as is absolute and unaccountable If there be no supreme power in any society when ever there happens any difference among the members of such a society nothing can be done and such a society is an arbitrary and voluntary not a governed society because there is no body to govern and no body to be governed they may govern themselves by mutual consent but if they cannot agree there is an end of their government Where there is any government there must be some-body to govern and whoever has the power of government must not be contradicted or resisted for then he cannot govern for a power to govern men onely when and in what cases they please to be governed is no power Now place this power where you will in a single Person or in the hands of some select persons or in the people and the case is the same where ever the power rests there it is absolute and unaccountable wherever there is any government there must be a last appeal and where the last appeal is whether to a Prince to a Parliament or to the People there is soveraign and absolute power which cannot be resisted without a dissolution of government and returning to a state of war which is a direct contradiction to the first institution of humane societies and therefore that which cannot be allowed by the fundamental constitutions of any society The result of all in short is this 1. That in all civil governments there must be some supreme and soveraign power 2. That the very notion of supreme power is that it is unaccountable and irresistible And therefore 3. whatever power in any nation according to the fundamental laws of its government cannot and ought not to be resisted that is the supreme power of that nation the higher powers to which the Apostle requires us to be subject And from hence it is evident that the Crown of England is an Imperial Crown and has all the rights of Soveraignty belonging to it Since according to the fundamental Laws of the Realm the Person and Authority of the King is sacred and irresistible The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy those Laws which declare and acknowledge the King to be supreme in his Dominions under God to have the sole power of the Sword that it is Treason to levy War against the King within the Realm and without That both or either Houses of Parliament cannot nor lawfully may raise or levy war offensive or defensive against his Majesty his Heirs or lawful Successors That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that we must abhor that traiterous position of taking arms by his authority against his Person or against those who are commissionated by him These I say and such like declarations as these both formerly and of late made by both Houses of Parliament and enacted into publick laws are a sufficient proof that the supreme power of these Realms is lodged in the Prince For he who is unaccountable and irresistible is supreme But to avoid all this there are some who tell us that by the higher powers in the Text the Apostle means the Law For laws are the highest and most venerable authority in any Nation and we ought indeed to be subject to Princes who themselves are subject to the Laws which they are as much obliged to by virtue of this Apostolical command as meaner Persons For the law is as much superior to them as they are to their own subjects and therefore when Princes violate publick laws they are no longer to own them for the Higher Powers but may vindicate the laws against them may defend the legal authority of their Prince against his Personal usurpations may fight for the Authority of the King against his Person But in answer to this we may consider 1. That it is evident from the whole context and manner of speaking that the Apostle does not here speak of laws but Persons not of Imperial laws but soveraign Princes Laws were never before called the higher Powers neither in sacred nor profane writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the new Testament always signifies the authority of a Person not of a law And hence it signifies the Person invested with this authority It were easy to prove this by numerous instances but it will be sufficient to shew that thus it must signifie in the Text. These are such powers as are of God appointed and ordained by God which I suppose does not signifie the laws of every nation many of which are far enough from being divine They are expresly called Rulers in the 3 v. and are the object of fear which can punish and reward if thou wilt not be afraid of the power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same Now I think no law but the Power which executes laws can apply punishments or rewards according to mens deserts and in the 4 v. this very power is called the Minister of God and said to bear the sword which does not belong to laws but Persons and in the Text the Apostle speaks of resisting these powers opposing force to force Now though laws may be disobeyed it is onely lawgivers and Rulers who are capable of resistance 2. But however these higher Powers may signifie Princes and Rulers as governing according to known laws No this cannot be neither because the Apostle speaks of such powers as were under the government of no laws as it is sufficiently known the Roman Emperours were not their will was their law and they made or repealed laws at their pleasure This Epistle was wrote either under Claudius or Nero and I think I need not tell you that neither of those Emperours had any great Reverence for laws and yet these were the higher powers to whom the Apostle commands them to be subject and indeed though there be a vast difference between a Prince who by the fundamental Constitutions of his Kingdom ought to govern by laws and a Prince whose will is his law yet no law can come into the notion and definition of supreme and soveraign Powers such a Prince is under the direction but cannot properly be said to be under the government of the law because there is no superior power to take cognizance of his breach of it and a law has no authoritie to govern where there is no power to punish But I shall have occasion to discourse this more largely hereafter 3. Let us now consider what is meant by being subject Now subjection according to its full latitude of signification includes all those duties which we owe to soveraign Princes a chearful and willing obedience to all their Just and lawful commands an humble submission to their reproofs and Censures Corrections and punishments to honour and Reverence their Persons and Authority to pay custom and tribute and all legal taxes and impositions as our Apostle addes verse the 7. Render therefore unto all
