Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	call_v	king_n	time_n	2,545	5	3.5489	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70705	The letter which was sent to the author of the doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved, &c. answered and refuted wherein is proved, that monarchy was not originally from God. That kings are not by divine appointment, but that all government proceeds from the people. That the obedience required in Scripture, is to the laws of the land, and no otherwise. That resisting of arbitary power is lawful. That the oath of allegiance to to the late King James was dissolved before the Prince of Orange (our present King) landed. That upon the non-performance of an oath on one side, the other becomes void, is plainly prov'd from several examples in scripture. That protection is the only cause of allegiance, and that obedience or allegiance is due to the present government is proved from Scripture, law and reason; and those texts of scriptures which relate to government, or monarchy, are explained.	True son of the Church of England.; True son of the Church of England. aut; N. N. aut; A. A. aut	1689 (1689)	Wing N45; ESTC R223803	26,704	41

THE LETTER Which was sent to the AUTHOR of the DOCTRINE OF Passive Obedience AND JURE DIVINO Disproved c. ANSWERED and REFUTED Wherein is Proved That Monarchy was not Originally from GOD. That Kings are not by Divine Appointment but that all Government proceeds from the People That the Obedience required in Scripture is to the Laws of the Land and no otherwise That Resisting of Arbitrary Power is Lawful That the Oath of Allegiance to the late King James was dissolved before the Prince of Orange our present King landed That upon the Non-performance of an Oath on one side the other becomes void is plainly prov'd from several Examples in Scripture That Protection is the only Cause of Allegiance and that Obedience or Allegiance is due to the present Government is proved from Scripture Law and Reason and those Texts of Scripture which relate to Government or Monarchy are Explained The Second Edition LONDON Printed for Tho. Harrison at the White Swan over against the West-end of the Royal Exchange in Cornhil 1689. A VINDICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF Passive Obedience and Jure Divino Disproved c. SIR I Question not but that your Answer is the Idea of your Mind which I doubt not but to make appear to be not only pernicious but tends to the Destruction of all Humane Societies and likewise that you have wrested the Scripture and have made Notorious False Assertions For brevity sake I shall leave out your unnecessary Prologue You say you will not recite any of my Words but refer to my Propositions in that order as I have set them down being Thirty Eight Breaks or Sentences I do desire you and all impartial Men that read this Book to take the pains to read my former Sheet and number the Breaks or Assertions therein and compare them with your Answer which I have set down Verbatim that they may the better judge of the Ridiculousness thereof 1. To begin you say By the Word of God it appears That Monarchy is the Government which God hath chosen above all others and that the People were always obliged to accept that Form of Government which God had chosen for them before they did actually bind themselves See him said Samuel to all the People whom the Lord not you hath chosen 1 Sam. 10.24 Jeroboam indeed was a King of the Peoples making and presently after you know they made a golden Calf This Act of the People though permitted by God for the punishment of Solomon 's sin is more than once called Rebellion in Scripture 1 Kings 12.19 2 Chron. 10.19 1 Sam. 8.19 20 The Children of Israel importuned him for a King over them that they might be like all the nations and that he might judge them and go before them and fight their Battles Chap. 10.24 25. And Samuel said unto the People See him whom the Lord hath chosen And he told the People the manner of the Kingdom which was the Law of the Kingdom and wrote it in a book and laid it up before the Lord. Surely no man will say but that this Law was a Rule for the King to go by as well as the People And then where was his Absolute Authority Chap. 11.14 15. Samuel said to the People Come and let us go to Gilgal and renew the Kingdom there And all the People went to Gilgal and there they made Saul King before the Lord. 1 Sam. 12.12 13. Ye said unto me● says Samuel Nay but a King shall reign over us when the Lord ●our God was your King by which it appears there was no other King but God Now therefore behold the King whom ye have chosen But though he was made King by the appointment of Almighty God yet it was thought necessary the People should confirm and make him King again And 1 Chron. 