all others besides themselves are to be excluded from Governing or chusing of Governours And amongst the ungodly that are to be thus excluded he reckons all those that will not hearken to their Pastours he means the Presbyterian Classis or that are despisers of the Lord's-Day that is all such as are not Sabbatarians or will not keep the Lord's day after the Jewish manner which they prescribe and which is condemned for Judaism by all even of the Presbyterian perswasion in the world but those of England and Scotland onely XV. If a People that by Oath and Duty are obliged to a Sovereign shall sinfully dispossess him and contrary to their Covenants chuse and Covenant with another they may be obliged by their latter Covenant notwithstanding their former and particular subjects that consented not in the breaking of their former Covenants may yet be obliged by occasion of their latter choice to the person whom they chuse Thes. 181. XVI If a Nation injuriously deprive themselves of a worthy Prince the hurt will be their own and they punish themselves but if it be necessarily to their welfare it is no injury to him But a King that by war will seek reparations from the body of the people doth put himself into an hostile State and tells them actually that he looks to his own good more than theirs and bids them take him for their Enemy and so defend themselves if they can Pag. 424. XVII Though a Nation wrong their King and so quoad Meritum causoe they are on the worser side yet may he not lawfully war against the publick good on that account nor any help him in such a war because propter fiuem he hath the worser cause Thes. 352. And yet as he tells us pag 476. we were to believe the Parliaments Declarations and professions which they made that the war which they raised was not against the King either in respect of his Authority or of his Person but onely against Delinquent Subjects and yet they actually fought against the King in person and we are to believe saith Mr. Baxter pag. 422. that men would kill them whom they fight against Mr. Baxter's Doctrine concerning the Government of England in particular HE denies the Government of England to be Monarchical in these words I. The real Sovereignty here amongst us was in King Lords and Commons Pag. 72. II. As to them that argue from the Oath of Supremacy and the title given the King I refer them saith Mr. Baxter to Mr. Lawson's answer to Hobbs's Politicks where he sheweth that the Title is often given to the single Person for the honour of the Commonwealth and his encouragement because he hath an eminent interest but will not prove the whole Sovereignty to be in him and the Oath excludeth all others from without not those whose interest is implied as conjunct with his The eminent dignity and interest of the King above others allowed the name of a Monarchy or Kingdom to the Commonwealth though indeed the Sovereignty was mixed in the hands of the Lords and Commons Pag. 88. III. He calls it a false supposition 1. That the Sovereign power was onely in the King and so that it was an absolute Monarchy 2 That the Parliament had but onely the proposing of Laws and that they were Enacted onely by the King's Authority upon their request 3. That the power of Arms and of War and Peace was in the King alone And therefore saith he those that argue from these false suppositions conclude that the Parliament being Subjects may not take up Arms without him and that it is Rebellion to resist him and most of this they gather from the Oath of Supremacy and from the Parliaments calling of themselves his Subjects but their grounds saith he are sandy and their superstructure false Pag. 459 460. And therefore Mr. Baxter tells us that though the Parliament are Subjects in one capacity yet have they their part in the Sovereignty also in their higher capacity Ibid. And upon this false and traitorous supposition he endeavours to justifie the late Rebellion and his own more than ordinary activeness in it For IV. Where the Sovereignty saith he is distributed into several hands as the King 's and Parliaments and the King invades the others part they may lawfully defend their own by war and the Subject lawfully assist them yea though the power of the Militia be expresly given to the King unless it be also exprest that it shall not be in the other Thes. 363. The conclusion saith he needs no proof because Sovereignty as such hath the power of Arms and of the Laws themselves The Law that saith the King shall have the Militia supposeth it to be against Enemies and not against the Commonwealth nor them that have part of the Sovereignty with him To resist him here is not to resist power but usurpation and private will in such a case the Parliament is no more to be resisted than he Ibid. V. If the King raise War against such a Parliament upon their Declaration of the dangers of the Common-wealth the people are to take it as raised against the Commonwealth Thes. 358. And in that case saith he the King may not onely be resisted but ceaseth to be a King and entreth into a state of War with the people Thes. 368. VI. Again if a Prince that hath not the whole Sovereignty be conquered by a Senate that hath the other part and that in a just defensive War that Senate cannot assume the whole Sovereignty but supposeth that government in specie to remain and therefore another King must be chosen if the former be incapable Thes. 374. as he tells us he is by ceasing to be King in the immediately precedent Thes. VII And yet in the Preface to this Book he tells us that the King withdrawing