Resistance or Rebellion against a Prince who persecutes without or against Law I shall only ask two plain questions 1. Whether the Laws of God and Nature be not as sacred and inviolable as the Laws of our Country if they be and methinks no man should dare say that they are not why may we not as well resist a Prince who persecutes us against the Laws of God and Nature as one who persecutes against the Laws of our Countrey is not the Prince as much bound to observe the Laws of God and Nature as the Laws of his Country if so then their distinction between suffering with and against Law signifies nothing For all men who suffer for well-doing suffer against Law For by the Laws of God and the natural ends of humane Government such men ought to be rewarded and not punisht Nay they suffer contrarie to those Laws which commanded them to do that good for which they suffer Thus the Christians suffered under Pagan Emperors for worshipping one supreme God and refusing to worship the numerous Gods of the Heathens and therefore according to these principles might have justified a Rebellion against those unjust and persecuting powers but the Apostles would not allow this to be a just cause of resistance as I have already shewn you and yet I confess I am to seek for the reason of this difference why we may not resist a Prince who persecutes against the Laws of God as well as him who persecutes against the Laws of England 2. My other question is this Whether a Prince have any more authority to make wicked and persecuting Laws than to persecute without Law These men tell us that if Paganism or Popery were established by Law they were bound to suffer patiently for their Religion without resistance but since Christianity and Protestancy is the Religion of the Nation they are not bound to suffer but may defend themselves when they are condemned by no Law But if we examine this throughly it is a very weak and trifling Cavil For what authoritie has a wicked and persecuting Law and who gave it this authoritie what authoritie has any Prince to make Laws against the Laws of God if he have no authoritie then it is no Law and then to make a wicked Law to persecute good men is the same thing as to persecute without Law nay as to persecute against Law The pretence for resistance is when the Prince persecutes without authority Now I say a Prince has no more authoritie to make wicked persecuting Laws than to persecute without Law Should a Popish Prince procure all our good Laws for the Protestant Religion to be repealed and establish Popery by Law and make it death not to be a Papist he would have no more real authoritie to do this than to persecute Protestants without repealing the Laws A Soverain and unaccountable power will justifie both so as to make resistance unlawful but if it cannot justifie both it can justifie neither For a Prince has no more authoritie to make a bad Law than to break a good one so that this principle will lead them a great deal farther than they pretend to and let the Laws of the Land be what they will in time they may come to think it a just reason for Rebellion to pull down Antichrist and to set up Christ Iesus upon this Throne This I hope is a sufficient answer to the two first objections That we are bound by no Law to suffer against Law And that the Prince has no authoritie against Law 3. The next objection is that they have a natural right of self-preservation and self-defence against unjust and illegal violence This very pretence was made great use of to wheadle people into this late Conspiracie Those who were employed to prepare and dispose men for Rebellion askt them whether they would not defend themselves if any man came to cut their throats this they readily said they would when they had gained this point they askt them whether they did not value their Liberties as much as their Lives and whether they would not defend them also And thus they might have proceeded to any part of their Liberties if they had pleased for they have the same right to any part as to the whole and thus self-defence would at last reach to the smallest occasion of discontent or jealousie or dislike of Publick Government Now in answer to this I readily grant that every man has a natural right to preserve and defend his life by all lawful means but we must not think every thing lawful which we have strength and power and opportunity to do and therefore to give a full answer to this plea let us consider 1. That self-defence was never allowed by God or Nature against publick authority but only against private violence There was a time when Fathers had the power of life and death over their own Children now I would only ask these men whether if a Son at that time saw his Father coming to kill him and that as he thought very unjustly he might kill his Father to defend himself This never was allowed by the most barbarous Nations in the world and yet it may be justified by this principle of self-defence as it is urged by those men which is a plain argument that it is false It is an express Law that he that smiteth his Father or his Mother