and charges him with inviting the Christians to Idolatry and tells him he ought to be put to Death for so doing by the Command of God in Deut. 13. where God says That he that but intices secretly to Idolatry shall be put to death And this was approved on by the great Bishop Athanasius and those Christians that were with him who calls it The Light of Truth the Doctrine of the True Faith How came you says he to Calaritanus to understand the Sense and Meaning of the Scripture so perfectly if the Holy Ghost had not assisted you in it Now I would sain know whether he that is aiding and assisting towards the bringing in of Idolatry as the Popish Religion is is not as worthy of Death as he that only inticeth to Idolatry And this is the Case of many who call themselves of the Church of England who are for the Restoration of King James and by consequence of Idolatry Surely if God had commanded the Yoke of Subjection to the Tyrannical Will of Princes 't is strange that neither the Prophets Elisha and Elijah nor Azariah nor David with his Followers nor the Jews under their Kings nor the Primitive Christians after their Religion was established by Laws nor any of the Reformed Churches should not have known this Doctrine of Passive Obedience In the Barons Wars under Simon of Monfort the King and his Sons were taken Prisoners but the Prince escaping fights Simon and kills him The Historians of those Times calls him not a Rebel or a Traytor but a Martyr for the Liberties of Church and State If Resistance be unlawful upon any Account whatsoever then were all those People guilty of Rebellion who in all Ages have resisted or turned out their Evil and Destructive Kings and Governours and then the Jews were guilty of this Sin for slaying and turning out several of their Kings without any appointment from God in Scripture So likewise the Primitive Christians did involve themselves under the Guilt of St. Paul's Damnation for resisting of their Kings and Emperors and likewise the Christians in all Ages since who have resisted their Princes by turning them out c. And then Bishop Athanasius Author of our Creed and those Christians with him did also come under the Guilt of St. Paul's Damnation for approving of Calaritanus's Book which according to the Doctrine of Passive Obedience was a Treasonable and Rebellious Book for the Incendiaries to Rebellion are as guilty as they that are actually in it And then all those Princes that have been set up by the People in the room of those whom they have turned out for their Evil Government were Usurpers and consequently all those who have succeeded them where the Descent of the Blood is altered are intruders Usurpers and no lawful Kings Were the Doctrine of Passive Obedience without reserve a True Doctrine no doubt but we should have had a better Account thereof than from a few Court-Divines who have most learnedly interpreted the Will and Pleasure of the Prince against the Laws of Nature or of the Country to be the Powers which St. Paul requires Obedience unto under the pain of Damnation So by consequence the Law ceaseth to be the Powers then we are in a worse condition than in the State of Nature With what Face can any Man assert that Passive Obedience without reserve is the Doctrine of the Gospel which is charging God with as palpable a Contradiction as any two things can be it being diametrically opposite to the Law of Self-preservation which is the Law of Nature and the Decree of the Almighty which Law is Sacred and not to be infringed by any Man God never commanded any thing contrary to the Law of Nature unless it were in the Case of Abraham in commanding of him as a tryal of his Faith to offer up his Son Isaac Protection is the only cause of Allegiance and Obedience is plain from the Example of David and his six hundred Men who were protected from Saul and his Army by Achish King of the Philistines who gave them Ziklag to live in and David and his Men fought for the Philistines against the Geshurites Gezrites and the Amalekites and subdued them David owed no Allegiance to Saul who sought his destruction is plain for when Achish told David that he and his Men should go with him to fight against the Children of Israel David offered his service and said to Achish Surely thou shalt know what thy Servant can do Then Achish said unto David Therefore I will make thee keeper of my Head for ever So David and his Men went in the rear of the Army and when the Lords of the Philistines would not let David and his Men fight for them lest they should betray them into the hands of Saul and his Army then David expostulated with Achish and said What have I done and what hast thou found in thy Servant so long as I have been with thee unto this day that I may not go fight against the Enemies of my Lord the King 1 Sam. Chap. 27 28 29. This is a plain case that David intended to fight Saul and his Army Now the Intention of the Mind is as bad as the Act and yet it is no ways said that David repented thereof or of his arming the six hundred Men before mentioned with design to sight his lawful Soveraign King Saul The Primitive Christians took Protection to be the only cause of Allegiance For when Julian the Apostate was chosen Emperor of the Romans not by the free Consent of the People but by the Souldiers during the Life of Constantius the lawful Possessor of the Throne The Christians did not reckon themselves obliged to fight for Constantius against Julian for they troubled not their Heads with the Rights of Princes Agustus tho he had violently usurped the Throne yet he was confirmed in it by the People and Senate of