so he calls the murthering of one King and the casting off of another the Lords and Commons ruled alone was not this to change the species of the Government Which in the immediate words before he had affirmed to be in King Lords and Commons which constitution saith he we were sworn and sworn and sworn again to be faithfull to and to defend And yet speaking of that Parliament which contrary to their Oaths changed this Government by ruling alone and taking upon them the Supremacy he tells us that they were the best Governours in all the world and such as it is forbidden to Subjects to depose upon pain of damnation What then was he that deposed them one would think Mr. Baxter should have called him a Traitour but he calls him in the same Preface the Lord Protector adding That he did prudently piously faithfully and to his immortal honour exercise the Government which he left to his Son to whom as Mr. Baxter saith pag. 484. he is bound to submit as set over us by God and to obey for conscience sake and to behave himself as a Loyal Subject towards him
but hence it will not follow that he was bound to do so nay thence it will follow that neither he nor any of his Predecessors were bound to do so for then they that were the boldest in their demands that ever met and sate in Parliament would have claimed it as of right and not Petition'd for it as they did at least if they had vouchsafed to have Petition'd for it they would have called their Petition a Petition of Right which they did not So that by very Petitioning the King to grant those things which they proposed as agreed on by both Houses they acknowledged that the King was not bound by any Law Custom or Precedent from his Predecessors to consent to what both Houses had agreed on and consequently that there was no such Co-ordination betwixt the King Lords and Commons by the fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom as by the aforesaid Aâ—â—hor was pretended to be And therefo 〈…〉 in his answer to the Petition of the 〈…〉 the 19 Propositions which they pretend humbly to desire but indeed peremptorily press him to grant tells them That to say he is obliged to pass all Laws that shall be offered unto him by both Houses howsoever his own Judgment and Conscience shall be unsatisfied wiih them is to broach a new Doctrine a point of Policy as proper for their present business as destructive to all rights of Parliaments adding that it was out of a strange shamelesness that they would forget for sure there being so many Lawyers among them some of them could not chuse but remember it a Clause in a Law still in force made in the second year of King Henry the V. wherein both Houses of Parliament acknowledg that it is of the Kings Regality to grant or deny such of their Petitions as pleaseth himself And if it were so and acknowledged by both Houses of Parliament to be so in Henry the V's time I would fain know in what Kings Reign or by what Kings consent that Act or the aforesaid Clause in that Act which was in force so lately comes to be repeal'd or whether any Law or Act of Parliament can be either made or repealed without the Kings consent CHAP. XIII An Ordinance of both Houses no Law and consequently no legal Authority for the late War against the King The Militia or the Power of the Sword acknowledged by the two Houses themselves to be in the King A Sermon of Arch-Bishop Ushers in the Isle of Wight Preached to the same Purpose NOT a Law perhaps may Mr. Baxter say properly so called but an Ordinance of both Houses may and that without the Kings consent to it nay notwithstanding the Kings declaring and protesting against it oblige all the People of England to do or not to do what the two Houses will have them as much as any Law consented to by the King ever did or can do nay and may repeal any Law made by the King by the advice and with the consent of both Houses any Law or Custom to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding But per quam Regulam by what Rule Mr. Baxter By what Law of God or man can this be done Why by an Ordinance of both Houses which is equivalent at least to an Act of Parliament properly so called and so it had need to be Mr. Baxter and more too to warrant the doing of such things such horrible mischiefs and Villanies as have been done against God by Sacriledg against the King by Rebellion and by Subjects against their fellow Subjects by plundering and imprisoning and murdering one another of which side soever they were for all will be put to the account of them that had no authority I mean no legal and just Authority to warrant them to do what they did And therefore Mr. Baxter you were best be very sure that the two Houses had Authority to make such a War as they did not only without Commission from the King but against the King and to engage you and by you to engage so many thousands as you say they did in it You were best I say be very sure of it for it is not your head or your neck only which you say you are willing to hazard upon that account but your soul it self and the Everlasting Woe or Welfare of it that lies at stake for it Be not deceiv'd God is not to be mocked It is not the Confederacy of the two Houses it is not the Covenanting of the two Nations that can justifie either their commanding or their being obeyed in any thing which God hath forbidden or not allowed them to command or to be obeyed in by some known Law of his own or of the Land neither of which I am sure can be produced by them Moreover it is not the redressing of Grievances had they been as many or more