shall be surely put to death 21 Exod. 15. and yet then the power of Parents was restrained by publick Laws And the authoritie of a Prince is not less sacred than of a Parent he 's God's Minister and Vicegerent and Subjects are expresly forbid to resist and it is a vain thing to pretend a natural right against the express Law of God 2. For the sole power of the Sword is in the King's hands and therefore no private man can take the Sword in his own defence but by the King's authoritie and certainly he cannot be presumed to give any man authoritie to use the Sword against himself And therefore as Christ tells Peter he that takes the Sword shall perish by the Sword he who draws the Sword against the lawful powers deserves to die by it 3. We may consider also that it is an external Law that private defence must give place to the publick good Now he that takes Arms to defend his own life and some few others involves a whole Nation in blood and confusion and occasions the miserable slaughter of more men than a long succession of Tyrants could destroy Such men sacrifice many thousand lives both of friends and enemies the happiness and prosperity of many thousand Families the publick peace and tranquillity of the Nation to a private self-defence and if this be the Law of Nature we may well call Nature a step-mother that has armed us to our own ruine and confusion 4. And therefore we may farther observe that Non-resistance and subjection to government is the best way for every mans
private defence Our Atheistical Politicians who know no other Law of nature but self-defence make this the Original of humane Societies That it is a voluntarie combination for self-defence For this reason they set up Princes and Rulers over them and put the power of the sword into their hands that they may administer Justice and defend their Subjects from publick and private violence and they are certainly so far in the right that publick Government is the best securitie not onely of the publick peace but of every mans private interest nay it is so though our Prince be a Tyrant as I have already shewn you that no Government can be secure without an irresistible and unaccountable power So that the natural right of self-defence is so far from justifying Rebellion against Princes that it absolutely condemns it as destructive of the best and most effectual means to preserve ourselves for though by Non-resistance a man may expose his life to the furie of a Tyrant so he may loose his life in any other way of defence but publick Government is the best and surest defence and therefore to resist publick Government is to destroy the best means of self-defence 5. However this principle of self-defence to be sure cannot justifie a Rebellion when men do not suffer any actual violence and therefore those men who were drawn into this late Conspiracie when they saw no bodie attempt cutting their throats when they saw none of their liberties invaded were so well prepared to be Rebels that they needed no arguments to perswade them to it 4. The next objection against the Doctrine of Non-resistance is this That it destroys the difference between an absolute and limited Monarchy between a Prince whose will is his Law and a Prince who is bound to govern by Law which undermines the Foundamental constitution of the English Government If this were true I confess it were a very hard case for the Ministers of the Church of England who must either preach up resistance contrarie to the Laws of the Gospel and the sence and practice of the Christian Church in all Ages or must preach up Non resistance to the destruction of the Government under which they live but thanks be to God this is not true For the difference between an absolute and limited Monarchy is not that resistance is unlawful in one case and lawful in another for a Monarch the exercise of whose power is limited and regulated by Laws is as irresistible as the most absolute Monarch whose will is his Law and if he were not I would venture to say that the most absolute and Despotick Government is more for the publick good than a limited Monarchy But the difference lies in this that an absolute Monarch is under the Government of no Law but his own will he can make and repeal Laws at his pleasure without asking the consent of any of his Subjects he can impose what Taxes he pleases and is not tied up to strict Rules and formalities of Law in the execution of Justice but it is quite contrarie in a limited Monarchy where the excercise of Soveraign Power is regulated by known and standing Laws which the Prince can neither make nor repeal without the consent of the people No man can loose his Life or Estate without a legal process and Tryal no Monies can be levyed nor any Taxes imposed on the Subject but by Authority of Parliament which makes the case of Subjects differ very much from those who live under an Arbitrary Prince No you will say the case is just the same for what do Laws signifie when a Prince must not be resisted though he break these Laws and Govern by an Arbitrarie and Lawless will He may make himself as absolute as the Great Turk or the Mogul whenever he pleases for what should hinder him when all men's hands are tied by this Doctrine of Non-resistance Now it must be acknowledged that there is a possibilitie for such a Prince to Govern arbitrarily and to trample upon all laws and yet the difference between an absolute and limited Monarchy is vastly great 1. For this Prince though he may make his will a Law to himself and the onely rule of his Government yet he cannot make it the Law of the Land he may break Laws but he can neither make nor repeal them and therefore he can never alter the frame and constitution of the Government though he may at present interrupt the regular administration of it and this is a great securitie to posteritie and a present restraint upon