Rome who established it in his Family by a long Prescription when St. Paul's and St. Peter's Epistles were wrote of Obedience to the Laws to Kings and Magistrates so that we see that Obedience was required to an Usurper under the pain of Damnation when the Government was confirmed to him by the People that is by the Majority for it cannot be thought that every Body consented thereto Apolonius Thyanaeus writing to the Emperor Domitian saith These things have I spoken concerning Laws which if thou shalt not think to reign over thee then thy self shalt not reign In Matrimony which is the nearest and strictest Obligation of all others by which those who were two are made one Flesh if one Party forsakes the other the Apostle pronounceth the Party forsaked to be free from all Obligation because the Party deserting violates the chief Conditions of Marriage c. 1 Cor. 7. 15. And shall not the People be much more absolved from their Allegiance to that King who has violated his Oath and the Laws of the Land the very cause for
thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose One from among thy Brethren shalt thou set over thee thou mayst not set a Stranger over thee So God did only reserve to himself the Nomination of their King by which he designed to make his People more happy than they could expect by their own peculiar Choice he knowing the Heart of Man and Corruption of his Nature would be sure to nominate such who was most fit to govern his People God did not require the Jews to accept of him for King whom he should chuse but left it to their own free Will whether they would accept him or no is plain from the following Examples Upon the Death of Saul David was set up by the Appointment of Almighty God yet there was only the Tribe of Judah that followed David and made him King eleven Tribes following Ishbosheth Saul's Son whom they made King and though David had a long War against the House of Saul yet he calls them not Rebels neither do we find that God punished them or sent any Judgment upon them for not accepting of David as King and when Rechab and Banah had slain Ishbosheth and brought his Head to David at Hebron saying Behold the Head of thine Enemy yet David instead of rewarding them caused them to be slain for killing of Ishbosheth whom he calls a righteous Person not a Rebel After whose Death all those Tribes came to David and made a Compact with him for the performance of such Conditions which they thought necessary for the securing of their Liberty before they made him King 2 Sam. Chap. 2 3 4 5. The making of Solomon King by David his Father was not thought sufficient without the Peoples Consent else why did the People anoint Solomon and make him King the second time We read Judg. 8. 21 22 23. that after Gideon had slain Zebah and Zalmunna with the Midianites the Children of Israel said unto Gideon Rule thou over us both thou and thy Sons and thy Sons Son also for thou hast delivered us from the Hand of Midian But he refusing their Offer they afterwards made his Bastard-Son Abimelech King though he had threefoore and ten lawfully-begotten Sons Zimri having slain Baasha King of Israel reigned in his stead but the Children of Israel hearing thereof rejected him and made Omri the Captain of the Host King of Israel 1 Kings 16. 15 16. The Kingdom of Edom appointed a Deputy to rule over them instead of a King and gave him Royal Authority there being then no King in Edom 1 Kings 22. 47. See Macchab. 9. 28 29 30. 13. 8 9. 14. 41 to 49. By which it is further apparent that their Kings and Governours were chosen by the People As propinquity of Blood is a great Preheminence towards the attaining of any Crown yet it doth not bind the Common-wealth to yield thereto and to admit at hap-hazard every one that is next by Succession of Blood as was falsly affirmed by R. L'estrange and many others when the Parliament would have disinherited the Duke of York as unfit to govern this Nation he being a Papist if weighty Reasons require the contrary because she is bound to consider well and maturely the Person that is to enter whether he be like to perform his Duty and Charge to be committed to him For to admit him that is an Enemy or unfit to govern is to consent to the destroying of the Common-wealth See how God dealt in this point with the Children of Israel 1 Sam. 8. after he had granted to them the same Government as the other Nations round about them had whose Kings did ordinarily reign by Succession as ours do at this day and as most of the Kings of the Jews did afterwards yet that this Law of succeeding by Proximity of Birth though for the most part it should prevail yet He shewed plainly that upon just Causes it might be altered as in the case of Saul who left behind him many Children yet not any of them succeeded him except Ishbosheth who was not his eldest Son who was anointed King by Abner the general Captain of that Nation to whom eleven Tribes followed until he was slain and then they chose David And Jonathan Saul's other Son so much praised in holy Scripture being slain in War his Son Mephibosheth did not succeed in the Crown though by Succession he had much greater Right to it than David God promised David that his Seed should reign for ever after him Yet we do not find this performed to any of his elder Sons nor to any of their Offspring but only to Solomon his younger and tenth Son Rehoboam the lawful Son and Heir of King Solomon coming to Shichem where all the People of Israel were assembled together for his Coronation and admission to the Crown for until that time he was not accounted true King who refusing to