him Honour and Reverence And at the same time in taking care of his own Life and Security I agree with you that all possible Respect should be paid to the Persons of Kings But I would not have them flattered nor taught to be Arbitrary I would not have them told that Subjects have nothing of their own not so much as their Souls that they are only the Kings Vassals and Slaves and that he may take their Lives and seiz their Fortunes at his pleasure that God made Kings and no body can unmake them nor ought to oppose them whatever they do such Flattery and Sycophantry makes Kings first aspire and then tumble I come now to a Greek Word which is here employ'd to no purpose but only to shew that you are a Learn'd Man which I knew before And here you affront the plain Letter of the Scripture being in such hast that you could not turn to the place I quoted I shall wonder no more at your insulting over me when the Word of God can not be quiet for you The business was this Whereas the Jacobites love to call us Rebels I undertook to shew that there was a sinless Rebellion and that the word was not always taken in an ill sence for this I quoted 2 Kings 18.7 where it was said the Lord was with him viz. Hezekiah and he Rebelled against the King of Assyria and served him not and you say it was not certainly Rebellion Now whether must Your Authority or the Scripture carry it If you had said this is not to be taken strictly then you had come to an Agreement with me as to that matter and there needed no words about it but that you cannot endure I am to be run down at any rate and that with Triumph when you have not said one word to refute me And all along I observe that when you have the least to say you are the most confident I conclude this in the Style which you except against So the People of England Rebelled against K. James for God was with them I now draw near to the Conclusion of your Paper where after many Windings and Doubles like a Hare run almost to Death I had you where we started namely at the Act forbidding to Arm against the King upon any pretence whatsoever I gave you four Reasons at large to shew that these words could not possibly be understood without a tacit Reservation Nor have you offer'd ought that looks like an Answer to any of them The First you have quite omitted To the Second you have only brought a Comparison between an English Monarch and a Bayliff shewing that the King is by great odds the worse Man of the two The Third you have fairly yielded and therein given up your Cause To the Fourth you take Exception that I should say The King is King by Law and yet you own the Maxim That the King can do no Wrong And now after all suspecting perhaps your Weakness and Inconsistence hitherto you come to offer something that looks at first sight like a Dilemma but unfortunately it wants one of its Members which it seems you have dropt in great precipitation The substance of the matter is this Either the Parliament did consider the Consequence of making such a Law or they did not If not say you they were a Club of Blockheads and meer Loggerheads Very good Here 's the Consequence of that But what if the Parliament did consider what then Why then you say you have in a few words run through all I have said in this Cause An admirable Consequence and a rare Dilemma The one is lame of a side and the other is false unless you have run through my Papers with some small Needle which I cannot perceive But let us Come once more to the Merits of the Cause I grant the Parliament might and I believe they did consider the Consequences of both sides that is with respect to the King and the People And tho' t is possible they might compute amiss yet I rather incline to thinke they did not For Either they must Speak in General terms or else they must make some Limitation or Exception Now there is no Exception to be made but only this In case the King should become a Tyrant and Endeavour to Subvert the Government But how shameful and dangerous a thing must it have been to mention such a thing in an Act of Parliament It might have provoked the King to Dissolve them or it might have prepared the people for a new Rebellion So that supposing it necessary to pass such an Act it must of Necessity pass in general Terms tho' it may seem hard upon the people But it is not hard upon them at all being understood in such a Sense as to be Consistent with other Laws And either it must be so understood or it does Actually change the Government and gives the King a despotick Power which that the Parliament did ever design is Nonsense to Imagine I am now at the foot of the Account and you think you have given me a full Answer desiring me to look once more over my Papers and tell you if you are not Mistaken in your Answers I have told you already and now I tell you again that you are mightily mistaken and I shall never be made to think otherwise I have looks over my Papers and yours too several times which you I believe have not done once or if at all I am sure without due Consideration But you were so Ambitious to answer my Papers all at one Sitting that you had far better have let it alone Many