himself 2. For it is a mightie uneasie thing to any Prince to govern contrarie to known Laws He offers as great and constant violence to himself as he does to his Subjects He cannot raise mony nor impose any Taxes without the consent of his Subjects nor take away any man's life without a legal Tryal which an absolute Prince may do but he is guiltie of rapine and murder and feels the same rebukes in his own mind for such illegal actions though his impositions be but reasonable and moderate and he put no man to death but who very well deserves it that an absolute Tyrant does for the most barbarous oppressions and cruelties The breach of his Oath to God and his promises and engagements to his Subjects makes the excercise of such an arbitrarie power very troublesome and though his Subjects are bound not to resist yet his own guilty fears will not suffer him to be secure and arbitrarie Power is not so luscious a thing as to tempt men to forfeit all the ease and pleasure and securitie of Government for the sake of it 3. Though Subjects must not resist such a Prince who violates the Laws of his Kingdom yet they are not bound to obey him nor to serve him in his usurpations Subjects are bound to obey an absolute Monarch and to serve his will in lawful things though they be hard and grievous but in a limited Monarchy which is governed by Laws Subjects are bound to yeild an active obedience onely according to Law though they are bound not to resist when they suffer against Law Now it is a mighty uneasy thing to the greatest Tyrant to govern always by force and no Prince in a limited Monarchy can make himself absolute unless his own Subjects assist him to do so 4. And yet it is very dangerous for any Subject to serve his Prince contrary to Law Though the Prince himself is unaccountable and irresistible yet his Ministers may be called to an account and be punish't for it and the Prince may think fit to look on quietly and see it done or if they escape at present yet it may be time enough to suffer for it under the next Prince which we see by experience makes all mon wary how they serve their Prince against Law None but persons of desperate fortunes will do this bare-fac't and those are not always to be met with and as seldom fit
Emperors Tertullian who wrote his Apologie under Severus asserts that Caesar was chosen by God and therefore that the Christians had a peculiar Propriety in Caesar as being made Emperor by their God Sed quid ego amplius de religione atque Pietate christiana in Imperatorem quem necesse est suspiciamus ut eum quem Dominus noster elegit merito dixerim noster est magis Caesar a Deo nostro constitutus Tert. Apol. cap. 33. and this he assigns as the reason why they honour and reverence and pray for him and are in all things subject to him 3. If these men will grant the institution of civil power and authority by God is a necessary reason why we must not resist those who have this power it shall satisfie me and I will dispute no further whether by Powers in the Text the Apostle means civil government or the Persons of Princes so long as the Doctrine of Non-resistance is secured but if they will not grant this then they must grant that either the Apostle reasons weakly or that this is not the sense of his words St. Chrysostom indeed by the Powers that be ordained of God understands no more than that civil power and authority is from God as being afraid to own that all Princes though never so wicked are appointed by God but then he owns the doctrine of Non-resistance because the power is from God whoever have the possession of it or however he came by it But I think the argument for Non-resistance is much stronger if we acknowledge that soveveraign Princes themselves are appointed by God and have this power put into their hands by his peculiar and ordering Providence 4. Others in plain terms deny that this is true that Princes receive their power from God and are ordained and appointed by him though the words of the Apostle are very plain and express in the case But let us set aside the Authority of the Apostle a while and examine why they say so And this they think is very plain in all Nations that Princes are advanc't to the Throne by the choice and consent of the People or by right of inheritance confirmed and settled by publick Laws which include the consent of the People and therefore they receive their power from those who chose them which is no more than a Fiduciary power which they are lyable to give an account of to those who choose them Now grant this to be true that Princes are advanc't to the Throne by the People which will not very well hold in conquests nor in hereditary Kingdoms yet I say suppose it to be true since it was manifestly the case of the Roman Empire when the Apostle wrote this Epistle their Emperors being chosen either by the Senate or the Army yet I would desire to be resolved in some few plain questions 1. Whether God does nothing but what he does by an immediate power Whether he cannot appoint and choose an Emperor unless he does it by a Voice from Heaven or sends an Angel to set the Crown upon his head Whether God cannot by a great many unknown ways determine the choice of the people to that Person whom he has before chosen himself May we not as well say that God does nothing but miracles because every thing else has some visible cause and may be ascribed either to natural or moral agents God may chuse an Emperor and the people chuse him too and the peoples choice is onely the effect of God's choice and therefore notwithstanding all this Princes owe their crowns and secepters to God the powers that be are ordained of God 2. How does it follow that because Princes are chose by the people therefore they derive their power from them and are accountable to them This is not true in humane governments A City or any Corporation may have Authority