ease them of some heavy Impositions which they had received from his Father ten Tribes of the twelve refuse to admit him their King and chose Jeroboam his Servant and made him their lawful King and God allowed thereof for when Rehoboam had prepared an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen Men who were Warriours to reduce those ten Tribes to the Obedience of their Natural Prince God commanded them to desist by his Prophet Shemaiah and so they did These and the like Determinations of the People about admitting or refusing of Princes to reign or not to reign over them when their Designments are to good Ends and for just Causes are allowed by God and oftentimes are his own special Drifts and Dispositions though they seem to come from Man He who is set up or made King by the Consent of the People hath a just Title against the next Heir of the Blood and his Issue who are put by the Crown else most of the Princes now reigning in Europe would be Usurpers and want good Titles to their Crowns they or their Ancestors being set up by the People which were not the right Heirs of the Royal Stock The Laws of the Commonwealth is the very Soul of a Politick Body Kings and Emperors always have been are and ought to be subject to the Laws of their Kingdoms not above them to violate break or alter them at their pleasures they being obliged by their Coronation-Oaths in all Ages and Kingdoms inviolably to observe them for St. Paul saith A Prince is the Minister of God for the Peoples Good and Tribute and Custom are paid to him that he may continually attend thereto The Defence and Procuration of the Common-wealth is to be managed to the benefit of those who are committed not of those to whom it is committed A just Governour for the benefit of the People is more careful of the Publick Good and Welfare than of his own private Advantage Allegiance is nothing but Obedience according to Law which when the Prince violates he has no Right to Obedience There is a mutual Obligation between
own door By which it follows that Passive Obedience to unjust Violence is a Sin but resisting such Violence is no Sin but the Duty of every Man The first Duty that I owe is to God the second to my self in preserving my self c. the third to my Parent and Soveraign in obeying them in all things reasonable and lawful By all the Precepts in Scripture which require Obedience to Parents Homage and Obedience is as due to the one as to the other for 't is nowhere said Children obey your Father and no more the Mother is mentioned before the Father in Lev. 19. 3. Ye shall fear every Man his Mother and his Father Sure Solomon was not ignorant what belonged to him as a King or a Father when he said My Son hear the Instructions of thy Father and forsake not the Law of thy Mother And our Saviour says Matth. 15. 4. Honour thy Father and Mother And Ephes. 6. 1. Children obey your Parents c. If Paternal Authority be an absolute Authority I ask Whether it be in the eldest of the Family if so Whether a Grandfather can dispense with his Grand-Child's paying the Honour due to his Parents by the fifth Commandment 'T is evident in common Sense the Grandfather cannot discharge the Grand-Child from the Obedience due to his Parents neither can a Father dispense with his Child's Obedience due to the Laws of the Land therefore the Obedience required to Parents in Scripture is not to an absolute Authority for there can be no absolute Authority where there is an Authority above it With what Folly and Ignorance do some assert That the Kings of England are Absolute as proceeding from William the Conqueror To which I answer That a Conqueror has no right of Dominion much less any Absolute Authority over the Wife and Children of the Conquered or over those who assisted not against him Conquest may claim such a Right as Thieves use over those whom they can master which is a Right of Tenure but no Tenure of Right Conquest may restore a Right Forfeiture may lose a Right but 't is Consent only that can transact or give a Right There is no other Absolute Power than over Captives taken in a just War If the Possession of the whole Earth was in one Person yet he would have no Power over the Life or Liberty of another or over that which another gets by his own Industry for Propriety in Land gives no Man Authority over another William the Conqueror made a League or Compact with the Nobles and Lords of the Land to the performance of which he takes an Oath to observe the ancient Laws of the Realm established by his Predecessors the Kings of England and especially of Edward the Confessor as likewise did Henry the First with the Emendations his Father had made to them Stephen who succeeded Henry made a Compact and promiseth a Meloration of their Laws according to their Minds William Rufus Henry the First and Stephen get the Consent of the People by promising to grant them their usual Laws and ancient Customs Henry the First Richard the First King John and Richard the Second oblige themselves at their Coronations to grant them and then the People consented to own them as their King and Richard the First and King John were conjured by the Arch-bishops not to take upon them the Crown unless they intended to perform their Oaths If any King refused so to do the Nobles thought it their Concern to hinder his Coronation till he had either made or promised this Engagement What can be more absurd than to say That there is an absolute Subjection due to a Prince whom the Laws of God Nature and the Country have not given such Authority as if Men were made as so many Herds of Cattel only for the Use Service