting to the Resemblance they partake of a Common Meal together which was the ancient way of confirming and ratifying all Compacts and Agreements betwixt Party and Party And I think I may not improperly stile the Coronation the Marriage-day between the King and Kingdom for altho in
Hereditary Monarchies there is a kind of Pre-contract as there often is between private Persons which may be so obligatory that nothing but Death can dissolve it yet the Wisdom of the Law does not think that sufficient but requires a formal and publick owning of it for these Two Reasons among many others First For the Satisfaction of the Parties themselves and to give them the greater Confidence in one another Secondly That the Number of Witnesses may be some Check to them and make them think how notorious their Perjury will be after they had confirm'd their Vows before a Multitude So that as we before proved the King's Power was Limited so now I think we may say it is Conditional also For I cannot but suppose that all that shall read this Paper understand the Nature of a Covenant so well that I need not tell them the Obligation is mutual and that if I break my part of the Covenant I have no Right to challenge the Performance of the other side But if Kings have any particular Privilege of breaking their Words and forswearing themselves they would do well to produce their Grant of Exemption from the Rules of God and Nature for we know where 't is said I will not hold him guiltless that takes my Name in vain in which Law I do not remember any Exception But I know to this 't will be replied That they shall answer for it to God but are not accountable to their Subjects for the Breaches of their Oaths And if so I do wonder why they were at first imposed for I think I may not improperly urge what St. Paul says 1 Tim. 1.9 The Law is not made for the righteous man but for the lawless c. So 't is not a good King that we desire to tie up for we know he will be a Law to himself but 't is the Lawless King that we would set Bounds to But if the most sacred and solemn Oaths give the Subject no Right at all to require or expect Performance I know not of what Use they are unless it be to Damn the King which surely will be but small Consolation to a Christian Subject But this by the by But since such Covenants have in all Ages and Nations been counted so obligatory and sacred that the Apostle tells you Gal. 3.15 Tho it be but a Mans Covenant yet if it be confirm'd no Man disanmilleth or addeth thereto Nor can any after-act as he proves very well in the 17 th Verse make it void Therefore by this Doctrine I cannot see what Authority any third Person has to acquit either King or People of their Oaths to each other So that I hope I may without offence say That Kings are obliged by their Covenants since God Almighty owns himself to be so for Moses desires the People should take particular notice of it Deut. 7.9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God he is God the faithful God which keepeth Covenant and Mercy with them that love him and keep his Commandments That is God will be sure to perform his part of the Covenant if the People keep theirs And in Psal. 89.34 My Covenant will I not break says God. And it seems to be a Title wherein he takes more than ordinary delight for both Nehemiah and Daniel desiring to procure his Favour and to make him propitious to his People begin their Addresses to him in these very words O Lord God the great and terrible God that keepeth Covenant and Mercy c. Neh. 1.5 and Dan. 9.4 therefore since it is one of the Attributes and Excellencies of God that he is true and faithful to his word it should be no part of the Privilege of Kings to be at liberty to break theirs Now all Covenants being Conditional where there is a possibility of the Parties breaking their part of the Covenant there is also a possibility of their forfeiting the advantages of it and the right they had to claim performance of the other side Now that Kings can break their Word and Oath too as well as meaner Men we have had a little too late experience Therefore it is a point of great concern to know how far and when it may be lawful for the Subjects to take the forfeiture for their Kings brench of Covenant And here God forbid that I should attempt to make the Government Precarious or to make Kings accountable for every little Failure For as every breach of the Law in a Subject is not Treason so every violation of it by the Prince is not the forfeiting of his Prerogative Nay they are so very few Cases wherein 't is possible to be done that perhaps our Late unhappy King James is the first Instance of it in our Nation not but that we have had as bad Kings and worse Men to rule over us But none but himself did ever attempt in so many Instances to destroy the Constitution and overturn the very Foundation of our Government For 't was neither his Mal-administration in general nor the several particular Injustices that were committed in his Reign that I look upon as his great Crimes For although the Proceedings against the Bishops and Magdalen College were very ill things and made a very great noise yet sure none can say that he forseited his Crown by those particular Breaches of the Law. No there was the time for shewing and exercising true Passive Obedience for had the Bishops done any thing but just what they did they had not done their Duty but their Patience and Submission to those Injustices did extreamly