approve their Choice he being the best King and the best Man that we read of in the whole Catalogue of the Kings of Judah he performing his Duty both to God and his People so very well it would have been a shame to his Subjects if they had not requited him by paying him all that Observance and Duty to which he could have any Pretence But altho he may be an Example to the best of Kings the Scripture giving him this Eulogie And like unto him there was no King before him that turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might according to the Law of Moses Neither after him arose there any like him Yet from him we may best learn what an intolerable Mischief a Wicked King is for tho Josiah was so very good yet there was an old Arrere of his Grandfather Manasseh that all his Vertue and Goodness could not clear For Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal And the Lord said I will remove Judah out of my sight as I have removed Israel and will cast off this City Jerusalem which I have chosen and the House of which I said My Name shall be there 2 Kings 23.26 27. Therefore what Reasons have both Church and State to deprecate such a King as will infallibly intail Ruine on both For you see that God's House even that House that he had chose to set his Name there shall be involved in the common Destruction Therefore were I to add a new Clause to the Litany it should be From such a King as Manasseh Good Lord deliver us But above all we ought to be fearful of and pray against an Idolatrous and Bloody King for those are the two Crimes with which Manasseh is particularly charged and which hastned the Captivity of Judah and consequently shortned the Life and Reign of the good and beloved Josiah to whom it was particularly promised as a Blessing that he should not live to see the Ruine and Desolation that was to be brought on the Nation after his Death After which the people of the land took Jehoabas the son of Josiah and made him King in his fathers stead in Jerusalem 2 Chron. 36.1 and 2 Kings 23.30 But altho he inherited his Father's Kingdom it seems he did not his Vertues for it follows in ver 32. That he did evil in the sight of the Lord and so his Reign was very short for Pharaoh Necho makes him a Prisoner and carries him into Egypt and makes his elder Brother Jehoiakim King in his stead in whose days the King of Babylon first came up against Judah and after his death Jehoiachin succeeds whom Nebuchadnezzar carries to Babylon and makes Zedekiah King in whom the Succession was quite inverted for he was Uncle and not in the Direct Line and the Monarchy also ending with him I should here have concuded this Part of my Discourse but that I cannot omit one Observation and that is That there were several Kings of Judah alive at the same time It is certain Two Jeconiah and Zedekiah but for any thing I know there might be Three for we do not read of the Death of Jehoahas who was carried Prisoner into Egypt and by his Age I 'm sure he might survive Zedekiah's carrying to Babylon for he was but Twenty three Years old when he began to reign and his own Reign with all the Three Kings that succeeded him do not make Twenty three Years more before the Captivity But now I would fain know what the Royalists of our Age would do in such a Case and which of the Three they would own For there was great Variety One set up by the People the second as Heir to him whom the King of Egypt had set up and the third set up by the King of Babylon But I do not find that the Jews had any such Scruples at that time but always obey'd them which were in possession as long as they were so let them be set up by whom they would and the Scripture gives them the same Epithete they are all called Kings without ever disputing their Titles Nor are the People reproved for obeying Zedekiah altho they knew that Jehoiachin who had certainly the better Title and had also reign'd as King was alive But altho the People are not rebuked for submitting to Zedekiah whom Nebuchanezzar had set over them yet Zedekiah is for not obeying the King of Babylon to whom he had past his Word that he would So that we may see that Kings are obliged by their Oaths and Promises as well as other Men. Which brings me to my third Particular I was to prove which is That at the first setting up of Kings among the Jews their Power was not Absolute but that they were obliged to certain Covenants and Conditions And altho I will not pretend to prove it of every individual King yet if I can do it of the first and second and also the solemn repeating of it after an Interregnum I shall hope I have done all that can be expected from me For whoever succeeds to a Crown is supposed to take it on the same Conditions his Predecessors had it which it would be superfluous for the Story to repeat every time And therefore I shall not make a long Preface to a Point that I hope so easily to dispatch for I suppose that a few plain Scripture-proofs will for I 'm sure they ought to go farther than a long Rhetorical Discourse And how few Instances soever I can bring yet I shall begin at the Spring-head and make the first Kings Saul and David Witnesses to the Truth of what I now assert and prove that such a Compact and Agreement between the Prince and People is the very Corner-stone of Monarchy it self And that I may do this the more fully and clearly I must beg my Reader 's Pardon tho I carry him so far back as the Inauguration of Saul the first King of Israel But I shall not tire his Patience so much as to repeat all that I have already said of Samuel's displeasure at the People for rejecting God and defiring a Man to be set over them for their King 1 Sam. 10.19 And tho Samuel to terrifie them had represented the King they desired rather in the shape of a Tyrant that would destroy and ruine than of a Prince that was to defend and save them 1 Sam. 8. from the 11 th to the 19 th yet seeing they would not be discouraged but still persisted in their Resolution Nay but we will have a King over us God was so merciful to them as to give Rules to this unruly King that Samuel had described As I think we may safely collect from 1 Sam. 10.25 Then Samuel told the People the manner of the Kingdom and wrote it in a Book
