and acknowledg'd him to be our Soveraign and this I may call a Reciprocal Obligation which either may refuse Nor will it argue much bounty in the Conqueror to return us our Liberty and Property in lieu of our Obedience because without Obliging our Consciences he can hope to reap but little fruit from all his Conquests he can never be secure in his Throne nor settl'd in his Government until he has some Tye upon our Consciences as we are his prisoners he may Torment and Punish us but all this while he has no hold upon our Consciences all things are Lawful against him as against a publick Enemy and we are free to draw our Swords against him as soon as we can escape out of his hands so that on these Occasions a Conqueror is forc't to stand Arm'd or to bind our hands until he can bind our Consciences And this seems to be the key to understand those passages quoted out of Bishop Overal's Convocation-book The New Government is then throughly settl'd when the new Prince has the full Administration of the Government and is own'd as Soveraign by the Representatives of the people freely chosen we must then submit not only for Wrath but Conscience sake because it is the Ordinance of God Here therefore I must presume to assert that the right of Government is not deriv'd from God without the consent or submission of the people I do not say it is not deriv'd from God but the consent of the people together with the full Enjoyment of the Regal Power is our Visible Evidence that such a Prince has receiv'd his Authority from God for till this be done we cannot with any propriety of speech say that the Government is settl'd nor is it call'd the Ordinance of God until it be settl'd I say Submission only makes a Through Settlement because notwithstanding a quiet possession it is probable whole multitudes may wait an opportunity to overturn it unless the Nation has declar'd its willingness to Acquiesce by Representatives who are the mouth of the people and impower'd to speak their minds I Would not have it thought as if by this I deny'd the Power of God to set an Usurping Tyrant over us against our wills for God can do it if he please and make us the instruments of it when he means thus to afflict any Nation or People he can so incline their hearts as to make them receive him to be their King who shall be their Scourge Or the Usurping Tyrant having them in his Power may make them willing to be his Subjects on such Conditions as they can get And thus God can set a bad King over us in some sense against our wills and yet it is our own Act For we owe him no Obedience and are not Oblig'd to Reverence and Obey him on the score of Conscience until his Government be settl'd by our receiving him to be our Soveraign either in our own Persons or by our Representatives I presume it will be sufficient to clear this Point if I first prove That our Present Civil Governments could have no other Original and further shew in what sense the Men of succeeding Ages and our present Times are not said to be Subjects without their own consent or submission For the Reasons already given I do suppose all Civil Governments must have their Original either from Submission or from the Paternal Authority Now none of our present Princes can Claim their right from Paternal Authority because it cannot be thought that any Prince now living should be able to make good his Claim as the direct Heir from Noah tho' they want no flatterers yet none of them are so vain as to give out that they are the Heirs of this great Family so that I shall take it for granted that all pretences to Soveraign Authority from Paternal Power are absolutely out of doors And at present I can foresee nothing Material that may be objected against this Hypothesis unless it be what our Learned Author seems to object viz. That as natural Authority is the most sacred so no Man had Authority to give it away that is if I mistake not his meaning a Father having Soveraign Authority over his Children and Childrens Children c. may not Transfer this Authority to any other Person Now to clear this doubt Perhaps it would be no difficult Task First To shew the Necessity of Transfering this Authority as families multiplied for every thing that is Absolutely necessary is Lawful just as we say it was Lawful for Cain to Marry his own Sister Secondly If it were Unlawful in the Original a long Succession wipes off the Stain as our Author plainly grants Thirdly It being impossible to Govern the whole World by the care and inspection of one Man and it being impossible to point out the direct Heir in each Country and again impossible to settle the Limits of his Government I Conclude it was Lawful for every Parent to Transfer so much of his Authority to some Single Person as was necessary to preserve Peace in the Neighbourhood reserving still so much to themselves as might preserve a Filial Obedience and this might be done as we