well become them For 't would be a sad World indeed if every body that thought themselves hardly or unjustly dealt withal should fly in the face of Publick Authority and have power to resist the lawful Magistrate No I would rather chuse to live under the greatest Tyrant in the World than in such an Anarchy for where there is any Law private Persons are not nor ought not to be Judges in their own Causes and that is one Reason why an unjust Sentence is Obligatory for in such Cases private Persons must suffer rather than by force right themselves For 't is an old saying Better a Mischief than an Inconvenience that is Better a private Person should be wrong'd than the publick Peace disturb'd and the calling Authority in question for every little Complaint would be a greater inconvenience than thousands unjust Sentences against particular Persons for although Justice be never so much violated yet if the Law it self be preserv'd intire and the Constitution and Basis of the Government remain firm and unshaken the Subject must be content to suffer and neither Oppose nor Depose their King. But yet after all there is some things that may be done by Princes which the greatest Asserters of the Monarchical Right hold to be Forfeitures of it particularly the selling of them or betraying them to a Foreign Power and Jurisdiction to which I shall crave leave to add
two more the setting up a False and Spurious Heir in an Hereditary Monarchy and the overturning all the Establisht Laws and setting up Arbitrary Power in a limited one And if I can prove our late King James to have been guilty of all three surely I need not say much more to prove that he has forfeited his Right or that his Subjects are actually freed from their Allegiance to him 1. And as to the first point I shall not trouble my self to enquire into the particulars of the Private League which they say he made with the French King for we have publick matters of Fact enough to prove all that is necessary in this Point For the sending an Ambassador to Rome and owning of the Popes Authority so far as to receive his Nuncio and Provincial Romish Bishops and that against so many Laws and Statutes that are expresly against it and not only that but making Privy Counsellors and advancing to the Helm of State those very Persons that by our Laws are not allow'd to live in the Kingdom And to what end could all this tend but to bring the Nation under the Papal Jurisdiction and Slavery 2. The second of setting up a suspected Child to be Heir as 't is a thing of which we have no President in all our Story so 't is a Sin for which we have yet no name but I should call it Civil Adultery it being doing that to the Publick that a false Wife does in a private Family It is a thing indeed against which there is no Law because like that of committing Paricide the Law-givers thought no body could ever be guilty of it and truly I believe he is the first Instance of a Father that ever set up a suspected Child against his own Children And if this is not an inversion or rather a subversion of the Succession I know not what is And yet to my wonder I can see some people pass this by very patiently who can rail with a very good grace against the Parliament I cannot say for giving the present King a Right but anticipating the Title he had to the Crown and that with the consent of the next Heirs too so that they cannot say there is any wrong done in the Case And yet some make a horrible out-cry as if both the Constitution of the Government and the Laws of Succession were all subverted and broken by it when they have only set up a Prince of the Blood for which there is Presidents in our own Chronicles For Henry the 7th by Name had no Right of either side but what he derived from his Mother who was Heir of the House of Lancaster and his Wife who was the true and undoubted Heir of the House of York and consequently of the Kingdom But although he Reigned by her he would not suffer her to Reign with him for he would allow her neither Power nor Title so that this is no new thing among us but the setting up of that spurious Brat I am sure has no paralel And if there was to be Inversion in the Case surely it should sooner be made for the sake of a Noble Prince who merited all that could be done for him than for the setting up of an unknown but in all probability base-born Child the very thoughts of which all true English Men ought to abhor 3. But how foul soever the two former things may and ought to appear it is the third that knocks the Nail of the head But I think I may reasonably suppose it superfluous for me to enter into a long Discourse of the Illegality of the Dispensing Power which is so fully display'd in the Tryal of the seven Bishops that it may supersede all that can be said on the point But although Charles the Second wished he had had the Power of dispensing with tender Consciences on some particular Emergencies yet none but our late King James ever pretended to have Authority to dispense with and silence all the Laws of the Nation But when he assumed to himself the Power of dispensing with those Laws he could neither make nor abrogate he did at once both Unking himself and release his Subjects For as the English Kings have no Right but what the Law gives them so the People owe no duty but what the same Law obliges them to and when our Kings go about to invalidate the Laws they destroy that very Power that gives the Monarchy both Being and Authority And that