29.22 The people made Solomon King the second time Which makes not a little for the Peoples Right in Electing their Kings Jeroboam was a King by the appointment of Almighty God though Elected by the People 1 Kings 11.35 Where the Prophet Ahijah speaking to Jeroboam Thus saith the Lord I will take the Kingdom out of Rehoboam's the Son of Solomon's hand and will give it to thee even Ten Tribes But with what face can you wrest the Scripture thus in saying that the Peoples chusing of Jeroboam is more than once called a sin when both these Texts which you quote relates to the aforegoing Verses wherein 't is said That King Rehoboam sent Adoram that was over the Tribute and all Israel stoned him with stones that he died which was Rebellion because it was resisting the Lawful Authority Besides Jeroboam is not mentioned as King till after this Act was committed 2. The true and real greatness of the Soveraign is never inconsistent with the Publick Advantage The true and real Greatness of the Soveraign both from God and Man is not to annihilate or destroy Government but to preserve it with Justice and Peace All Acts contrary to the Laws of the Land are far from being a true and real Greatness and therefore are inconsistent with the Publick Advantage 3. Those things which God hath joyned let no man put asunder The head cannot be well if the Members be much out of order neither can the Members rightly perform their office if the Head be sick and weak The good of the Society is indeed the End of Government but 't is Nonsence to talk of the good of a Society without including the Governour as well as the Governed The People are no ways commanded by God to put themselves into this or that Form of Government but 't is wholly left to their choice And all Government whatsoever tho after the mutual ties of Reciprocal Oaths are not joyned by God tho permitted by him But how do you wrest the Scripture which particularly relates to Man and Wife and apply it to Government as may be seen Matth. 19.6 But verse 9. allows a man to turn away his Wife for Fornication tho joyned by God. But suppose the King and People are joyned together by God is it not much more reasonable to turn away that King who shall endeavour to destroy the People or overthrow their Laws Rights and Priviledges and make them Slaves to his Arbitrary Will and Pleasure than for to turn away one's Wife for Fornication I say if a Woman forfeits her right to her Husband by breaking of her Marriage-Vow in committing of Fornication surely 't is much more reasonable that a King who breaks his Oath and endeavours to overthrow the Government and establish an Idolatrous Religion and by consequence robbing God and the Nation of their Rights should forfeit his Right to the People The Safety of the Body that is the People is to be valued before the Head which is the Chief Governour because it is an easie matter to get a Head to the Body but not a Body to the Head. 4. The Law preserves the King from Force and Violence

tho he should not always make it the measure of his Power It hath also more respect for the meer Instruments of his Arbitrary Will than to treat them as Robbers and Banditi otherwise a man would much rather chuse to be the Lord Chief Iustice's Servant than the King 's because the one can assure me that his Commands are Law when as the other rather out of Ignorance of the Law than Malice may unadvisedly engage me in those Services which are not warranted by the Law. The Law preserves the People from Force and Violence as well as the King but no Force or Violence hath been used to the late King James tho some Law with Force has been used to some of his Instruments And the Law of the Land Nature and Self-preservation will justifie us in what has been done The Plea of Ignorance in matters of Law is not allowed on in the meanest Subject the King has and can the King plead Ignorance when he hath a Learned Council with Judges always to advise with 5. If the People had made the Law the measure of their Priviledges as well as King Charles the 1st did make them the measure of his Power we might probably before this time have seen a good agreement between these Two Zealous Competitors A little Passive Obedience in the business of the Ship-Money would I 'm perswaded have done the Kingdom no harm in that Conjuncture King Charles the First did not make the Law the measure ●f his Power when he raised the Ship-money which was ●ontrary to Law and the people refusing to submit to it ●ade the Law the measure of their Priviledges for they ●ere bound by no Law to consent to any thing the King ●hould command contrary to Law much less a Priviledge of ●uch vast Importance as the parting with their Money con●rary to Law. 6. Absolute and unconditionate Obedience is I grant due ●nly to God who alone has absolute Authority and to the king no otherwise than as his Vicegerent which Character ●e doth not altogether lose by the abuse of his Power 7. Insomuch that they who resist do resist not only the Vsurpations of men but the Ordinance of God though the person be a Claudius or a Nero. A Vicegerent is one that is appointed but God has no where appointed or commanded the World to be governed by Kings though he permits them therefore they are not God's Vicegerents but they may be very properly called his Vicegerents whilst they administer Justice and Equity to every man There is no Absolute Authority given to Princes in Scripture nor no Absolute Subjection commanded to them beyond the Laws of the Country and therefore Kings do lose the Character of God's Vicegerents when Guilty of a habit and constant tract of Arbitrariness and unreasonable Actions contrary to the Laws of the Land. All Acts of Kings or Magistrates contrary to the Law of God or Man are no Legal Acts but Usurpations therefore they are the Acts of private persons and we are no ways in Scripture commanded to obey such Acts therefore we may right our selves from all such Unreasonable and Tyrannical Usurpations We ought to Obey all Magistrates whilst they keep up Rule Order and Government letting the people live peaceable and quiet lives according to the Laws which is the design of all Government but instead of Executing