Government for if that and only that be Jure Divino I conceive it would then be a sin to submit to any other If I say they can make out both or either of these from Scripture I yield but till that is done it may not be amiss to see what Account the Historical part of the Bible gives us of the beginning of Monarchy And here it must on all hands be owned that for the first Sixteen hundred years that is the whole space from the Creation to the Deluge there is not any mention or least intimation of such a thing as a King and yet according to the Calculation of some of the Learned the World was then as full of People and consequently there was as much need of Government then as now But what want there was of it I know not but that there was no such thing as Monarchy then in the World we have a great deal of reason to believe For this I can be very sure of that in the Holy Line that Branch of the Posterity of Noah wherein the Church was to be preserved and from whence the Messiah was to spring there was no King for near Fifteen hundred years after the Flood and yet one would have guest that that People that were so particularly favour'd of God that they had the Enclosure of his other Laws and Ordinances as the Psalmist tells us Psal. 147.19 20. He sheweth his word unto Jacob his Statutes and Ordinances unto Israel He hath not dealt so with any Nation neither have the heathen knowledge of his laws should not have been excluded for so many hundred years from this Jure Divino Ordinance had it originally been instituted by God. But that it was not commanded to them is I think pretty evident not only from their being so long without it but also from the very severe and bitter Reproofs they meet with from Samuel when they desire a King. And after that God had comply'd with the People in setting a King over them he was yet at the expence of a Miracle as you may find it 1 Sam. 12.18 to convince the People of their sin and folly in asking one who in the 19th Verse confess We have added to all our sins this evil in asking us a King which methinks is no very good Argument of its being Jure Divino It 's answered I know to this That God was their King which doth not cross but confirm what I say for he who is the King of all the Earth did not think fit to govern them by Kings But how long soever it was before Monarchy was set up in Israel it must be owned that it had a much earlier admittance among other Nations for Nimrod who was the first King at least the first we find mentioned in Holy Writ did certainly begin his Kingdom in the Second Century after the Flood But truly the Character that is given of the Man would not make us very much in love with the Order to which he gave both Beginning and Name for that his Kingdom was founded by Force and Violence is very clearly intimated and that he got the Name of the great Hunter by his driving Men not Beasts out of their Possessions for poor Ashur the Son of Sem who had fixt himself in the Land of Shinar was forced to fly for it and to get him over Tigris where indeed he laid the Foundation of another great Monarchy that of the Assyrians For Nimrod carrying on his Kingdom by the same means he began it made it necessary for some that were his Neighbours to set themselves up Kings that they might be the better able to oppose him and Pride and Ambition being very natural to Men every body began to aspire to Dominion so that in a short time every little Village and Hamlet had its particular Monarch for we find the Land of Canaan pretty well stockt with Kings when Abraham comes to sojourn among them And this is all the Account that I can from the Scripture collect of the Original of Monarchy But I think it is a little remarkable that as the first City was built by Cain so the first Kingdom was set up by Nimrod who was of the Posterity of Câ—am So that the very Foundations of Monarchy seem to be laid from those Two Persons who have a particular Curse and Brand upon them in Holy Scripture and they that shew'd so little Respect to the Paternal Authority from which some would derive the Original of Monarchy are the beginners of the Kingly Power which is another very good Proof of its being at first Jure Divino I could have said a great deal more on this Head but my Design being to make an Essay not a Book I shall proceed to the Second thing I undertook to prove from Scripture that is That after Monarchy was establish't among the Jews the People had a share in the Election and did frequently set up and make their own Kings That the Kings of Israel and Judah did owe their Crowns at the first to the Peoples Importunity is I think so evident by what I have already cited out of Samuel that I shall suppose it needless to repeat it here for although God did comply with the Peoples Request yet we cannot say he approved it but barely permitted it as he did Divorces among them and perhaps on the same account the hardness of their hearts but from the beginning it was not so Mat. 19.8 But 't is not from this Topick that I intend to prove the People had a hand in making their own Kings but I shall bring Instances of several Kings of whom it is said by Name they were set up by the People and I will set them down in order as I find them recorded in the Sacred Story But perhaps you will wonder that I should begin my Catalogue with Saul and David who being particularly chosen and appointed