see it is at this day amongst us tho' a stranger to their blood were invested with a Soveraign Authority over them But Lastly tho' no Authority be so Sacred as what is Natural yet I conclude it Lawful not only on Necessary but Prudential accounts to Transfer it If any denys it is gratis dictum when they publish their Reasons it will be time enough to put in our Answer So that in short I suppose it Lawful for any body of Free Men to invest any one of themselves or a stranger with a Soveraign Authority over them And that all our Present Governments did begin in this manner is more than probable because none of them could have such Authority by any other means the pretences from Paternal Authority are out of doors Conquest will lay no Obligation to Obedience on a Mans Conscience and therefore nothing but Consent or Submission can do it It matters not whether this Submission was procur'd in gratitude for former Obligations or by Flattery or for fear of Rough Treatment it may be sometimes a willing submission and sometimes an Hard Choice but ones own Submission only binds his Conscience if he would brave his Adversary and not yield to become his Subject or Vassal he would as we say be his own Man as soon as he escap'd his Adversaries hands whereas having once receiv'd him for his Soveraign his Conscience is for ever bound and if I may so say he carries his Chains with him to the Remotest Corners of the World All Nations as far as I know being agreed that no Subject can shake off his Obedience at his pleasure and agreeable to this Pinciple they all Act on occasion calling any of them home and proceeding against such as refuse to Obey their Summons which you must confess ought
to Assume the whole Soveraignty to themselves By this means they will Lessen our Security for whereas now we are Oblig'd only by Laws made by the King and our Representatives we should then be Obliged by Laws made only by themselves which I may say is contrary to our Fundamental Law viz. To be Govern'd by a King and our Representatives The Chain of my Discourse hath led me into these untrodden paths I will Disentangle my self as soon as I can but all this was necessary to prove the thing I am aiming at But to proceed Obj. Against this it may be Objected that if the ROYAL FAMILY were Extinct the whole Power would be Lodg'd in the Hands of our Representatives and who may Resist them Ans. To prevent the Dissolving of the Government it is Necessary they should take the Sword into their Hands but if they will not declare a New King according to Custom I cannot see why they may not be Compell'd to it since they have their Power only in Trust not in their own Right Thus in Poland upon the Death of the King if the Representatives of the People who on that occasion are Entrusted with the whole Power should pretend to be Lords Paramount and would not proceed to a New Election I know not why the People should not demand their Right which is to be Govern'd by a King Now this would have been our Case if our Representatives in the late times had patcht up a Government without a King Tho' this had been done by our Representatives it could not properly be call'd the Act of the People because we never gave them such Authority This you cannot but grant unless you will presume that we Commission them to destroy the Monarchy which as you find can hardly be suppos'd in an Elective Kingdom upon the Death of their King but it is perfect Nonsense to suppose it in an Hereditary Government whilst the Royal Family is yet in being It may be suppos'd that we Commission them to Elect a King in Case the Royal Line should Fail or finding two pretenders to declare who has the best Title or to appoint a Protector in Case of Infancy or Lunacy Or to receive a Conqueror into the Throne in case our Natural Prince be Fled out of His Kingdom and incapacitated to protect us and they in no condition to make opposition or to invest the next Heir with Royal Authority in case of Desertion especially if the deserting Prince dare not or cannot come to protect us their enquiry not being how he came into that condition but whether he be in a Capacity to Protect us and if he be not they are then free to invest the next Heir with the Royal Authority In all these Cases our Representatives may well presume on our Consent tho' they Act without the King because it is almost Absolutely necessary these things should be done and intolerable inconveniencies would ensue perhaps to the utter Ruin of the Common-wealth if they were not done But to presume that we give them Authority to take and keep the whole Legislative Power in their own Hands or to destroy the Monarchy this is a strain beyond my comprehension at least it is not Properly the Act of the People and therefore they whom they represent must Ratify it in their own Persons ere they can pretend a Through Settlement But then if the People all the while shew great