wrath upon evil doers according to the Scripture they become evil doers themselves endeavouring to make the people slaves to their Arbitrary Will and Pleasure in such cases they are not Magistrates according to Scripture or Law and therefore it is lawful to secure our selves from such designs for as the King may with Law and Reason secure himself from the designs of all evil men so may the People secure themselves from the unlawful designs of any man or men whatsoever Sir you are pleased to make God the Author or Approver of the Usurpations of men which I absolutely deny and doubt not but I shall make it appear to the contrary Rom. 12.17 Recompense no man evil for evil If a man robs me or sets fire to my House I ought not to do the like to him but right my self by the Law but if he shall endeavour to take away my life contrary to Law 't is no Evil but an incumbent duty to defend it Vers 18. If it be possible as much as lieth in you live peaceably with all men It is not possible we can live peaceably with those who endeavour to destroy us Ergo we may secure our selves from such endeavours and reduce such men to peaceable lives Vers 19. Dearly beloved avenge us your selves but rather give place unto wrath That is rather suffer by an unjust Law than resist though it be to a Heathen Prince I would fain know where was the Absolute Authority of Kings when the Children of Israel received the Law from the Levitical Priesthood and whether those Laws were not binding to the King as well as the People and whether our Kings have an Absolute Authority if not by what Scripture or Reason we may not secure our persons our Rights and Priviledges from the unlawful and unchristian Designs of the Prince 8 9 10 11. I object nothing against your eight and ninth Aphorisms no nor your tenth if it be meant only of that Defence which one private person may make against another But to your eleventh Maxim I can by no means assent for if every man has the right of self-preservation as entire under Civil Government as in a state of Nature what difference I beseech you is there betwixt the one and the other state And why was Civil Government instituted and appointed by God Surely for no other end but that men shou'd not be their own Carvers and involve the publick in those miseries which intestine bro●les and quarrels wou'd daily produce Though sub●dinate Magistrates may be punished for Acts of illegal Vio●nce because they are no part of their Office yet as long as ●●ey continue in Office they are publick Ministers and ought 〈◊〉 be accounted as such till for their crimes they shall be be●aded If the King himself has Authority to take away a mans ●●se contrary to Law then he can give this Authority to ten ●housand persons if he pleases and then they wou'd be no ●rivate persons because they wou'd act by his Authority ●n a state of Nature every man acts according to his Reason ●n righting or preserving himself but every man hath more ●ight of self-preservation in a Civil Government than in a ●ate of Nature because the Law allows of self-preservation ●nd punishes those that endeavour to take away a man's life ●ontrary to Law. If one meets me and endeavours to take ●way my life and I must either die upon the spot or defend ●hy self in this case if I kill him it 's no Murder but if he ●ills me it is Murder Civil Government was surely appointed by God and Man for no other end

Actions when King ●hey being fresh in every Man's Memory Self-preservation ●s inherent to all Men but it does not follow that a King who has ●enounced his Throne and abandoned the Kingdom should endeavour to re-establish himself through a ●ea of Blood though the Government is provided with ●nother Governour What right hath a King to the Throne ●ut from the People If you can make out your Doctrine of Jure Divino then you may lay Claim to such Rights for your King James as neither the Law or Reason does or can allow 28. That God did originally Institute Monarchy I do say but that we are Commanded to obey Kings exclusively to all other Government doth not follow and I do not maintain If God did Command or Appoint the World to be Governed by Kings and that he hath not revok'd that Decree then it does follow that all other Government is sinful because any thing contrary to the Appointment or Command of God is a Sin. 29 30. We have very little Account of the World from the Creation to the Flood but by what appears we may safely conclude that God then Governed his People by a Paternal Monarchical Authority and afterwards Melchizedeck Abraham and the Patriarchs were great Kings and Princes Moses was King of Jeshurun the Iudges were so many Monarchs for the time being and so all along the Jews were under a Monarchical Government and therefore it was their Fault to desire a King after the manner of the Nations when they already had such a Regal Government as God thought fit to appoint Nimrod is not the first Monarch but the first mighty Hunter or cruel Tyrant we meet with in Scripture but consider I pray whether the Dominion which God gave unto Adam did not make him the first and greatest Monarch upon Earth and if so this makes not a little for the Jure Divino Doctrine which term of Art yet I prosess my self not to be in love with Doth not God himself tell us That by him Kings reign doth he not say of David He hath exalted one chosen out of not by the People doth he not call Cyrus an Heathen King his Anointed and are we not told what horrid Wickedness was committed when there was no