and Pleasure of their Princes But some do object That the anointing of Kings at their Coronations makes their Persons Sacred Unquestionable and Irresistable for any Tyrannical or Exorbitant Actions whatsoever To which I answer That every Christian's Baptism is a Sacrament of Christ's Institution a Spiritual Unction and Sanctification which makes a Person as sacred yea more holy than the Anointing of Kings can or doth of it self that being no Sacrament a Truth which no Christian can without Blasphemy deny And yet no Christian is exempted from Resistance Censure or Punishments according to the nature of his Crime and therefore the Anointing of Kings at their Coronations cannot do it it being a Ceremony of the Jews not instituted by Christ or any ways commanded to be continued by the Apostles or their Successors it signifying only the chusing or preserring one before another and so became the Ceremony of consecrating to any special Office and so was ordinarily used in the enstalling Men to Offices of any Eminency The Reign of a good King resembles that of Heaven over which there is but one God for he is no less beloved of the Vertuous than feared of the Bad and if human Frailty could admit a Succession of good Kings there were no comparison Power being ever more glorious in one than when it is divided 'T is not the Title of a King but the Power which is the Laws which is invested in him which makes the difference betwixt him and other Men in the executing of this Power his Person is sacred and not to be resisted he being above every Soul contained in the same Society and therefore cannot be resisted or deprived of his Office by any part or by the whole Community without the greatest Sin of Robbery and Injustice imaginable If a Government say some may be disturbed for any unlawful Proceedings of the Governour or his Ministers how can any Government be safe To which I answer That it is not lawful for every private Man to fly into the Bosom of his Prince for he is no competent Judg be he of never so great a Quality else a King was the most miserable Man living lying at the Mercy of every desperate Fellow's Censure It is impossible for one or a few oppressed Men to disturb the Government where the Body of the People do not think themselves concerned in it and that the Consequences seem not to threaten all yea when it does yet the People are not very forward to disturb the Government as in King Charles the Second's time when the Charters were condemned and seized upon in order to make us Slaves and the Laws perverted to the loss of many innocent Lives and many other Oppressions too many to insert and yet no body offered to disturb the Government I say till the Mischief be grown general and the Designs of the Rulers become notorious then and then only will the People be for righting themselves Whosoever either Ruler or Subject by Force goes about to invade the Rights of either Prince or People and lays the Foundation for overturning the Constitution and Frame of any just Government he is guilty of the greatest Crime I think a Man is capable of being to answer for all those Mischiefs of Blood Rapine and Desolation which the breaking to pieces of Governments brings on a Country and he who does it is justly to be esteemed the Common Enemy and Pest of Mankind and is so to be treated accordingly and how far the late King James was guilty of this I leave the World to judg FINIS The Author's Advertisement JUST as I had finished this Book I received a Reply to my former Book which I thought to have Answered but finding the Arguments to be Frivolous and Weak and my necessary Avocations allowing me but little time therefore I forbore answering it ADVERTISEMENTS THe Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Jure Divino disproved Price 1 d. The Letter which was sent to the Author of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Jure Divino disproved c. Answered and Refuted Wherein is proved That Monarchy was not Originally from GOD. That Kings are not by Divine Appointment but that all Government proceeds from the People That the Obedience required in Scripture is to the Laws of the Land and no otherwise That Resisting of Arbitrary Power is Lawful That the Oath of Allegiance to the late King James was dissolved before the Prince of Orange our present King landed That upon the non-performance of an Oath on one side the other becomes void is plainly prov'd from several Examples in Scripture That Protection is the only Cause of Allegiance and that Obedience or Allegiance is due to the present Government is proved from Scripture Law and Reason And those Texts of Scripture which relate to Government or Monarchy are Explained Price stitch'd 6 d. Both written by the same Author and printed for Tho. Harrison