by God Almighty one would think the People should have nothing to do in setting them up But yet you will find they had if Scripture is Authentick in the Point For although Saul was solemnly Anointed by Samuel 1 Sam. 10.1 chosen by Lot at the Assembly of the Tribes at Mizpeh ver 21. and declared King ver 24. Yet you may see how soon he was despised even by those that had desired a King for in the 27th Verse of that very Chapter you will find them asking How can this man save us and they despised him c. and he was glad to hold his peace and went home to his own House at Gibeah where he follows his Rural Imployment for in the next Chapter we find him not very like a King but like a good Husband driving his Cattel home himself Behold Saul came after the herd out of the field 1 Sam. 11.5 But after Saul had signalized himself by the Defeat of Nahash and the People seem'd to have a very warm sense of their late deliverance Samuel very wisely
takes them while they are in good Humour and says Come let us go up to Gilgal and there renew the Kingdom And the people went up to Gilgal and there they made Saul King before the Lord 1 Sam. 11.14 15. Which methinks seems to infer that Samuel thought the Peoples Approbation necessary for the Confirmation of the Kingdom to Saul for after that they all owned and obeyed him which they did not before And although this is a pretty clear Proof as to Saul yet those that I shall produce about David are I think more strong and pregnant for although David was by God Almighty design'd and declar'd King during Saul's Life-time and at Saul's Death was in a very good posture to have possest himself of that Kingdom to which he seem'd to have so good a Title for he had a Victorious Army with him with which he might certainly very easily have vanquish'd the small remainder of Saul's baffled Forces yet he does nothing like that but comes and settles himself and Family quietly at Hebron where the Text says he dwelt 2 Sam. 2.3 But how long he was there before the men of Judah came to make him their King the Story does not express but thither they came of their own accord it is to be supposed and there they make him King over the House of Judah 2 Sam. 2.4 But for all he had the same Title to the Crown of Israel God having promised him both yet he does not pretend to any Dominion over them till they themselves come and make him their King as you will find it 2 Sam. 5.3 and 1 Chron. 11.3 but that was not till Seven Years and an half after he was King of Judah So that it seems Israel took a fair time to consider of it for Ishbosheth reigning but Two Years it must be Five Years and an half after his Death and what Government was in that Interregnum is hard to say because the Scripture says nothing of it but what they did so many years after is yet call'd the fulfilling of Samuel's Prophecy to David for the Text tells you They anointed David King over Israel according to the Word of the Lord by Samuel 1 Chron. 11.3 From whence we infer That when God Almighty does the most directly and immediately raise a single Person or Family the People are his Instruments to do it and bring it about as is I think very apparent in this Case of David as also in that of Jeroboam for although the Prophet Ahijah had given him Ten Pieces to signifie the Ten Tribes he should reign over and had also told him 1 Kings 11.37 I will take thee and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth and shalt be King over Israel Yet for all these great Promises he was glad to run for it and play least in sight all Solomon's days so that he had no advantage by it but only great hopes till the People fulfill'd that which was but Prophecy before 1 Kings 12.20 And it came to pass that when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again that they sent and call'd him to the Congregation and made him King over all Israel So true is sometimes that saying Vox Populi est Vox Dei. But this last Instance does afford us another Observation which I think ought not to be past over in silence and that is That God does not tye himself to a Family or Line For if Jeroboam will serve God as David did he will build him as sure a house as he built for David 1 Kings 11.38 By which we may see that God is no Respecter of Persons and that Kings have no surer Tenor in Gods Favour than other People for his Promises are as conditional to them as to the meanest man and if they fail of their Duty God may and oftentimes does take the Forfeiture as we see here both in the Case of David and Jeroboam But when and how far those Forfeitures are to be taken ought to be left to that Almighty Wisdom and Providence that turns every thing to good But to return to the Story from which I think I have not much digrest as to the Matter though I may have a little Inverted the Order for according to that I should not have treated of Jeroboam before Solomon But the truth is I cannot say there is such Proofs of the Peoples setting up Solomon as for the Two preceding Kings and yet there are some Circumstances in the Story from whence one may infer something of that kind However it may prove something which may be of some use in our present Dispute and that is That a King may have a Successor even while he lives for David you see commanded Zadock the Priest and Nathan the Prophet to anoint Solomon King c. that as David says in the following Verse he