this was the very Case of the late King James I dare appeal to any body that knows our Laws unless it be those vile despicable Wretches whose names will be Infamous to all Posterity who pretending to sit to Judge according to Law gave Sentence contrary to the Law. But it was very much for the honour of that Noble Profession that there was so many sets of Judges turned out and that they were so many years before they could pick out Twelve Men that were Rogues enough to be entrusted by them and even here they were happily deceived for among four which I suppose they thought themselves secure of two of them when they came to the tryal approved themselves honest Men. But if we talk of Treason and of Traytors none sure since the very Foundation of Monarchy in this Nation have deserved that Title so well as J. and C. for I am loth to know them by the Names of Lord C. and Lord Bishop of Ch. but since there was a Judas among the Apostles I hope it will be no scandal to our Excellent and Reverend Bishops that there was one Traytor among them But certainly two such Traytors both to King and Kingdom Church and State England never bred But I hope they will meet with such full rewards for their Treasons in this World as may deter others from following them and also secure them from that sadder vengeance in the World to come which I am sure I heartily wish I could here add a great deal more on this Head but that I suppose it needless for having proved before that our King's Power is both Limited and Conditional and consequently that he can forfeit his Right to the Government I think I need not now I have made out those three things use any other Arguments to prove King James has actually done so although I might insist upon his Deserting as well as subverting the Government III. But after all that I can say I do not expect every body should have the same Sentiments I have But having endeavour'd from the beginning to clear the way before me and to prove all my Points as I went that I may not leave my Reader in a Maze at the last I shall consider and answer as well as I can the Chief Objections that may be made against what I have now said which I think may be reduced to these Four Heads First That it is against the receiv'd Opinion of Monarchies being Jure Divino and being first Instituted
as that our Church-men may have to the very appearance of Rebellion for living in the late War and seeeing the dismal Effects of it by the sad ruin it had wrought both in Church and State they might reasonably think they could not run too far from such pernicious Principles But alas there is an extream of the other hand which perhaps may be as dangerous and therefore ought as carefully to be avoided For if like some of our over Zealous Reformers in the Church who having both seen and detested the Errors and Superstitions of the Church of Rome thought they were to hold nothing in Common with them if I say like these our State-Reformers should fling away and abhor and detest all that was done in 41. as the one would soon run us out of our Religion as Christians so the other would out of our Birth-right and Priviledges as English men But as I hope no body will reject their Creed because believed by the Papists so I think it would be full as unreasonable for a People to despise and destroy their own Rights and Liberties because they were asserted by a Company of Rebels so long ago But all this while I have been only skirmishing with some of their Out-Guards their main Body and Strength too remains yet entire Which I shall own invincible if they can make out those two great Points First That Monarchy is Jure Divino properly so call'd and Secondly That if the King Command us any thing contrary to our Laws we are yet in Conscience obliged to obey and yield Obedience either Active or Passive These are indeed the Foundation Stones on which the great Doctrines of Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience are built and if the Foundation prove firm and true I cannot no I dare not deny the Superstructure but 〈◊〉 yield my self their Convert being I bless God more desirous to be overcome by Truth than to conquer without it And coming with this Resolution I hope I may for Argument sake be allow'd to say what I can for the Cause I have undertaken To which purpose I shall desire leave to Consider these two things First From whence Kings in general do derive their Authority which answers to the first Point of Monarchy being Jure Divino and Secondly What is that particular Authority that is vested in our Kings from which I hope to clear the second Point I. But first of the First And since Jure Divino is the thing pretended to I think I cannot take a better Method than to let Gods own Word and Law decide the Question For I take it to be the best as well as the last Judge in such Points and therefore I shall confine my self to the Sacred Scripture and bring no Proofs nor Argument on this first Head but what that affords me And if I can from thence prove these Three things First That Monarchy was not at the first Instituted by God Almighty Secondly That after Monarchy was permitted and established among the Jews the People did make and set up their Kings and Thirdly That those Kings which were named and appointed by God himself had not an absolute Power but were under Conditions and Covenants If I say I can make out these three things I shall then suppose I have done all that can be expected from me and that