and as great or greater than the House of Commons in their virulent and malicious Remonstrance to the People represented them to be nor the Reformation of Religion though there had been much more need of it than there was no nor the truly intending as well as pretending never so good or never so necessary an End for the publick Good either spiritual or temporal of the whole Nation that can justifie the Means they made use of if they had not Authority to make use of them I mean in their taking of the Sword out of the Kings hands where the Law of God and of the Land had placed it and taking it into their own notwithstanding Gods and mans Law to the contrary For the proof of the first part of which Assertion of mine I appeal to Mr. Baxter himself for amongst his many false and impious and pernicious Aphorisms he hath this true one that it is not lawful for a Nation to fight for the preservation of their Religion or their worldly goods and liberties without just authority and licence Whereunto he adds by way of exposition and illustration of his meaning That it is but a delusory course of some in these times that write many Volumes to prove that Subjects may not bear Arms against their Princes for Religion as if those that were against them did think that Religion only as the end yea or Life or Liberty would justifie Rebellion or that the Efficient Authorizing Cause were not necessary as well as the Final Where bearing Arms against Princes is warrantable quoad fundamentum as to the ground of it this will warrant it quoad finem as to the end of it A good End must have a good Ground Again for proof of the latter part of my Assertion namely that the Sword or the Power of making War was by Law in the Kings hand and not in theirs I appeal to the Acknowledgment of the two Houses themselves who after they had setled the Militia before the War was actually begun yet knowing and being conscious to themselves that they had done it illegally
therefore I am sure he cannot forget it or at least will remember it assoon as he is put in mind of it And to him I appeal for the verifying of what I have said as to this particular But if any man shall notwithstanding Sir Philip Warwick's attestation think it to be incredible that the two Houses of Parliament being then in their Zenith should indure any such thing to be said so much to their reproach and condemnation of their cause and of all their proceedings without any animadversion upon him that said it I answer it was partly because they were then in their Zenith so high advanced and so highly elevated with the success God had for our sins and for their obduration permitted them to have that they despised what any man did or could say against them and partly because they could not have taken notice of it without inflicting some punishment or other upon him for it which they could not have done he being a man of such eminency not only in regard of his quality but much more in regard of his learning and sanctity and in regard of the very great reputation he had thereby acquired both at home and abroad without exposing themselves to the envy and hatred of the whole World and without doing themselves any good by it and therefore all things considered they thought it best to take no notice at all of it as for ought I ever heard they did not Howsoever what I affirm that pious and learned Arch-Bishop said whether he said it or no is true namely that the Power of the Sword or the Power of making War though for their own defence only or for never so good an end was not in the two Houses but in the King and in the King only as they did themselves acknowledg because at that very time and at that very Treaty one of the prime Articles which they mainly insisted on was to have the Sword for so many years to be put into their hands by the Kings passing of an Act of Parliament to that purpose and for their raising of mony during that time for the support and exercise of that Power in what proportion they thought or should think fit upon their Fellow-Subjects all which they had done before by virtue of their Ordinances only which either they did or did not think to be a legal and sufficient Authority for their taking of the Sword and using it as they did If they did think so why might not the same authority have been sufficient for the continuance of it and if so what need was there of an Act for the trusting them with it but for a time only But if they did not think their own Ordinances to be a legal and sufficient Authority for their taking of the Sword and taxing of the People and the exercising all those other Acts of Arbitrary Power which they did for so many years together by vertue of their own Ordinances only why then habemus confitentes reos We have their own confession not only that they took the Sword which neither the Law nor the King had put into their hands and therefore were Vsurpers of the Regal Authority but had made use of it against the King or which is all one against those that were commissioned by the King and therefore were Traytors and Rebels as likewise that their own Ordinances were not legally sufficient to justifie their so doing and consequently that they have not such a Legislative Power as Mr. Baxter saith they have and which he is so confident of as that he offers his head to the Block if the reasons he gives for the proof of it be disproved which I am now in the last place to try whether I can do or not The end of the third Section SECT IV. England a Monarchy and the Soveraignty solely in the KING prov'd against Mr. Baxter