may come and sit upon my throne for he shall be King in my stead 1 Kings 1.34 35. Now the occasion of this unusual way of proceeding I suppose was this David had a mind that Solomon should succeed him and finding that Adonijah had got a strong Party thought the best way to secure the Throne to Solomon was to put him in present Possession of it Although by the way it must be remarked that Adonijah was the Elder Brother and so according to our Rules of Succession had the better Title from whence it may be inferr'd That that Rule may sometimes be inverted without sin and 't is the more remarkable because that God had taken such particular care of the Right of the First born in private Families so that a Father had not power to make a Favourite-Child the Eldest nor to put by the Son of a hated Mother from that double Portion to which his Birth-right intitled him And yet the very first time that Succession to the Crown of Israel can be pretended that Order you see is inverted and Solomon the Youngest Son set up But to go on with our Story David on the former account finding it necessary to turn over the Crown to Solomon during his own Life yet thinks it fit to give the People an Account of his Proceedings and the Reasons of them for he tells them that God had chosen Judah to be the Ruler and of the house of Judah the house of my father and among the sons of my father he liked me to make me King over Israel And of all my sons for the Lord hath given me many sons he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel 1 Chron. 28.4 5. And after that David had given Instructions to Solomon about building the Temple and both the King and People had made their Oblations of what they had which was fit for the Work the Congregation of the People continuing yet together 't is said Chap. 29. ver 22. And they made Solomon the son of David King the second time and anointed him unto the Lord
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
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
REFLECTIONS Upon the Late GREAT REVOLUTION LICENSED April 9. 1689. James Fraser REFLECTIONS UPON THE Late Great Revolution Written by a LAY-HAND in the COUNTRY For the Satisfaction of some Neighbours LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXIX REFLECTIONS Upon the Late GREAT REVOLUTION PRovidence having placed me in so low a Sphere that I have had nothing to do in the great Revolutions of which our Land has lately been the Scene I must not pretend to judge of what has past But altho I have not been an Actor I cannot say I have been altogether an unconcern'd Spectator of the great Changes these last Three Months have produced For what I did not know in the Cause I thought I might yet lawfully admire in the Effects which truly have been so miraculous that 't is as much the Worlds Wonders as ours So that if ever People had cause to apply the Words of the Psalmist Psal. 118. ver 23. we certainly may say This is the Lord 's doing and I 'm sure it ought to be marvellous in our Eyes But alas as if we meant to vie Miracles and to shew that we can be as obstinate as God can be gracious we are so far from admiring that we will neither own nor accept the Wonderful Deliverance that God has wrought for us A sign I fear that we are unworthy of so great a Mercy while we can be so insensible of and so unthankful for it And like the Children of Israel in the Wilderness instead of going on to possess that Canaan God seems to have design'd for us we are for making a Captain to return again into Egypt and to put our Necks into that Yoke which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear And I wish our present Murmurings and Discontents do not provoke God to deal with us as he did with the Israelites and swear that we shall not enter into nor enjoy that Rest we so despise But if Passive Obedience be so necessary a Duty and we are indispensibly obliged to obey our Kings whatsoever they be the Children of Israel had certainly a great deal of reason to quarrel with Moses and Aaron for making them Rebels depriving them of the Honour of suffering for a good Cause and making them do so many ill things For certainly the Children of Israel were as much and as truly the Subjects of Pharaoh as any body can be to any of our Modern Kings For they were all born in his Land govern'd by his Laws and he and his Ancestors had reigned over them by a long Prescription of Four hundred Year and if this is not enough to give a King a Title I doubt most of our Monarchs may despair of shewing a better But to that I know it will be answer'd That 't was God Almighty's own Doings and that as Abraham might lawfully sacrifice his Son when God commanded it so they might lawfully Rebel when they had God's Authority for it for God being the Great King may dispose of Kingdoms as he pleases To which I shall make no other Return but humbly offer this Quere which I should be glad to see resolved Whether God can or ever did command an unlawful thingg For his Proposal to Abraham was only for Trial for you see he would not permit him to kill his Son when it came to it But the Children of Israel went through with their Design therefore if in it self it had been so great a Sin he would not have commanded much less assisted the Israelites in the Execution of it To see Men then murmur against God and quarrel with Providence only because it would not