which they swear Allegiance to him Absolute Monarchy is inconsistent with Civil Society and therefore can be no Form of Civil Government which is to remedy the Inconveniencies of the State of Nature No Man or Society of Men have Power to deliver up their Preservation or the Means of it to the absolute Will of any Man and they will have always a right to preserve what they have not Power to part with No Power can exempt Princes from the Obligation to the Eternal Laws of God and Nature As no Body can transfer to another more Power than he has in himself and no Body has an Absolute Arbitrary Power over himself or over any other to destroy his own Life or take away the Life and Property of another therefore a Man cannot give such Authority to any or subject himself to the Arbitrary Power of another for the Law of Nature is an Eternal Rule to all Men whose Actions must be conformable to that Law which is the Will of God For the Fundamental Law of Nature being the Preservation of Mankind no human Law can be good or valid against it and much less the Will and Pleasure of a Prince against the Law and Custom of the Country which shall be prejudicial to the Subject As the Happiness and Prosperity of Kingdoms depend upon the Conservation of their Laws if the Laws depend upon the Lust of one Man would not the Kingdom fall to ruin in a short space But the Laws are better and greater than Kings who are bound to obey them Then is it not better to obey the Laws rather than the King Who can obey the King violating the Law Who will or can refuse to give Aid to the Law when infringed It is impossible any Body in a Society should have a right to do the Community harm All Kings and Princes are and ought to be bound by the Laws and are not exempted from them and this Doctrine ought to be inculcated into the Minds of Princes from their Infancy Let the Prince be either from God or from Men yet to think that the World was created by God and in it Men that they should serve only for the benefit and use of Princes is an Absurdity as gross as can be spoken since God hath made us free and equal But Princes were ordained only for the Peoples benefit that so they might innocently preserve Human and Civil Society with greater Facility helping one the other with mutual Benefits In all Disputes between Power and Liberty Power must always be proved but Liberty proves it self the one being founded upon positive Law the other upon the Law of Nature With what Ignorance do some assert that Adam was an Absolute Monarch and that Paternal Authority is an Absolute Authority for that the Father of a Family governs by no other Law than by his own Will and the Father is not to be resisted by his Child and that Adam had a Monarchical Absolute Supream Patornal Power and that all Kingly Authority is a Fatherly Authority and therefore irresistable and that no Laws can bind the King or annul this Authority How could Adam be an Absolute Monarch when God gave him the Herbs but in common with the Beasts Gen. 1. 29 30. Can it be thought that God gave him an Absolute Authority of Life and Death over Man who had not Authority to kill any Beast to satisfy his Hunger certainly he had no Absolute Dominion over even the Brutal part of the Creatures much less over Man who could not make that use of them as was permitted to Noah and his Sons Gen. 9. 3. where God says Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you even as the green Herbs have I given you all things Is it not as reasonable to believe that God would have cursed Adam if he had killed his Son Abel as Cain for killing him Cain was very sensible every one had by the Law of Nature a right to kill him for being guilty of Blood when he said every one that found him should slay him Gen. 4. 14. God made no exemption to the greatest Man living who should be guilty of innocent Blood when he said He that sheddeth Mans Blood by Man shall his Blood be shed Gen. 9. 6. neither Noah or his Sons were exempted from this great Law and therefore could have no absolute Authority since God has no where given any Man such Authority there can be no such Authority for the Community cannot make themselves Slaves by investing such an Authority in any Man should they do it it is not binding it being against the Law of Nature If Noah was Heir to Adam I ask which of Noah's Sons was Heir to him for if by Right it descended to all his Sons then it must have descended to all their Sons and so on if so then are all Men become equal and independent as being the Off-spring of Adam and Noah If it descended only to the eldest and so on then there can be but one lawful Monarch in the World and who that is is impossible to be found out so that Paternal Monarchical Authority take it which way you will it comes to just nothing at all Where human Institution gives it not the First-born has no right at all above his Brethren No Man has an absolute Authority over the Creatures much less over Mankind because they were given for the use of all Men as occasion should serve should any Man or Men destroy them for their Will and Pleasure beyond what is necessary for the use of Man or for his Preservation it would be a Sin and therefore could be no Authority for God authorizes no Man to commit a Sin tho he often permits it The Law of God and Nature gives the Father no absolute Dominion over the Life Liberty or Estate of his Child and therefore he can have no absolute Authority and where there is no absolute Authority there can be no absolute Subjection due There is an eternal Obligation on Parents to nourish preserve and bring up their Off-spring and under these Circumstances Obedience is due and not otherwise What is a Father to a Child more than another Person when he endeavours to destroy him Nay is he not so much the more odious as the Act is more barbarous for a Father to endeavour to destroy his own Off-spring than for another Person endeavouring it certainly in such a case no Passive Obedience can be due it tending to his Destruction not for his Good which is no Fatherly Act and therefore not to be submitted to He that lets any Person whatsoever destroy him when it is in his power to preserve his Life by defending himself does tacitly consent to his own Death and therefore is guilty of his own Blood as well as he that destroys him Whereas by defending himself there can be but one guilty of Blood which is the Invader in which Defence if he kills the other his Blood lies at his