as also that neither the Parliaments concurrence as the Peoples Representatives to the making Laws nor their being Trustees for the Peoples Rights gives them any share in the Soveraignty CHAP. I. The mischief of Schismatical Books Mr. Baxter 's Anti-episcopal and Anti-monarchical Aphorisms The Soveraignty not divided as Mr. B. saith betwixt KING and Parliament Prov'd by the Parliaments acknowledgments and by the Oath of Supremacy AND first thanks be to God and the King that Mr. Baxter is not Lugdunensem causam dicturus ad aram that he is not to plead his cause at the Kings-Bench Barr. For God knows that all the hurt I wish him is that no more hurt may be done by Him and for this end and for this end only it was that I silenced him from preaching and for this end and for this end only it is that I would have him prohibited from writing or at least from publishing what he writes until he is licensed by Authority to do so For when he hath published such pernicious Principles against the legal constitution of the Church and State as he hath done in divers of his Books especially in that of the Holy Commonwealth it is too late and to very little purpose to say as he doth say of some of them that he would have them taken pro non scriptis as if they had not been written For Serò medicina paratur Cùm mala per long as invaluêre moras that is Physick comes too late when ill humors through long delays have got too great a head An Arch-Heretick may by Gods mercy be himself reconcil'd to the Truth and become Orthodox and an Arch-Schismatick may by the same mercy be reconciled to the Church and become Conformable and yet that Heresie that was broached by the one and that Schism that was introduced by the other may be propagated and perpetuated by their Books and by their Disciples from Generation to Generation to the Worlds end and if Master Baxter will needs have a secondary Original sin I think this is that which may most properly be so called Our Countryman Brown who would needs have our Church of England to be no Church was himself convinced of this error so that he not only became a Member but a Minister of the Church of England and as I have been informed died Parson of a Parish called A-Church in Northamptonshire But did Brownism dye with him No there are Brownists still and will be God knows how long perhaps till Doom's day put an end to the World and all the Divisions that have been are or shall be in it So that as nothing can be more criminal than to be the Author of a Schism Sect or Heresie so nothing can be more dangerous than to suffer the spreading and growth of them especially of such of them as are destructive in their natural tendency whatsoever the intention of the Authors and Abettors may be to the peace and welfare of the established Government either in Church or State And such say I are Mr. Baxter's Anti-episcopal Aphorisms in
King cannot by his Fiat give it its factum esse till it be agreed on by the two Houses and because the two Houses by their agreeing on it do give it its fieri posse or make it ready and fit to be made a Law therefore it may truly though not properly be said to be made jointly by the King Lords and Commons because though it be not made by the Lords and Commons but by the King only yet it cannot be made without them neither that is without their doing something antecedently without their doing whereof the King cannot make Laws And this was that and all that which the late King meant when he said that the Laws of this Kingdom were made jointly by the King Lords and Commons that is according to the old Parliamentary stile by the King with the consent of the Lords and Commons or if you will by the King but not without the consent of the Lords and Commons But I hope Mr. Baxter who would be thought the Master of propriety and distinctness of speaking will not affirm that a thing can properly be said to be done by him or them without whose consent it cannot be done For I think it is one of the main matters wherein he differs or dissents from our Church that a Priest or Minister of the Word and Sacraments cannot be ordain'd without consent of the People will he therefore deny that it is the Bishop with his Presbyters that ordains him or will he say that he is jointly ordained by the Bishop and the People Certainly none but they that lay hands upon him have any thing to do in the Act of Ordination So that it doth not follow that because a Law cannot be made without the precedent consent of both Houses of Parliament that therefore they have any thing to do properly speaking in the making of it Again supposing Mr. Baxter is of the opinion of the Protestant Churches abroad that there can be no marriage without consent of Parents and supposing that opinion to be true yet I suppose neither Mr. Baxter nor any of the Ministers of those Churches will say that it is the consent of Parents that makes the Marriage though it cannot be a Marriage without it Many other Instances of the like nature might be given but this is enough to prove the thing we have in hand namely that though in some sence it may be said that our Laws are made by the King and Parliament or by the King Lords and Commons because they cannot be made by the King without the consent of the Lords and Commons yet properly speaking it is the King alone who by his LE ROY LE VEVLT makes them to be Laws in which Law-making Act of his neither of the Houses do joyn or are joyned with him and therefore the Laws so made cannot properly be said to be made by the King and them joyntly And yet because they cannot be made by the King without their antecedent consent to them and proposing of them they may truly be said to concur To the making though not In the making of them And this and no more but this was undoubtedly the late Kings meaning when he said the Laws were made here in England by the King Lords and Commons or upon their proposing such and such Bills being first agreed upon by them to be made Laws by him CHAP. XIV The making of Laws in the Roman State applied to Vs Mr. B. 