I have sufficiently confuted the Jure Divino Title And now when I come to treat of my First Point 't is possible some may expect that I should by History trace Monarchy back to its Original source but our present dispute being Whether it be Jure Divino or no I thought as I said before that Gods Word would be our best Guide and therefore shall confine my self to the Sacred Writ although it must be own'd that if there be any intimations at all about the Matter we are now in quest of they are for several Centuries so dark and obscure that Negative Inferences are the best Proofs we can produce but if our Advesaries can bring a piece of Canonical Scripture that is Affirmative on their side I shall not only be very glad to see it but also very willing to submit to it for I am sure it was never my design to contest either Gods Will or Gods Word and the latter being the surest way to come to the knowledg of the former it being given us for that very end I hope it will not be unreasonable in me to expect that the Claims to Jure Divino should be made out by express Scripture for the Grant ought to be very clear that conveys such an inestimable Privilege Now I conceive a thing may become Jure Divino two ways First by being immediately Instituted by God Almighty and Secondly by being positively Commanded of which the Church both Jew and Christian can afford us Instances among the which I should reckon the Passover with the Jews and the Lords Supper with the Christians they both of them being not only immediately Instituted but also their observation positively Commanded by God himself And although I cannot say I rank Kings in that Classis yet I do own an Order of Men to be Jure Divino and that is the Bishops for that of St. Joh. 17.18 As thou hast sent me into the World even so send I them into the World seems to me so powerful and so full a Commission that I dare not reject it And when our Monarchical Men can shew me a Text of Scripture wherein our Saviour does as fully make over his Regal Authority to Kings as he does there his Prophetical to the Apostles I shall then certainly pay them the same deference And because Examples do illustrate things much more than simple Positions I shall now suppose that some of us of the Church of England went into the Indies in the Nature of Apostles to Preach and Plant Christianity among them and succeeding in the design I should then ask Whether it were lawful to set up what sort of Church-Government we pleas'd among these new Converts or whether they did not think we were obliged to establish Episcopacy But of the other side supposing that we went as Conquerors and had made an absolute Conquest of a very large Territory might we not then lawfully set up what kind of Civil Government we pleased and such as we thought might be most beneficial and agreeable to our new Subjects Or are we in Conscience indispensibly obliged to set up Monarchy where-ever we have the Command although it should happen to be extreamly disadvantageous to the State in its present Circumstances And the Answer that every body shall in such a Case be able to give themselves will I suppose sufficiently clear the Point of Jure Divino But for all this the other side are very free to make out their Title to it and if they can prove that it was Originally Instituted by God Almighty or that we are positively Commanded to obey Kings exclusively to all other sort of
words as that the People brought them Presents as to Jehosaphat 2 Chron. 17.5 and Presents was the way by which in those days People owned and exprest their Duty and Homage and the refusing them was an interpretative denying of their Authority as you see in the Case of Saul 1 Sam. 10.27 or when the Kingdom was confirm'd as they say of Amaziah 2 Chron. 25.3 he then slew his Father's Murderers So that it seems there was something previous even to the impow'ring him to do that Act of Justice And altho I cannot say these Phrases do down-right affirm yet they do intimate that there was something to be done by the People But whether Amaziah was set up by the People or no I shall not now dispute but sure I am they pull'd him down and deprived him not only of his Crown but of his Life also as you may find it in 2 Kings 14.19 But of that we have a larger Account 2 Chron. 25.27 Now after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the Lord they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent to Lachish after him and slew him there Now that his turning away from following the Lord did give his Subjects Authority to depose and to kill him is that which I should be very loth to affirm although it seems to be set down there as the ground and occasion of their conspiring against him but this I suppose I may safely aver That his forsaking God might be one great Reason why God forsook him and left him in the Power of his Subjects For all the Promises to the Jews being of temporal good things and the possessing of Canaan and long life and prosperity in it their great reward they might very reasonably make their good or bad success the great Criterion by which they might judge how they stood in God Almighty's Favour and whether they had pleas'd or displeas'd him But now among us Christians whose Promises are of another Nature I should be very far from making that a general Inference though from the very same Event For alas it is yet too fresh in some of our Memories when the best of Kings and of Men was deliver'd up to his Subjects But I think I may borrow the Expression of the Prophet Esay and say that not for his own sins but for the transgression of the People he was stricken Wherein God's Justice was to be admired in making their greatest sin the greatest judgment that could have been inflicted on a rebellious People But to return to Amaziah I must confess that I can never read that Story but with wonder to find that the People are neither upbraided with it nor punish't for it For although we read that he took vengeance on his Father Joash's Murderers and that the People of the Land slew all those that conspired against King Amon 2 Chron. 