things you have left Untoucht and those you have are no worse for your handling Amongst the rest I wonder you have taken no Notice of what I quoted you out of the famous Barclay so great an Asserter of Monarchy that he is Reckoned the head of your party And yet no writing that I have seen has determined this point more directly against you You have Ruffled the Memory of his Royal Master with a witness and 't is strange that he also should not come in for a Cast of your Office To conclude Sir If I were worthy to advise you I should desire that you would forbear idle company and not spend your Money on those that poison and corrupt you that you would think more and talk less and read with consideration such Books as are written on this subject by Men of the greatest Learning and Piety and particularly that which you lent me that you would scribble no more in this manner quicquid in Buccam venerit and think with your self whether you be fit to cope with the greatest Men in England For I have said nothing here but what such have said before me tho not in the same words yet in far better However being Challeng'd at first and now again Vrg'd with so much Confidence and Triumph I would not wholly decline the Argument and doubt not to defend it against the best of your Party I call it your Party but I hope I shall have occasion to retract that expression for I remember the time you were of another Opinion and do expect to find you so again For I am perswaded it is not of your own proper Genius that you are what you are or what you seem to be at present but by having sometimes your Conversation amongst Men of Slavish Debauch'd and Pernicious Principles And this is the Case of a great many more that were once well-affected to the present Government But you have had the Advantage of a Generous Education and your Learning is beyond many of your Profession which also is one of the most Honourable and most Loyal For but few of your Brethren Comparatively are Jacobites Be not you I beseech you toss'd to and fro with every wind of Doctrine nor led away with the prating Confidence of Pragmatick Fellows Consider what a parcel of Atheists and Profligates weigh being laid in the Ballance against the Church of England and other Reformed Churches together with that vast Body of Nobility Gentry Lawyers and Substantial Commoners of the Kingdom They are but like the Vermine in the Fable that would needs swell to the bigness of an OX And they may burst themselves with their own Poison if they please the Government does not care a Straw for 'em nor do I fear that ever they will be able to hurt it And so Fare you well FINIS
former Scripture our Adversaries would bind our hands and with this they would tye our tongues The one must deprive us of Self Defence and the other of the Liberty of Speech It is not Enough to Suffer unjustly and to be destroyed but it is a Crime to Complain or to represent our Grievances How unlike are some Earthly Gods to the God of Heaven whose Authority they have and whom they ought to Resemble He invites nay he Commands us to petition him for what we want They Cannot bear to be petition'd at all but call it Rebellion He will not suffer us to be tempted beyond what we are able to bear They will take our Fields and Vineyards make us Slaves and Beggars and we may not enquire the reason En quo discordia Cives Perduxit miseros En queis consevimus agros Such was the Effect of Court Flattery that none must look into the Kings Measures nor dare to ask a Question None must admonish him of Danger reprove him of Evil nor advise him for Good for who may say unto him What doest thou Counsellors and Chaplains at this rate must all take their leave there 's no occasion or business for them This indeed was lately our Case and thus our Adversaries would have it still But by their Favour as the Case is now God be praised happily altered so neither is this the intent of the Text it being only an Emphatical Expression to shew the Greatness of a Kings Power and how insolent a thing it is to question him in the just Exercise of his Regal Authority whilst he is Executing the Laws of his Country for the punishment of Evil Doers and for the Praise of them that Do Well why should any one oppose him But if he be setting Fire to a City subverting his Government betraying his People or destroying himself One need not ask indeed what he is a doing for the thing speaks it self He is throwing off his Crown and Dignity and Resistance is the only way to keep it on This should be endeavoured with all the respect to a Crowned Head that the matter will bear but if Force be necessary it must be used They are good Subjects that prevent their King 's falling down a Precipice tho' it be by violent Hands but they are Traytors who out of Respect and Reverence will let him break his Neck And we have the Authority of King James the First and of the Learned Barclay That where a King has no Authority there he ceases to be King and returns to the state of a private Man But call him King still if you please it is however the Duty of his Council and those about him who have opportunity to admonish him of