suffer them to be opprest as the Israelites were nay destroy'd and ruin'd seems so unaccountable a Ground for Dissatisfaction that it deserves to be examined into And I must own that I have so much both of Esteem and Reverence for some of our Discontents that I cannot think them so weak as to have a Platonick Love of Suffering or so wilful as to oppose the Truth if they are convinced of it Therefore suppose they have at least as it seems to them some good Reason which makes them thus not only deny but resist their own Interest And here Conscience and Zeal both stand up for them the two best Champions in the World when in the right but the most unruly and dangerous when in the wrong and Conscience telling them they cannot comply Zeal tells them they must oppose and declare against such Proceedings But yet for all this how hard a Task soever it seems I should not fear encountring nay overcoming these two had I not two greater Difficulties to contest with that is Prepossession and Prejudice For we daily see by sad experience that People may be as fully perswaded of and as zealous for an Error as 't is possible to be for Truth it self For which I need go no further for an Instance than St. Paul who says Acts 26.9 I verily thought with my self that I ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Jesus of Nazareth Of which he gives us an account in the two following Verses Being as he himself terms it exceedingly Mad against them But that we might not be ignorant what we are to ascribe this extravagant Zeal and extraordinary Fierceness to he tells in the preceding Verses of this 26 th Chap. and also in the 3 d Verse of the 22 th That from his Youth up he had been brought up in Jerusalem at the Feet of Gamaliel taught according to the perfect manner of the Law of the Fathers and was zealous towards God as ye all are this day So that 't is very apparent it was his Education that inspired him with his Zeal For the Pharisees were not only the strictest but the most dogmatical Sect among the Jews and while they thought they and only they had the Law of their sides they not only despised but hated all that were not of their Opinion and thought it not enough to instil their own Doctrines and Principles into their Disciples unless at the same time they imprest upon them an absolute Horror and Detestation of all others So that here was Prepossession and Prejudice to the height and we may see the Effects of it in St. Paul for it made him proof against all the Miracles of our Saviour and his Apostles for living in Jerusalem it cannot be supposed but that he must both see and hear of them so that nothing but a Call from Heaven it self could convince him But I say not this that I intend to apply it particularly to any of our Times but only to shew in general the Unhappiness of such a grounded Prepossession and Prejudice and the difficulty of treating with it because Truth it self will appear unwelcome to such if it contradict their received and admired Opinions But after all this it must be allow'd that never any prejudice was taken up on so justifiable grounds
to be the chief Governour So that it seems David thought the Peoples Approbation necessary for the Confirmation of the Crown to Solomon else truly that very solemn Sacrifice and Invitation of a Thousand Bullocks a Thousand Rams and a Thousand Lambs had been a very unnecessary Expence And then it follows in the 23d Verse Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as King instead of David his father and prosper'd and all Israel obey'd him And although 't is said of his Son Rehoboam both 1 Kings 11.43 and 1 Chron. 9.31 that he reigned in his Father's stead yet 1 Kings 12.1 1 Chron. 10.1 we find there was something else necessary to make him his Successor for in both places 't is said all Israel were come to Shechem to make Rehoboam King And when he was so imprudent as to disoblige them and would not comply with them they did not think it their duty to comply with him nor would they allow him Second Thoughts in the Case nor admit of any Treaty but ston'd Adoram that he sent to them and immediately made Jeroboam King So that of Twelve Tribes there was but One that made Rehoboam King. But now the Kingdom being divided into Two Branches perhaps it may be expected that I should speak to them both But the Succession in the Kingdom of Israel being so broken and confused although it might afford me more Instances both of the Peoples making and pulling down Kings yet I shall with the Tribe of Judah adhere to the House of David and from the Story of that Crown bring my main Proofs for the Confirmation of the Argument I have in hand but since the Story of Israel may afford some very good and useful Observations I hope I shall not be thought to deviate very much from the Design of this Paper if I make a little stop here to pick them up by the way that so when I return to my Discourse of Judah again I may meet with no more interruptions The Observations that might have been made on Jeroboam I have in part superseded by taking notice of them in another place and therefore shall only repeat the Heads of them which were 1st That the People were the Instrument of making good God's Promise to him 2dly If Jeroboam had served God as sincerely as David he should have been as great a Favourite 3dly That Jeroboam not performing those Conditions on which he was