's division of the Soveraignty rectified The King 's Negative voice asserted and the Enemies of Monarchy detected THus when the Soveraignty was in the People of Rome the Senate did concur to the making of Laws for the Common-wealth but did not make them they concur'd to the making of them by consulting and debating what was fit to be made a Law by the People as having no power to make it a Law themselves the making of Laws being an Act of Soveraignty and the Soveraignty being then not in the Senate but in the People and therefore the Senate did not so much as pretend to the making of Laws but only to the proposing of Laws to be made by a higher power namely that of the People as appears by the formal and solemn stile relating to the making of Laws in those times which was this Senatus rog at Populus jubet the Senate requesteth or proposeth namely such or such a thing to be made a Law but the People commands or enjoyns it that is the People maketh what was proposed by the Senate for a Law to be a Law And as this was the stile in relation to making of Laws in a Democracy when and where the Soveraignty was in the People so à paritate rationis upon the like reason and account in a Monarchy where the Soveraignty is in One the stile ought to be Populus rog at Rex jubet the People requests and the King grants And so indeed it was as I observed before according to the ancient stile used in our Parliaments here in England in divers Acts and Statutes wherein the King is said to give or grant sometimes at the special request and sometimes at the humble Petition of the Commons Neither doth the Alteration of the Stile at the Request to with the consent argue an alteration in the species of the Government for the King is still the sole Lawmaker or Lawgiver as much as he was before and consequently as much a Monarch though less Despotical and more Political in the managery and execution of his Kingly Power having by his Predecessors and his own voluntary and gracious condescension obliged himself not to exercise his Legislative power or to make any Laws without the consent of those that are to be governed by them which though it do not make him cease to be a Monarch or to have the Soveraignty or supreme power wholly and solely in himself yet it makes him cease to be an absolute arbitrary and despotical and to become a legal regulated and Political Monarch or a King that is to govern his People by Laws Laws indeed of his own making but not without their consent to them I mean without their consent by their Representatives in Parliament together with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal which all of them jointly are the Representatives of the three Estates or of that whole Body Politick whereof the King is the Head And as it is he that governs the whole Body so it is he that makes the Laws to govern the whole Body which because they are not made by the King without the consent of the three Estates representing that Body therefore Mr. Baxter thinks they are made by the three Estates as well as by the King and therefore that the Soveraignty is divided betwixt the King and them and consequently that this is no Monarchy but a mix'd Government which is the same mistake that Grotius as I said before
the three Disputantsfor the Common-Prayer-Book against Mr. Baxter and his Assistants which Attestation of theirs being printed and published twenty years ago and never since contradicted or so much as questioned by any of the contrary party no not so much as by Mr. Baxter himself to this day I hope there needs no other proof of the truth of it And if that Attestation be true then it is evident that Mr. Baxter did affirm and maintain as well as he could from first to last in the Conference That the command of a thing lawfull in it self by lawfull Authority was unlawfull if by Accident it might be the occasion of Sin though it were not commanded under an unjust penalty and though that evil whereof it might be the occasion by Accident were not such as the Commander was obliged to provide against For all this he thatdenies the aforesaid Major Proposition of the last of the aforesaid three Syllogisms as Mr. Baxter did must needs grant and consequently must he needs grant and assert also if he will not contradict himself That any command of anything though never so lawfull in it self by what Authority soever it is commanded is unlawfull if it may be the occasion of Sin though per Accidens onely and though that Accidental Sin or evil be such as the Commander either did not or could not foresee or was not obliged to provide against it For all this is consequentially and necessarily affirmed and asserted by him that denies the aforesaid Major Proposition for no other reason but because the Command may by Accident be the Occasion of Sin But if Mr. Baxter shall say he gave another reason for his denial of the aforesaid Proposition namely that such a Command though never so lawfull in it self might become unlawfull if it were commanded under an unjust penalty I confess he did but most illogically and irrationally