Danger and prevent his Ruine as far as they can before it be too late And perhaps the mis-applying of this very Text may have made some Men over-Cautious and deprived Kings of that free and wholesome Advice which might have been eatly serviceable to them Let us now look into the Scriptures and see whether what has been said to Kings in former times may not seem to counter-ballance this Interrogative What doest thou Samuel told King Saul he had done foolishly and charges him with Disobedience Stubbornness and Rebellion Elisah told King Ahab That he had sold himself to do evil in the sight of the Lord and that it was he and his fathers House that troubled Israel These are Reproofs to the purpose and certainly of no less importance than to say What doest thou Now it is to be supposed that God would inspire his Prophets to speak such words to their Kings as were not fit to be spoken by others upon the like Occasion So that I conclude this Text hinders not at all but that a King pulling down the Church and the Law and setting up Superstition Idolatry and Arbitrary Power may be questioned and gainsaid by his Council and resisted too by the Majority of the Nation Another Text which is wont to be urged for the Power and Sacredness of Kings is Prov. 8.15 By me Kings reign and Princes decree Justice But I never hear them read the Context by me Princes rule and Nobles even all the Judges of the Earth And good reason for this would prove too much and more than they would have namely that Judges are Jure Divino as well as Kings for by the same Logick that the one is inferred from the 15th Verse the other will follow from the 16th Verse I challenge any one to shew me the difference This would have been strange Doctrine in the late Reign when Durante Beneplacito came into fashion and Judges were turn'd out for doing Right But I do not see how either of the two can be proved from this Scripture For who is this Me and this I mentioned here in my Text It is not Solomon for vers 23. I was set up from Everlasting Nor is it God himself for at Vers 22. he says The Lord possessed me in the beginning But it is Wisdom which is here spoken of and which Solomon personates all along speaking in the first Person from Verse the 12th to the end of the Chapter and setting forth the Nature and Excellency the Power and Advantages of Wisdom I Wisdom dwell with Prudence c. and a little after By me Kings reign c. So then the plain meaning of the Text is this That Kings reign by Wisdom and that Nobles and Judges who have the Administration of Publick Affairs are qualified by Wisdom to manage the great Concerns and Business of a Kingdom And tho' all Kings and Ministers of State are not thus qualified which is the Cause of many short and unfortunate Reigns yet here we are taught what it is that qualifies them for Government and that Wisdom is to be sought by them more than fine Silver and Knowledge rather than choice Gold If this Lesson had been well learned by our late Kings England had been a flourishing Nation at this day and might perhaps have given Laws to the Christian World By this time our Adversaries will be ready to demand after their scoffing manner When is it time for the People to Rebel And who must judge between them and their King To this I shall answer after I have made an Observation about the word Rebel or Rebellion It has been oft observed by Learned Men that the Scripture condescending to humane Capacity uses such Forms of Speech as are common among Men tho' the same are not to be taken in a strict and proper sence Thus it is said God made two great Lights the one to Rule the Day the other to Rule the Night whereas it is certain that the Moon has no more light in it self than a Stone-Wall only it shines by reflecting to us that borrowed Light it receives from the Sun So when a People Arm themselves against their King it is very obvious to call it Rebellion tho their Cause be never so just And
Exception lies Yet you urge that Maxim of the Law That the King can do no wrong as if it were on your side which makes altogether as much against you for these two Expressions are of the same importance it being all one in effect to say he is King by Law and to say He can do no wrong For what 's the reason that the King being but a Man can do no wrong It is not because he does not do amiss in granting illegal Commissions for no doubt he sins in it and does that which is Morally Evil But the reason is because he can act nothing qua Rex but by or according to Law So that unless the Law be wrong the King can do none From whence it naturally follows that whatsoever the King does beside or Contrary to the Law is not the Act of a King but of a private person Suppose for Example a King at one time Corrects a Servant moderately for a real Fault at another time he beats him severely without a Cause and the third time he kills him without any provocation These are none of them Regal Acts for the First he does as Master of a Family the Second as a Man in Passion the Third as a Tyrant Yet I do not say that this Tyrannical Act Vnkings him For one Act makes not a Habit and 't is possible he may repent