33.25 yet we do not find any body so much as call'd in question for his Death So that certainly there was some Circumstances that did much alleviate it and that the Fact was not in it self so foul as at this distance it appears to us for although Vzziah for to get the Crown might promise them Impunity yet I question whether God would have confirmed the Sentence and Isaiah who prophesied in the Days of Vzziah should not have been more partial to the People than he was to the Kings for you see he could tell Hezekiah pretty plainly of his little Vanity in shewing his Treasures to the King of Babylon's Embassadors and not only reproves the Pride of the Women for but also repeats all the little foolish Toys that belong'd to their Dress in his Days and he that was so strict in these lesser matters methinks should not in silence have past over so foul a Fault as that of King-killing and yet to my great wonder I do not find any one Passage either in the Story or Esay's Prophecy as does so much as seem to reflect on that Fact as an ill thing There is another Prophet indeed who lived in his Grandson's time who is thought by some to reflect on this Crime very heavily as the beginning of this sort of sin in Judah Amaziah being the first of their Kings who was murder'd though many had been murder'd in Israel Mieah 1.13 I will not therefore insist too much upon this but go on to observe That although they would not suffer Amaziah to enjoy his Life after he had quitted both Crown and Kingdom yet they had that Honour and Justice for him too after he was dead that they not only interred him in the Royal Sepulcher but set his Son also on the Royal Seat For all the people of Judah took Vzziah and made him King in the room of Amaziah his Father 2 Chron. 26.1 And he is indeed the first King that is so expresly said to be set up by the Authority of the People although their Suffrages as I hope I have sufficiently proved was thought necessary for the establishment of most of them But altho Vzziah was the first you will find he was not the last that was so set up But before we come to speak of them we will consider one Passage in the Reign of Vzziah and that is his going into the Temple to burn Incense which being against the Law we will see a little how the Priests demean themselves and whether they thought they were oblig'd to sit still if they could not persuade him off it and rather suffer him to do it than resist him But by the Preparation Azariah the High-Priest makes for a Scuffle I fancy he did not understand the Doctrine of Passive Obedience for the Text tells you 2 Chron. 26.17 that Azariah enters after the King with fourscore Priests which were valiant Men But what occasion he had for such a Train or why their Valour should be so particularly taken notice of if they were to have no use of it but were to submit I cannot so easily conceive But the 18 th Verse says they did actually oppose the King and bid him get him out of the Sanctuary for he had nothing to do there Nay in the 20 th Verse they do thrust him out but that indeed was after the Leprosie was come out upon him But altho this Story might afford several Inferences which would not be beside our present Question yet they are so very obvious that I may trust my Reader to make them therefore shall proceed and must own that from Vzziah to Josiah there is no express mention of the Peoples interposing or setting up of Kings but upon Amon's Murder you see they did take upon them for you will find it both in 2 Kings 21.24 and 2 Chro. 33.25 But the people of the land smote those that had conspired against King Amon also the people of the land did make Josiah his Son King in his stead And I hope it may be said that God Almighty did
upon the whole and as far as I can discover the Power that our Saviour found Kings invested with was what the People first consented to and afterwards by Laws obliged themselves to But there can be no Universal Rule because that the Laws vary according to the differing Constitution of Government that is in several Nations Therefore our Saviour gave the properest and the fullest Answer by bidding them render to Kings what by the Municipal Laws of that Kingdom was their Due The next Text is that of our Saviours rebuking St. Peter Mat. 26.52 Then said Jesus unto him Put up thy Sword into thy place for all they that take the Sword shall perish with the Sword. Now for the better understanding of this Place it may not be improper to compare the several Relations of this very Passage as 't is diversly recorded by all Four Evangelists and altho it is the most at large in St. Matthew yet he omits one very necessary and remarkable Particular which is related by St. Luke chap. 22.49 And when they which were about him saw what would follow they said unto him Lord shall we smite with the Sword But Peter