to choose their Magistrates and yet they do not derive their power from their fellow-Citizens who chose them but from their Prince Thus the People may chuse but God invests with power and Authority For indeed how can people who have no power of Government themselves give that power which they have not God is the only governour of the world and therefore there can be no power of Government but what is derived from him But these men think that all civil authority is founded in consent as if there were no natural Lord of the world or all mankind came free and independent into the world This is a contradiction to what at other times they will grant that the institution of Civil power and Authority is from God and indeed if it be not I know not how any Prince can justifie the taking away the life of any man whatever crime he has been guilty of For no man has power of his own life and therefore cannot give this power to another which proves that the power of capital punishments cannot result from meer consent but from a superiour Authority which is Lord of life and death If it be said that every man has a natural right to defend his own life by taking away the life of any man who injuriously assaults him and he may part with this power of self-defence to his Prince and that includes the power of life and death I answer 1. Suppose the Laws of Self-preservation will justifie the taking away another man's life in preservation of our own yet this is a Personal right which God and Nature has given us and unless we can prove that we have Authority to make over this right to another as well as to use it our selves our consent cannot give Authority to the Magistrate to take away any man's life in our cause 2. This natural right of self-defence cannot be the Original of the Magistrates power because no man does give up this right Every man has the right of Self-preservation as intire under civil government as he had in a state of Nature Under what government soever I live I may still kill another man when I have no other way to preserve my own life from unjust violence by private hands And this is all the liberty any man had in a supposed state of nature So that the Magistrates power of the Sword is a very different thing from every man's right of self-preservation and cannot owe its original to it For 3. The Magistrates power of the Sword is not meerly defensive as the right of self-preservation is but vindicative to execute vengeance on evil doers which power no man has over his equals in a state of Nature For vengeance is an act of superiority and supposes the Authority of a Lord and Judge and therefore the consent of all Mankind cannot give the power and authority of a Sword to a Prince because they never had it themselves A Prince as he bears the Sword is not the peoples Officer but the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil as our Apostle adds
acknowledged that these five particulars do contain the whole strength of their cause and if I can give a fair answer to them it must either make men Loyal or leave them without excuse 1. They urge that they are bound by no Law to suffer against Law Suppose as a late Author does that a Popish Prince should persecute his Protestant Subjects in England for professing the Protestant Religion which is established by Law By what Law saies he must we die not by any Law of God surely for being of that Religion which he approves and would have all the world to embrace and to hold fast to the end Nor by the Laws of our Country where Protestancy is so far from being criminal that it is death to desert it and to turn Papist By what Law then by none that I know of saies our Author nor do I know of any and so far we are agreed But then both the Laws of God and of our Countrie command us not to resist and if death an illegal unjust death follow upon that I cannot help it God and our Countrie must answer for it It is a wonderful discoverie which this Author has made that when we suffer against Law we are condemned by no Law to dieâ— for if we were we could not suffer against Law and it is as wonderful an argument he uses to prove that we may resist when we are persecuted against Law because we are condemned by no Law to die which is supposed in the very question and is neither more nor less than to affirm the thing which he was to prove We may resist a Prince who persecutes against Law because we are condemned by no Law that is because he persecutes against Law This proves indeed that we ought not to die when we are condemned by no Law to die but whether we may preserve our selves from an unjust and violent death by resisting a persecuting Prince is another question 2. It is urged that a Prince has no authoritie against Law There is no authority on earth above the Law much less against it It is Murder to put a man to death against Law and if they knew who had authority to commit open bare-faced and downright Murders this would direct them where to pay their Passive Obedience but it would be the horridest stander in the world to say that any such power is lodged in the Prerogative as to destroy men contrary to Law Now I perfectly agree with them in this also that a Prince has no just and legal authoritie to act against Law that if he knowingly persecure any Subject to death contrary to Law he is a Murderer and that no Prince has any such Prerogative to commit open bare-faced and downright murders But what follows from hence does it hence follow therefore we may resist and oppose them if they do This I absolutely denie because God has expresly commanded us not to resist And I see no inconsistencie between these two propositions that a Prince has no Legal Authoritie to persecute against Law and yet that he must not be resisted when he does Both the Laws of God and the Laws of our Countrie suppose these two to be very consistent For notwithstanding