and laid it up before the Lord. For had God designed that the King's Will should have been his only Law it had I 'm sure been a very superfluous if not an impossible Task for Samuel to have writ that down And besides the laying it up before the Lord does infer somethign of extraordinary weight and sacredness in that Book that was to be placed in that holy Repository with the Records of that Covenant which God himself had vouchsafed to make with his People Now upon these Considerations I think I may safely call this the Original Contract that was between the Kings and People of Israel But we may guess it was not an Absolute Arbitrary Power such as our Neighbour-Prince pretends to over his Subjects that was by this made over to Saul for altho he saw many of his new Subjects did despise him yet he was glad to hold his peace or as the Margin says He was as tho he had been deaf 1 Sam. 10.27 So that it seems Samuel thought it necessary the People should be farther obliged than at present they thought themselves and therefore proposes their going up to Gilgal there to renew the Kingdom 1 Sam. 11.15 And all the people went to Gilgal and there they that is certainly the People made Saul King before the Lord in Gilgal and there they sacrificed Sacrifices of Peace-Offerings before the Lord. And that the joining in a Sacrifice and both Parties eating and partaking of the same Sacrifice or at least eating together at what they called a Feast was both the most usual and solemn way of making Covenants in those days both among Jews and Gentiles is a thing so well known that I need not insist on it else both Sacred and Profane Story would furnish us with Proofs enough were it necessary But the Agreement which I suppose was then made between King and People begot such a mutual Kindness and Confidence in one another that the Text adds There Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly and from that time we never find any Dispute between them And so I shall proceed to his next Successor David and the Proofs of his making such a Covenant with the People of Israel are as clear and full as can be desired Upon what Terms the Men of Judah first admitted him is not so plainly set down but it being their own voluntary Act to make him King we may suppose that they would take care to see their own Interest secured But 't is very apparent that after Abner designed to revolt to David he will make his Conditions with him first And Abner sent Messengers to David saying Make thy League with me and behold my hand shall be with thee to bring about all Israel to thee And he said Well I will make a League with thee c. So Abner came to David to Hebron and twenty Men with him And David made Abner and the Men which were with him a Feast 2 Sam. 3.12 13 20. at which I suppose the Bargain was made of both sides for as I before observ'd few Contracts were concluded without the Ceremony of Eating and Drinking together And after that Abner says I will arise and go and gather all Israel to my Lord the King for now he owns him to be so altho he would not call him so before that they may make a League with thee and that thou maist reign over all that thy Heart desireth as it follows in Verse 21. So that it seems the King's making a Covenant with the People was to precede his Reigning over them altho David had been both chosen by God and Anointed by Samuel so many years before And when upon Abner's death that first Treaty with the Men of Israel was broken off we do not find that David pretended to any Authority over Israel till of their own accords about five years and a half after All the Elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron and King David made a Covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord and they Anointed David King over Israel 2 Sam. 5.3 And yet as I said before if ever any King could pretend to be Jure Divino it must be David but for all that he is content to come to the Crown like other Men and does not assume it to himself till given him by the People There is another thing also that I desire may be observed which is That the Phrase before the Lord both in this place and 1 Sam. 11.15 is indifferently apply'd both to King and People For here 't is said the King made a Covenant with the People before the Lord and there that the people made Saul King before the Lord. From whence I think we may collect that being mutual the Promise was as obliging as it was solemn of both sides for both are exprest in the same words And we may also conclude that when we meet with that Phrase of eating and drinking before the Lord and making King unto or before the Lord as 't is 1 Chron. 29.22 it is designed to signifie the mutual stipulation between King and People So that we may infer that Solomon did take the Crown upon the same Terms his Father David did altho the word League or Covenant is not exprest And if the three first Kings did thus receive the Crown from and oblige themselves to the People we may safely suppose that their Successors did the same thing although it is not particularly affirm'd of every one Nor do we find any more mention of it till King Joash's coming to the Crown And when the Kingdom was restored after the Usurpation or Interregnum shall I call it of Athaliah all the old Rights and Customs are both mentioned and repeated as you may find it 2 Kings 11.4 17. How Jehoiada brought Joash into the House of the Lord to the People and made a Covenant with them and took an Oath of them in the House of the Lord and in the 17. Verse And Jehoiada made a Covenant between the Lord and the King and the People that they should be the Lords people between the King also and the People all which you will find repeated 2 Chron. 23.3 16. And if this is not a pregnant Proof of the Truth of what I have said that the Kings of Israel and Judah were not Absolute but were under Obligations and Conditions to their People as well as subjected to the Laws of God if this Instance I say with the rest before mentioned may not be allow'd for Proofs I shall dispair of bringing a Proof either for this or any thing else out of the Bible but if these will pass I suppose they may be sufficient to convince any impartial Reader therefore shall presume it would be superfluous to multiply Quotations in so plain a Case And now I have gone through the three things I proposed to clear out of Scripture How well I have perform'd my undertaking I shall leave to better Judgments and that
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-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