uneasiness under this Usurpation if their crys be loud and clamorous and many of them absolutely refuse to own the Authority This has not the Face of a Settlement Here is nothing that looks like a general consent and that tho' we should suppose our Representatives to have own'd the Usurpt Authority for as by the Fundamental Laws of the Nation we only Authorise them to act with the King so whatever they shall do without a King is not valid unless it be in the Cases before mention'd which both Necessity and Reason will allow whereas neither Necessity nor Reason can be pleaded in the former Instance But I do not pretend that what I have said on this Point will amount to any thing like a Demonstration a short-sighted Man may chance to find greater Flaws in it than I am now aware of Perhaps my Zeal for Monarchy has too much heated my Imagination and I can only say in my Excuse That I have no pleasing Idea's of a Common-Wealth and therefore would willingly shut the door against it But if this will not stand the Test of a Judicious Reader let this Long Parenthesis pass for nothing we need no such precarious Principles our Case is good without it as you may find in the other parts of this Discourse And now I have nothing more to trouble my Reader with but only to Answer Two or Three Objections which could not so conveniently be consider'd in the Body of this Discourse and then draw some Conclusions from it Obj. First then it may be Objected That according to these Principles we are now Settled upon a Legal and Rightful Government Ans. First If this be well prov'd so much the better it is then no Argument against me Secondly I can see no good Reason Why we should not own it to be a Legal and Rightful Government unless it be that our Heads are perplex'd with the nice Distinction of a King de Iure and a King de Facto By a King de Iure we commonly mean a Prince who has the Crown by Right of Inheritance and it is thought that any other Person can be at best but a King de Facto Upon this many suppose that His Present Majesty cannot be King de Iure at least during the Life of King Iames but yet may be obey'd because the Law made in the 11 th of Henry 7 th determines our Obedience to a King de Facto It is True that Law indemnifies those who shall obey the King in the time being as the Words of the Act run that is the King in possession Whether he Claims the Crown by Right of Inheritance or otherwise But if Interpreters shall say That he only is a King de Iure who Claims his Crown by Right of Inheritance it is a visible Mistake for all Mankind as far as I know are agreed That a Conquerour who makes a just War upon the Submission of the Conquered Nation becomes a King de Iure and if in this present Case His Majesty is justly invested with the Royal Authority he is so likewise as I think I have prov'd So that you find this common Interpretation is imperfect a King de Iure should not so peremptorily be restrained to a King by Inheritance but we run away with the Mistake and without Considering seem to yield the Point as if His Present Majesty were only a King de Facto I cannot say Whether such as are skill'd in the Laws will allow of this Interpretation but with submission I presume it is agreeable to reason and does
But let us Consider what this Parliament did when once they were come together After some few Preliminaries we find them Entring on the Grand Debate Concerning the Articles of the Protectors instrument of Government and that in such a manner as made him jealous of their proceedings and then he thought it High time to impose a Recognition upon them which they were to Sign before they were suffer'd to sit again in the House This Recognition which may be seen in the Memoirs can in no sense be call'd a Publick Act since it was not first Voted in the House And Effectually upon this many of them left that pretended Parliament and they who did Sign it presently Voted that it should not be Constru'd to Comprehend the whole instrument Consisting of Forty-two Articles which was as much as to say they reserv'd still to themselves a Power to Break with him in Case they could not Agree afterwards upon the said Articles And if we still Trace on their Proceedings we find them always very Busy in their Debates about the Government and never able to come to any Conclusion about it unless I think upon Two Articles in Forty-two till the Protector being jealous of them in great Heat Dissolv'd them His second Parliament Met September 17. 