raised to the Crown it was very just in God to take the Forfeiture and to extirpate the House of Jeroboam And although Baasha does seem to come as ill by the Crown as any body recorded in the Sacred Story for he not only conspires against but slays the King his Master 1 Kings 15.27 28. yet for all this he is owned by God Almighty being the man that was promis'd shall I say or rather threaten'd to Jeroboam for old Ahijah tells Jeroboam's Wife Moreover the Lord shall raise him up a King over Israel who shall cut off the house of Jeroboam 1 Kings 14.14 And although Baasha did take great care to fulfil the latter part of this Prophecy as fast as he could yet he walking in the way of Jeroboam and continuing in his sin God sends his Prophet to upbraid him and tell him what he had done for him Forasmuch is I exalted thee out of the dust and made thee Prince over my people Israel and thou hast walk't in the way of Jeroboam c. behold I will take away the posterity of Baasha c. 1 Kings 16.2 3. from which we may infer these Two things 1. That Usurpers are raised by and may pretend to reign by God's Power and therefore may claim the same Obedience that lawful Kings so that the Affirmation of St. Paul There is no power but of God ought to be taken in the largest and literal sense Our Second Inference is That Baasha and his Family were rejected not for his Treason but his Idolatry not for killing Nadab but for sinning like Jeroboam And truly this Observation will run through most of the Kings of Israel who generally speaking came to the Crown the same way and afterwards walk't in the same steps Baasha did But if any of them had but broken down the Calves and rooted out Idolatry no question but their Posterity should have been established for you see that Jehu's imperfect Piety in destroying Baal and rooting out the House of Ahab that first introduced that Worship into Israel was rewarded with his Sons sitting on the Throne to the 4th generation and had he but gone on to do that to the Golden Calves that Josiah afterward did who knows how long his Posterity might have govern'd Israel But after his Promised Succession was at an end the Crown was never settled in any Family but the Kingdom so broken by continual Conspiracies that we hardly meet with any thing else that is remarkable unless it be God Almightys Justice who from that time to the end of that Monarchy suffers the Son to be pull'd down by the very self same method and me ans the Father was set up so that there was nothing but Blood and Confusion among them with which the People were so tired that they do not seem to concern themselves at all in the matter but submit to them that were uppermost else it would seem pretty strange that Pekah the Son of Remaliah should with Fifty Men assault and take the Palace Royal in Samaria kill the King that then Reigned and put the Crown on his own Head as you have it 2 Kings 15.25 For as it would have been a madness in Pekah to have attempted it with so small a force if the People had stood by Pekahiah so on the other side had the People joyn'd with Pekah a much greater number would certainly have appeared with him So that I suppose the People sat Neuters and did not concern themselves of either side but obeyed him that proved the strongest And although that is a method that I should not much recommend yet we do not find that God or his Prophets do any where reprove them for it so that it seems there was no fighting about Titles in those days There might indeed be a great many more Observations raised from the Story but any attentive Reader will be so well able to do it for himself that I shall neither forestal his Diligence nor tire his Patience with any more at this time but resume the thread of my Discourse and go on with the Story of Judah And it must be owned that from the time of Rehoboam where we last left to Vzziah or Azariah which you please to call him there is no express mention of the Peoples setting up their King's But as I observed before in Rehoboam we are not from the Texts saying such an one Reigned in his Fathers stead to conclude that he did it without the Peoples suffrage and good will and truly for the most part there are some general
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
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
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
by God. Secondly That it contradicts several plain Texts of Scripture Thirdly That having sworn Allegiance to King James his doing an ill thing will not acquit us Fourthly That 't is doing the same thing we condemn'd so in the Rebellion in 41. And I should have added a fifth but that I hope I have in part anticipated all the Objections can be made against the Succession 1. Now to the First I shall only desire them to consider what I have said in my First Part about the first beginning of Monarchy in the World and particularly the establishing of it among the Jews But although I there deny its first Institution to be by God's immediate Appointment and Direction yet I would not be understood so as if I meant to exclude God from having any thing to do in the setting up or making of Kings for I know that by him Kings reign and 't is by his Counsel and Inspiration that Princes decree just things For alas without him the mightiest Monarch in the World can neither think a Thought nor stir a Step for in him as