of it and lay it so to heart as to become a better Man and a better King ever after But this I do say That a constant Course of Arbitrary Proceeding so far as to lay aside the Laws and actually Change the Government does Vnking him and the reason is because he destroys that by which he has his being It is the Law makes him a King which being removed and laid aside he has no Foundation to stand upon This I said before and by your Favour it is not Gratis Dictum as you are pleased to say but you have Answered my paper without reading it or at least without regarding what you Read Nor is this a Parallel Case with that which you put of whipping your Boy too Severely and thereupon ceasing to be his Father There is a wide difference between the Dissolution of a Government and the Correction of a Child the one is Destroyed and the other Improved But if you destroy your Child that is kill him by Correcting him this will bring the Comparison nearer home For as a King Ceases to be a King when he has destroyed his Kingdom So a Father ceases to be a Father when he has no Child So that your own Comparison with a little improvement makes altogether against you Besides there is a manifest difference between a Natural and a Political Relation The one can never be dissolved while the parties are in being but the other may A good King may happen to lose his Kingdom and remain in Exile that I know you 'l readily grant But he that Succeeds him in the Administration of Sovereign power is King at least de Facto and the Law requires Allegiance to be paid him so that the former relation Ceases But this puts me in mind to recommend to you Sr. Ro. Filmers Political Babel whereof this is the Corner Stone that we are all born Slaves and that a Son a Subject a Servant and a Slave are all one without any Difference If you are not yet acquainted with that worthy Author its great pity you should not for I believe you would greatly admire him You tell me next To bring the Authority of K. James the First is all over Jargon with a great deal more to the same purpose where you make Reflections upon that Learned King so shameful and so false that it will be a kindness to you to suppress them I shall only hint at Two Things and pass on First You suppose that these imprudent Sayings as you imprudently call them were spoken to Court the People at his coming to the Crown and you will find them in the Ninth Year of his Reign Secondly This is the first time that I have heard the Cause of our Civil Wars and the Crime of K. Charles's Munder laid at his Door I rather think with submission to better Judgments that if his Cautions had been observed it might have been a means to prevent the Evils following You approve it seems of those Determinations made in Parliament at several times namely under Q. Elizabeth K. James the First and K. Charles the First with the Judgment of Archbishop Laud according as I set it down before for you say you cannot but grant it very Lawful And I tell you once more you have intirely given up your Cause for I cannot understand how any thing can go higher in Defence of the Late Revolution But you go on with the greatest Confidence in the World saying It was to suppress a Rebellion begun by the Subjects Cujus contrarium verum est it was to stop the Incroachments of Princes upon their Subjects But this it is to write before you read the words are these When a Prince breaks in upon the Religion and Liberties of his People they ought to stand up in their own Defence and may also Call in a Neighbour to their Assistance This you may find upon Record and taken notice of by several Learned Men of late See especially the Protestant Mask supposed to be written by Dr. C. In the next place you falsifie my words to make me speak what I was not thinking of and you jumble together a deal of Nonsense and would have me to own it concluding with your usual Confidence This you 'l say your self I suppose needs no Confutation So indeed I do and with very good Reason for 't is your own Stuff and none of mine And thus it follows You cannot but Wonder that a Man of my parts c. Should make no Difference betwine a people Rebelling against their Lawful King and a people Rebelling against God when there is no such passage to be found nor any thing like it My words are these So long as a King remains a King and Maintains the Laws he is a Rebel that opposes him But when he falls from that he is a Rebel himself For this I quoted the place as may be seen 1 Sam. 15.32 where Samuel Charges Saul with Rebellion And I now add that a King of England is as much obliged to Govern by Law as the King of Isfrael was to observe God's Commands As for the Story of Anâ—â—â—eck It is only toucht upon to bring in Samuel's severe Reproof and Davids taking Arms against him But say you Saul was at that Instant rejected from his Kingdom What trifling is this He was King so long as he liv'd and David was his Subject never pretending to the Crown in his lise time yet he took Arms to defend himself And his behaviour towards Saul is a good Example both ways Namely of Dutiful respect towards the King in sparing his Person and giving