King in Israel All these things shew that Monarchy is from God and that there were Kings in the World before Nimrod unless you understand by Kings only such wicked Persons as he was as you seem to do But yet though this be true yet 't is not absolutely necessary that all the World should be Governed by Kings any more than that all Churches should be necessarily governed by Bishops because 't is certain that Episcopacy was Instituted in the Church by our Saviour and his Apostles I never 'till now heard That a Paternal which is a Fatherly Authority was a Kingly Authority It cannot be supposed that Adam was a King upon the Authority which God have him of having Dominion without it be understood over the Fish of the Sea and the Fowl of the Air and the Cattel c. nor because God bid him be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it because there was nothing to subdue except Beasts he being the first Man of the Creation It can mean nothing else than that he should have Power or Authority as Father over all his Children and subdue them if they were Rebellious in disobeying his Commands But to proceed After the Flood the Twelve Sons of Jacob were Patriarchs that is chief of the Fathers or chief Head Prince of the Family and such was Abraham who was called a Father not a King of many Countries The Judges were not Monarchs for the time being but Rulers over the People Act. 4.8 With what Face can you assert that the Jews were all along under a Monarchical Government when 't is certain there is not the least Intimation thereof in Scripture Melchisedeck was a Type of Christ being both King and Priest he was King of Righteousness and King of Salem which is King of Peace without Father or Mother having neither beginning of Dayes nor end of Life Heb. 7.2 3. He was a Sovereign King and High Priest of the Church and such was Christ not using Authority like unto worldly Kings Deut. 34.10 speaking of Moses There arose not a Prophet since in Israel whom the Lord knew face to face he being a very Holy Man and such a singular Prophet and whom the Lord had such a respect for that he buried him Himself Ver. 6. therefore it may with Reason be concluded that God gave him an Honour above other Prophets by making him a King and likewise Milchisedeck ●as a Type of Christ But these Kings did not act by their own Will but by the Will and Appointment of Almighty God We read of no other King or Kings over the Children of Israel 'till they desired a King. Isa 44.28 45.1 Thus saith the Lord to his Anointed Cyrus he is my Shepherd and shall perform all my pleasure whose right hand I have holden to subdue Nations before him But doth God call any other Heathen Kings his Anointed of which there was a great Number during the time of the Children of Israel Was not St. Paul by the appointment of the Almighty one of the chief of the Apostles though he had been a violent Persecutor And it may very well be thought that God by a particular Providence caused Cyrus to be made King by whom he design'd to subdue Nations and therefore may be very properly called his Chosen or Anointed for in the first Year of his Reign he made a Decree to build the House of God c. Ezra 5.13 14. I do once more affirm that Nimrod is the first King mentioned in Scripture Gen. 10.9 Deut. 16.18 19. The Children of Israel are commanded to make Judges and Officers throughout their Tribes of which they had Twelve Gen. 49.28 Mat. 19.28 which were Societies And they shall Judge the People with just Judgment not wresting Judgment or respecting Persons This was the Government that God had appointed over the Children of Israel which was by Judges and Prophets not by Kings But suppose these Judges were Kings according to your Assertion it follows that the People have right to Elect their Kings by Divine Appointment This makes not a little against the present pretended Jure Divino Doctrine yet 't is certain that there was many Kings by Divine Appointment in the time of the Children of Israel but that they are so now I do absolutely deny Pray Sir examine this Paragraph well for I do positively charge you with Wresting the Scriptures and making very false Assertions I require you to prove that Kings are by the Command or Appointment of Almighty God which done I 'le prove such Government to be necessary and that all others are sinful 31. Some sort of Allegiance is due to hint from whom we receive Protection that it is the only Foundation of Allegiance I

do again deny The Coronation Oath and Oath of Allegiance are mutual Ties of Protection and of Obedience to the Laws the King to obey the Laws in Administration of Justice and the People to obey the Laws in being Passive to them It is impossible for a King to Govern with that Justice and Equity but he will have some Enemies and if the People do not protect him how can he be safe in his Throne There is a Natural Allegiance due to all Men that is from one Man to another and there is a Political Allegiance due to the King for protecting me in my Civil Rights c. and this is the only Cause and Foundation of Allegiance to which I have spoken more large in the 20 and 21 Replyes 32. The Law indeed Indemnities the People for Obeying an Vsurper or a King only de Facto but this supposes a Fault which without this Law was severely punishable besides it doth not say that they shall assist the King de Facto in his Warrs c. but only take care to secure them if they do so What Fault can there be supposed in Obeying or Assisting an Usurper or King