St. Paul says we live and move and have our being Acts 17.28 So that in some senses God may be said to be the Author of all our Actions for the Prophet says Shall there be evil in the City and the Lord hath not done it Amos 3.6 And without him we are not able to do any thing for St. Paul says 1 Cor. 3.5 That we are not sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves but our sufficiency is of God And if not able to think certainly not able to act without his Concurrence and Assistance And if a Sparrow shall not fall to the ground without our Father and the very Hairs of our Head are numbred as our Saviour tells us Mat. 10.29 30. surely that God that takes such care and notice of little inconsiderable things will not let Kings and Kingdoms be without his Care and Providence And yet for all that they may be as St. Peter stiles them an Ordinance of Man. The truth is some of our Prerogative-men treat the King as the Papists have done the Virgin Mary think they cannot speak too highly of her and so they make her a perfect Goddess and ascribe Honours to her which are not her due But altho I have as great Veneration for her as I can or ought to have for a Creature and acknowledge her to be Blessed among Women yet she was but a Woman still So I must look upon Kings as Men still and own them to be the Chiefest I wish I could always say the Best of Men. And altho God may in his secret Decrees design the making such Persons Kings yet he makes the People the Instruments of raising them and 't is from the People that they immediately receive their Power as I shew'd at large in the Stories of David and Jeroboam But tho God do not chuse a King by any miraculous Declaration of his Will in the Case yet if that will satisfie I will grant that he may direct and incline the Hearts of the People to chuse one rather than another and when they once have chose God certainly does confirm it so that 't is not in the Peoples power to chuse again unless by the King's fault his Power is forfeited and so it revolves to the People For I should be very unwilling to live under any Government where God has nothing to do but all that I contest is that Kings are not so immediately set up by God that upon that score they should be unaccountable to their People especially where they are not the Supreme Power as 't is evident they are not in England And that one Circumstance does make so great an alteration in the Case that it almost supersedes what I have to say to the several Texts of Scripture that may be urged against what I have here said But yet that I may both take away all Objections and give all the Satisfaction imaginable we will consider all those Texts distinctly and see how far they may be applicable to our Case 2. And the properest Method of doing it I suppose will be by taking them in order as they lie And the first that offers it self to our Consideration is that of our Saviour Mat. 22.21 Render therefore to Cesar the things that are Cesar's c. But having had occasion in another place to treat of that Text I shall desire my Reader to turn some few Leaves back and shall only add to what I have there said That I do acknowledge it a Duty to render to Cesar nay to every body the Things and Dues that belong to them but think that we fully discharge our Duty to the King when we pay him all the Obedience that the Law gives him Right to challenge or lays any Obligation upon the Subject to perform And if they can by this Text prove we do not do so or that we are obliged to render unto Cesar the things which are not Cesar's they will indeed then say something to the purpose But this being the only Rule that our Saviour gave in the Case and it being acknowledged that our Saviour did not intend to make any Alteration in the Rights of Princes but leaves them as he found them it may not be amiss to consider a little how he found that Matter and what particular Commands God gave to the Jews concerning their Obedience to Kings And I must declare that I have read the Old Testament over with all the attention I am capable of and unless it be in the Proverbs I cannot find one Text that gives us any Direction much less Command about Subjection to Kings but only what our Divines draw by way of Inference from the Fifth Commandment But whether God intended it in that sense they have now put upon it I think might bear a Dispute But if he did it must be only by way of Prophecy for there was not a King in Israel for near Five hundred Years after the giving of the Law And this I 'm sure of that upon the setting up of Saul when Samuel had the King and People Face to Face altho he often repeats their Duty and Obligation of fearing the Lord and obeying him yet not one word of Command to the People to obey their new King which I have sometimes wonder'd at and the only Account that I can give of it is this That being they were resolv'd they would be like other Nations and would have a King to reign over them God comply'd with them in the thing but would have nothing to do with the Compact between them but leaves them to agree that Matter between themselves as well as they can and accordingly we find that tho God chose the Person as in the Case of David yet they would not admit him King till they had made a Bargain with him as I have shew'd at large in the First Part of this So that
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