1656. And it must be confest that this Parliament did as far as they were able Confirm his Usurp'd Authority But nothing is more Evident than that this was a packt Number of his own Creatures and as the Business was then Manag'd it is Ridiculous to think they could speak the Peoples sense in this matter For they were not only Crampt as the former Parliament had been but as our Author observes none of them were suffer'd to enter the House without a Certificate that they were approv'd by the Protectors Council And when almost an Hundred of the Members who were Secluded upon that Account demanded Entrance it was slavishly voted by the rest that they should make their Application to the Council for their Approbation This produc'd a most Sharp Remonstrance Sign'd with their own Hands as may be seen at Large in the Memoirs page 640 And if there were nothing more this is enough to Void and Null all their Proceedings This is sufficient to shew that this was possibly the most packt Assembly that ever pretended to the Name of a Parliament and that there is not the least Colour of Reason to say that what they did could any ways be the Act of the People Tho' this was the best Title the Protector had to his Government as he himself thought not being Solemnly Inaugurated before this pretended Submission of the People in Parliament as he call'd it I Should now proceed to Consider the Case of Richard but there need not many words to Blow off his Title since the only Parliament He Had as its freedom was questionable on the former accounts and because of the Exclusion of some Members who it seems were unworthy because they had been in Arms against the Rump Parliament so they never came to any Conclusion about the Recognition of his Authority And after all if those pretended Parliaments had own'd both Oliver and his Son after Him yet we could not call it the Consent of the Nation because of the Violent Exclusion of the True House of Peers As for what follow'd Richard until the return of King Charles every body knows it was perfect Anarchy and confusion It is certain however there never was any Parliament to Confirm the Authorities then in being and since that is the only Legal way to Testify the consent of a People we may safely Conclude the Usurpation was never Settl'd I might proceed in this Argument and at least make it probable that if Cromwels Government had been Confirm'd as far as the free Consent of our Representatives could have Settl'd it yet it would not have been the duty of all Private Men to own his Authority which tho' it be not at all necessary to maintain my opinion I shall by way of Digression insist a little upon Now this may seem a contradiction to what I have already Asserted or at least Inconsistent with the Doctrine Taught in Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book but I presume it is neither and I only urge it that the True State of the Controversy betwixt us and some of our brethren may the better be conceiv'd who insinuate as if it were one and the same thing to pay Obedience to the present Government or to that of the late Protector or any other in his Circumstances What has been said already does sufficiently shew the Vanity of these Men and therefore it must be observ'd that if I fail in this attempt it will not Prejudice those Principles I undertook to maintain therefore what I say on this head must stand or fall alone and I only propose it to the Consideration of Wiser Men. What I have to say Runs upon this Supposition that an Usurp't Authority is not to be Obey'd nor judg'd to be the Ordinance of God until it be Throughly Settl'd It may be ask'd then If there be quiet possession and it be confirm'd by our Representatives what distinction can excuse us from paying Obedience to such Powers I Answer our Representatives had no Authority to destroy the Monarchy And therefore if they had thus Transgrest the Limits of their Power it would not have Oblig'd those whom they Represented If it be Urg'd that they have an Unlimited Power I Answer it is True but not unless when they Act in their own Sphere and in Conjunction with the King Obj. But it may further be Objected that at this rate our Representatives could not Transfer our Allegiance to their Majesties since they could not make any binding Act without a King Ans. I deny it This they can do as I shall shew you by and by but it is an Exception from this Rule They alone can do no other Act that can Oblige us for instance they cannot impose Taxes or make Laws that shall Oblige us In these and in all other Cases except this instance now before us of Confirming the Authority of a New King it is our interest and security that nothing should be Enacted but by the Consent of the King and our Representatives and therefore since we Commission them to Act only with the King they can never Act without him Thus for instance If a Conqueror has got the whole power into his hand they may Transfer our Allegiance to him Or if the Royal Family should be Extinct they may proceed to a New Election But if they pretend to Govern us themselves without a King this is more power than we have given them for we never Trusted the whole Legislative Authority in their hands and I know not how they should come by it otherwise Obj. But some will say in such a Case it is Devolv'd to them Ans. I deny it they may have Power to dispose of the Crown as they please but not