because one of the conditions of the Command which the Proposition affirms and Mr. Baxter denies to be lawfull is that it must not be commanded under an unjust penalty and the reason why Mr. Baxter denies it to be lawfull is because it is or at least it may be commanded under an unjust Penalty which is all one as if he had said that which is not so is so because it may be so This reason therefore being so expressly excluded as it is from being any reason at all why the Proposition which Mr. Baxter denied should be or could be denied with any shew or colour of reason there was nothing left him to resort to or rely on as his last refuge but his first reason namely because such a command though it was not commanded under an unjust penalty yet it might be the occasion of Sin per Accidens and therefore unlawfull to be commanded which being given for a reason for his denying of the aforesaid Proposition of the last Syllogism he could not mean it of such an evil per Accidens as that the commander ought to provide against because it was another of the Conditions expressly required by the Proposition it self to make a Command lawfull that as it should not command any thing evil in it self so it should not command any thing neither though never so good in it self that might by accident be the occasion of such an evil as the Commander ought to prevent or provide against so that the occasion of evil in that sense per Accidens could not be the reason why Mr. Baxter denied the Proposition and therefore by evil per Accidens in relation to this Proposition and his denial of it he must needs mean such an evil per Accidens as was neither commanded under an unjust penalty nor such as the Commander was obliged to hinder or prevent Whence it follows that Bishop Morley's charging him with asserting That the command of that which is lawfull in it self is unlawfull if it may by Accident be the occasion of Sin was not as Mr. Baxter saith it was a gross mistake or any mistake at all though he had not asserted it in terminis or in express terms as he did often when he gave it for the first of his reasons why he denied the Major Proposition of the first of the aforesaid Syllogisms CHAP. IX His instances of Things lawfull in themselves becoming unlawfull by Accident Impertinent to the present business FRom hence it follows likewise that all those Instances which Mr. Baxter assigns and alledges in his Narrative to his friends at Kidderminster to free himself from the Assertion I charge him with and which his denial of the aforesaid Proposition doth necessarily and manifestly convince him of are all of them frivolous and impertinent and not so onely but fraudulent and scandalous and injurious also I mean those instances which he gives of such evils per Accidens as make the Commands of things good and lawfull in themselves to become evil and unlawfull As saith he To command out a Navy to Sea is not unlawfull in it self but if it were foreseen they would fall into the enémies hands or were like to perish by any Accident and the necessity of sending them were small or none it were a Sin to send them Again saith Mr. Baxter it is not unlawfull of it self to sell poison or to give a knife to another or to bid another to doe it but if it were foreseen he must mean by him that sells the poyson or gives the knife that they will be used to poyson or kill the buyer he might have added or any body else it is unlawfull He goes on and saith It is not of it self unlawfull to light a Candle or set fire on straw but if it may be he should have said if it be foreknown to him that by another's negligence or wilfulness it is like to set fire to the City or give fire to a train of Gun-powder that is under the Parliament House when the King and Parliament are there I crave the Bishop's pardon saith he for believing it were Sinfull to doe or command it You have it Mr. Baxter you have the Bishop's pardon not onely for believing as you say you do in this last but in all the former particulars which you instance in also And I do assure you the Bishop believes them all as much as you do and so I am confident do all the Episcopal Party in England for they are all of them notoriously and unquestionably true and are undoubtedly sufficient to prove the Command of a thing lawfull in it self to be unlawfull if the Commander foresees it will be by Accident the cause or occasion of such an evil or mischief as he ought to prevent But what is this to the proving the Command of a thing lawfull in it self to be unlawfull if it may be by Accident the cause or occasion of some such evil as the Commander doth not foresee or is not bound to prevent For such a Command it must be that
People that were then under an obligation of obedience to a lawfull Sovereign and consequently had no power to dispose of themselves or to become Subjects to another no more than he had a right to become their King untill he that promised him he should be so had made him so which he could and infallibly would have done in his own good time without any thing done on Jeroboam's part but the relying upon the promise of God onely which he distrusting or being too impatiently ambitious to stay for the performance of it took his own seditious and rebellious way for the hastening as he did afterwards for the keeping of himself to be a King For as he caused the ten Tribes to revolt from Rehoboam in order to the making himself their King so he caused them to revolt from God also by setting up other Gods and other Priests and other places of worship thereby making a