being a little too zealous would not stay for his Lord's Answer as the others did but without leave makes use of his which occasions him this Reprimand from Christ and upon a double account First Striking without his Lord's Commission for I do not question but it would have been a fault in him to have cut off any bodys Ear as well as Malchus's Secondly Thinking that Christ wanted his Defence and tho Christ had so often foretold That the Son of Man was to be betray'd and given up into the hands of Sinners yet now he would pretend to rescue him from those very Sufferings he came on purpose into the World to undergo For St. John lays the stress of the Argument there Put up thy Sword into the Sheath The Cup that my Father gives me shall I not drink it Joh. 18.11 So that the unseasonableness of the Defence is all that he there reproves and seems to me to be the chief thing aimed at by St. Matthew when Christ says Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father and he shall presently give me more than twelve Legions of Angels But how then shall the Scripture be fulfilled that thus it must be Mat. 26.53 54. But allowing it was unlawful for St. Peter to strike without Christ's leave yet I cannot see how that Text would support all that they would build upon it for the Chief Priest's was not the Supreme Authority of that Nation at that time for they own'd to Pilate Joh. 18.31 That it was not lawful for them to put any man to death And whether they had any better Authority to take him is more than I think can be proved for St. Matthew intimates that they sought to take him by craft and subtilty and could not have accomplished it but by his Servant's Treachery and after they had apprehended him and brought him to Pilate who was the Chief Magistrate under Cesar yet he would not pretend to judge him because he belong'd to Herod's Jurisdiction till Herod return'd him to him So that here is no reason to suppose that Malchus's being the High Priest's Officer was an Aggravation to St. Peter's Guilt for the High Priest had no Power himself in those Causes so that there was no Resistance of the Supreme Magistrate or Publick Authority in the Case But our Saviour did very justly condemn Peter's taking so much upon him as to presume to strike without his Lord's leave when he stood by But now the two main Texts of Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2.13 should come to be considered but they enterfering a little one with another we shall endeavour to reconcile them before we discourse of either for nothing can be more directly contrary than St. Peter's calling that the Ordinance of Man which St. Paul says is the Ordinance of God. But I must confess I cannot see that there is any greater necessity of bringing St. Peter to St. Paul than Paul to Peter for they are both Canonical and both equally true and were it not that all Texts are to be prest to maintain the Doctrine of Monarchy's being Jure Divino I should think there were no great difference in the Case For having before so fully proved That Kings were at first set up by the People St. Peter had a great deal of reason to call them the Ordinance of Man but after they were establish'd it was then the Ordinance Order or Command of God call it which you will that the People should obey them as far as they had obliged themselves by Law to do And I do and must own that any Subject who refuses Obedience either Active or Passive in any of those Instances which the Laws and Constitution of the Government require him to submit to that Man I say does actually resist the Ordinance or Command of God and does deserve the Penalty the Apostle threatens take the Word in what Latitude you please And this I take to be the clearest way of reconciling the two Texts And I will also own that the Apostles gave very good Advice and that the Christians of those Times were obliged to follow it and if there be now in the World any Christians in the same unhappy Predicament I should think it their Duty to follow it also But God be thank'd we are in much other Circumstances than they were at that time for they were under the Command of Arbitrary Tyrants whose Will was their only Law Whereas we are under no Law but what we have made our selves and our King's Power is both Limited and Conditional and properly speaking we cannot call the King Supreme for I think I have before shew'd that there is a possibility for a King to be guilty of Treason or at least that which is tantamount to it for they can forfeit their Regal Authority as I do not at all doubt but our late King actually did So that unless they will be pleased to prove that it is the duty of all Kingdoms and States to put themselves into the same Circumstances and make themselves Slaves on purpose that they may be oblig'd by this Command of St. Paul's I think we may very lawfully plead exemption from some of the Inferences they would draw from it not but that I will own there is such a duty as Passive Obedience a Virtue which even in our Constitution we may have the opportunity of exercising perhaps oftner than they desire although of late it has been so great an Idol that not only our Laws and Government but even our Religion and Posterity were to be sacrifis'd to it But if it was really the effect of a tender Conscience I would very willingly be informed how they came to be so particularly partial to this Rule of St. Paul's for there are a great many Commands of our Saviours which seem to