from his Right than the Act of Recognition past by King Iames the First did suppose a Flaw in his Title Thirdly Upon these Principles we may also Silence those Rash Men who for Reasons best known to themselves frequently tell us that the Government was dissolv'd when the Late King left us But surely these Men cannot see an inch before them and I am almost asham'd to give them a serious answer Let them tell me if the Government did thereby Crumble into pieces by what Right did our then Representatives Erect another on the Ruins of it If the Fountain of Honour fail'd what Right had the Nobility to their Peerage and why might not the meanest Peasant send his Representative as well as any Landed Man or free Burgher These questions are too difficult to be resolv'd unless it be upon the supposition that the Old Government was then in being They were at a loss indeed to know in whom the Government should be vested and they came together to determine this great question which they soon Wisely Resolv'd And unless we quietly submit to what is done by our Representatives in these Exigencies we might as well say the Government was Dissolv'd when the King Left us if the remaining Powers might not Determine where we should Pay our Obedience For I suppose those Confusions what by an unruly Rabble and a Disbanded Army did sufficiently shew the necessity of fixing somewhere and I humbly suppose it is as evident to all Mankind that the Late King would not or could not come to Act his part in the Government But lastly upon these Principles if it were necessary to refute such vile Reproaches we might secure our last Unhappy Prince from being accounted the Grand Rebel as he is styl'd in a late Scurrilous Pamphlet For if it is only our own Consent that makes us Subjects we may at least be so favourable to the Ruins of Majesty as to excuse him from being a Subject or a Rebel since he cannot be the Head he has not consented to be any other Member of the Government not being here in Person or any Deputed from him though this cannot be said of any other Person since they are Represented in our Estates whether they will or not Nor upon any other Hypothesis can I Conceive it Rational to exclude the Late King himself from being a Member of this Present Government but this way he is set at Liberty and consequently as free to Invade Their Majesties Dominions as any other Prince If he molest us with an Unjust War he must expect at the Great and Dreadful Day to give Account for all the Desolations and Blood-shed that shall ensue upon it If he is injur'd he has a good God to Fight his Battles and we a Merciful Creator that I hope will Compassionate our Sins of Ignorance I hope I may well call them so for my part my Conscience bears me Witness That I think it my Duty to submit to Their Present Majesties Government and that I see nothing that moves a Scruple in my Heart but the contrary Example of some Worthy Men who I am perswaded Act with great Sincerity But since Example is no Argument and if it were is much stronger on our part I dare not but follow the Dictates of my own Conscience FINIS Some BOOKS lately Printed for Robert Clavel POlitical Arithmatick or a Discourse concerning the Extent and Value of Lands People Buildings Husbandry Manufacture Commerce Fishery Artizans Seamen Souldiers publick Revenues Interest Taxes Superlucration Registries Banks Valuation of Men Increasing of Seamen of Militia's Harbours Scituation Shipping Power at Sea c. As the same Relates to every Country in General but more particularly to the Territories of His Majesty of Great Britain and his Neighbours of Holland Zealand and France By Sir William Petty late Fellow of the Royal Society The Frauds of the Romish Monks and Priests set forth in Eight Letters written lately by a Gentlemen in his Journey into Italy and published for the benefit of the publick A late Letter concerning the Proceedings in Scotland and Sufferings of the Episcopal Clergy in that Kingdom price 6 d. Roman Forgeries in the Councils during the first four Centuries together with an Appendix concerning the Forgeries and Errors in the Annals of Baronius By Thomas Comber D. D. Praecentor of York A Scholastical History of the Primitive and general use of Liturgies in the Christian Church together with an Answer to Mr. David Clarksons late Discourse concerning Liturgies in two Parts in Octavo By Thomas Comber D. D. Seasonable Reflections on a late Pamphlet Entituled A History of Passive Obedience since the Reformation wherein the true Notion of Passive Obedience is settled and secured from the malitious Interpretations of ill designing Men. The Golden Rule or the Royal Law of Equity Explained A Sermon Preached before the Court of Aldermen and City of London at Guid-Hall Chappel on Sunday December the 16th 1688. Both by I. Goodman D. D.