de Facto when the Law does not Punish but allows of such Obedience and Assistance Treason cannot be committed against a King out of Possession of the Throne but it is Treason to be aiding or assisting towards his Restoration which is Conspiring against the King de Facto And as long as a King in Possession tho not by regular descent governs according to the Laws of the Land he ought to be assisted and may require his Subjects Assistance in his Warrs After all the Clamour and Noise that hath been made about the Obligation of the Oath of Allegiance it appears by this that it is only Conditional and that it is dissolved whenever the King ceases to Govern or Reign 33. As for your Aphorism the Safety of the People c. I do not dispute the truth of it But whether the Way to observe this supream Law be to violate the Right of Succession I do and so will you I believe upon second thoughts very much question The Divine Law is the same in one Countrey as in another I would fain know whether the Law that is made in France That no Woman shall Inherit the Throne and the turning out the King of Portugal and setting up his younger Brother who was more fit to govern and many like Instances might be given be against this Divine Law and whether or no England for its Security may not exclude the next Heir to the Crown or turn out He that shall be upon the Throne who are uncapable or will not govern according to the Laws of the Land. I do affirm that there is no other Right of Succession than what proceeded from the People and that this was given to the King for the time being and to his Heirs upon Condition that He and they should Govern according to the Laws and Customs of the Countrey else to what purpose was these Rules and Bounds of Government given but that he should be obliged to govern according to them and not according to his Will and Pleasure What an Essay would it be upon our Reason to think that our Ancestors who made Kings were such Fools or Mad Men as not to reserve to themselves a Power of turning them out if they endeavour'd to destroy them or act contrary to those Rules they had set them If they had no such Intention or Reserve yet it follows they had such Power and that it still remains because there neither was ●or is any Law to the contrary and this has been several times Executed as may be seen in the 18 and 19 Reply 34. The Kings of England as all other Kings came to their Crowns by Divine Appointment and are only recognized or received to their Rights by the People The Prerogatives and Authorities of the Crown are given to the King for the time being only to prevent what Mischiefs might otherwise ensure to the Community Sir You are pleased to take no Notice of the latter Part of my 29th Query which is as distinct a Head as any one and begins at the ending of a full Point thô not in a Break like the rest which being very proper in Answer to this Assertion of yours I shall here insert it viz. If Kings are by Divine Appointment is it not rational to believe that God would have commanded all the World to have been Govern'd by Kings or at least the Christian World and have given them a Law to Govern by The Prerogatives and Authorities of the Crown are nothing but the bounds and supports of the Regal Authority and are given to the King for the time being but if he exceeds those Bounds it is no Prerogative or Authority and then most certain the People who gave him his Authority has Authority to take it away Now I would fain know what your Jure Divino King would signifie more than a stalking Horse when his Prerogatives and Authorities are taken from him for you allow them to be in the People for I am sure this is the only way to prevent the Mischiefs which would otherwise ensue to the Community from a false and destructive Governour It cannot be proved that there hath been a King by Divine Appointment for these many Ages last past If they were by Divine Appointment then they would be set up by the immediate Appointment of Almighty God as over the Children of Israel or else the Scripture would have said that their Issue should be Kings and then you must prove a right Line from that Issue which is impossible to beproved or that the World should be Govern'd by Kings Since God Almighty hath no where Commanded or appointed the World to be Govern'd by Kings it absolutely follows That it is the Peoples Right to choose their Kings and Governours and then what greater Nonsense can there be than to affirm the People hath not Right to Punish their Kings by turning them out of the Throne for not Administring of Justice 35. In the first Ages of Christianity the Right of Succession was not a settled Title to the Empire neither were the Christians of that time bound by Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy And this is the reason most probably why our Saviour and his Apostles only warn'd them in general to Obey the Emperours who were then in Power without enquiring into their Right and Title Although in the first Ages of Christianity the Roman Emperours were seldom by a Hereditary Right and the Christians were not bound to them by Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy yet the Commands of our Saviour and his Apostles for their Obedience to those Heathen Princes under the Pain of Damnation was more binding than any Oath those Princes could have required of them 36. As for your Challenge I do undertake to prove the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Vnlawfulness of Deposing of Kings