formal Schism in the Church to prevent a possibility of re-union in the State So that as he sinned and made Israel to sin for the getting so he sinned and made Israel to sin much more for the holding and keeping of the Kingdom which he might have had and kept much longer than he did if he had stayed God's leisure for the having and done nothing to displease God for the holding of it Whereas if he would have done as David did he should have had the success that David had without sinning himself or making so many Thousands to sin with him and for him as hedid David was not onely told by the Propet Samuel that he should be King as Jeroboam was by the Prophet Ahijah but he was anointed too which Jeroboam was not And yet when it was twice in his power to have stept up into the Throne by destroying Saul whom the men of these times would have said as Abishai did that God had delivered into his hand to be destroyed by him he would not doe it nor suffer it to be done but said God forbid that I should lay my hand on the Lord's anointed as the Lord liveth the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to die or he shall descend into battel and perish howsoever the Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord's anointed This was David's resolution and this should have been Jeroboam's resolution also to have expected God's performance of his promise in his own time and in his own way and not have snatched the Crown out of God's hand and put it himself upon his own head before God had anointed his head for it Moreover it is observable that is was not that for which Ahijah the Prophet told Jeroboam God was so angry with Solomon that he would rend away ten Tribes of the twelve from his Son which was Idolatry it was not that I say which Jeroboam pretended to be the cause of his rising and rebelling and his stirring up the ten Tribes to rebell against Rehoboam but it was a more popular pretence and such a one as the generality of the People is usually most concerned in and concerned for namely the publick grievance by Taxes and Tributes which how necessary soever for their own defence and safety do always seem an insupportable burthen to the Subjects And therefore the ambitious Aspirers of all times have always made use of this Topick first to discontent the People with their present condition though it be never so tolerable nay never so good a one and then to promise them a relief of all their imaginary grievances if they will be ruled by them which the foolish People believing first call them their Patriots and afterwards if they can make them their Princes who commonly prove the greatest of Tyrants and then the People that raised them find and feel the fruits of their own folly and when it is too late to help it repent of it And yet such is the incorrigible madness as well as folly of the multitude that though it hath been never so often entrapp'd it always hath been and still is and ever will be apt to be taken with the same bait how dear soever it hath cost them formerly It was not long before this that Absalom by the counsel of Achitophel made use of the same artifice to stir up the people and to make them to rebell against their King and his Father by making them believe first that they were oppressed by David and had not justice done them and secondly if he were in power every man should have right done him and no man should have cause to complain amongst them This they were so foolish as to believe though their condition then was better than ever it had been before or ever it was afterwards for it was David a man after God's own heart that was then their King and who as himself or rather God's Spirit by his mouth tells us fed them with a faithfull and true heart and ruled them prudently with all his power and if prudently then justly no doubt also and yet it was his not doing of justice that was made the pretence of the rebellion against him and by whom by Absalom one whom the People knew to have been a murtherer of his own brother and therefore not to be a very likely man to govern them either more justly or more mercifully than his Father did so that as the pretence of their rising up against David was groundless so their setting up of Absalom in his stead was folly and madness And now one would have thought the ill success they had in that action would have made them more wary than to be tempted and prevailed with again so soon at least as afterwards they were to another rebellion against the Grandchild of David upon another and that perhaps upon as groundless a pretence as the former I mean this of Jeroboam which we are now speaking of For the pretence of Jeroboam and the ten Tribes rebellion against Rehoboam was because he would not ease them of the heavy yoke which they pretended Solomon his Father had laid upon them which had it been true to never so great a degree would have been no just cause of the Rebellion of Subjects against their Sovereign as is already shewn But I do not find in the History of Solomon's Reign from the beginning to the end of it as it is very particularly recorded in the first book of Kings and in the second of Chronicles any mention of so heavy a yoke or indeed of any yoke at all that was laid upon any of the Complainants I mean upon any of the ten Tribes of Israel I reade indeed in the fourth Chapter of the first book of Kings Verses 20 21. That there was a great Tribute or Levy made by Solomon for the building of that glorious Temple of God in Jerusalem which was the wonder of the World and for other his many and magnificent