the possibilitie that Princes may abuse their power and transgress the Laws whereby they ought to govern yet they Command Subjects in no case to resist and it is not sufficient to justifie resistance if Princes do what they have no just Authoritie to do unless we have also a just Authoritie to resist He who exceeds the just bounds of his Authoritie is lyable to be called to an account for it but he is accountable onely to those who have a superior authoritie to call him to an account No power whatever is accountable to an inferiour for this is a contradiction to the very notion of Power and destructive of all Order and Government Inferiour Magistrates are on all hands acknowledged to be lyable to give an account of the abuse of their power but to whom must they give an account not to their inferiours not to the people whom they are to Govern but to superiour Magistrates or to the Soveraign Prince who governs all Thus the Soveraign Prince may exceed his Authoritie and is accountable for it to a superiour power but because he has no superiour power on earth he cannot be resisted by his own Subjects but must be reserved to the Judgement of God who alone is the King of Kings To justifie our resistance of any power there are two things to be proved 1. That this power has exceeded its just Authoritie 2. That we have Authoritie to resist Now these men indeed prove the first very well that Princes who are to govern by Law exceed their legal Authoritie when they persecute against Law but they say not one word of the second that Subjects have authoritie to resist their Prince who persecutes against Law which was the onely thing that needed proof but this is a hard task and therefore they thought it more adviseable to take it for granted than to attempt to prove it They say indeed that an inauthoritative act which carries no obligation at all cannot oblige Subjects to obedience Now this is manifestly true if by obedience they mean an active obedience for I am not bound to do an ill thing or an illegal action because my Prince commands me but if they mean Passive Obedience it is as manifestly false for I am bound to obey that is not to resist my Prince when he offers the most unjust and illegal violence Nay it is very false and absurd to say that every illegal is an inauthoritative act which carries no obligation with it This is contrarie to the practice of all humane Iudicatures and the daily experience of men who suffer in their lives bodies or estates by an unjust and illegal sentence Every Judgement contrarie to the true meaning of the law is in that sence illegal and yet such illegal Judgements have their Authoritie and obligation till they are rescinded by some higher Authoritie This is the true reason of appeals from inferiour to superiour Courts to rectifie illegal proceedings and reverse illegal Judgements which supposes that such illegal acts have authoritie till they are made null and void by a higher power and if the higher powers from whence lies no appeal confirm and ratifie an unjust and illegal sentence it carries so much authoritie and obligation with it that the injured person has no redress but must patiently submit and thus it must necessarily be or there can be no end of disputes nor any order and Government in humane Societies And this is a plain demonstration that though the Law be the rule according to which Princes ought to exercise their authoritie and power yet the authoritie is not in Laws but in Persons for otherwise why is not a sentence pronounced according to Law by a private person of as much Authoritie as a sentence
pronounced by a Judge how does an illegal sentence pronounced by a Judge come to have any Authoritie for a sentence contrarie to Law cannot have the Authoritie of the Law Why is a legal or illegal sentence reversible and alterable when pronounced by one Judge and irreversible and unalterable when pronounced by another For the Law is the same and the sentence is the same either according to Law or against it whoever the Judge be but it seems the Authoritie of the Persons is not the same and that makes the difference so that there is an Authoritie in Persons in some sence distinct from the Authoritie of Laws nay superiour to it For there is such an Authoritie as though it cannot make an illegal act legal yet can and often does make an illegal act binding and obligatorie to the Subjects when pronounced by a competent Judge If it be said that this very authoritie is owing to the law which appoints Judges and Magistrates to decide controversies and orders appeals from inferiour to superiour Courts I would onely ask one short question Whether the law gives authoritie to any person to judge contrarie to law If it does not then all illegal acts are null and void and lay no obligation on the Subject and yet this is manifestly false according to the known Practice of all the known Governments in the world The most illegal Judgement is valid till it be reverst by some superiour Power and the Judgement of the supreme power though never so illegal can be repealed by no authoritie but its own And yet it is absurd to say that the law gives any man authoritie to Judge contrarie to law for to be sure this is besides the end and intention of the law Whence then does an illegal act or Judgement derive its authoritie and obligation the answer is plain It is from the authoritie of the Person whose act or Judgement it is It will be of great use to this controversie to make this plain and obvious to every understanding which therefore I shall endeavour to do as briefly as may be 1. Then I observe that there must be a personal power and authoritie antecedent to all civil laws For there can be no laws without a Law-maker and there can be no Law-maker unless there be one or more persons invested with the power of Government of which making laws is one branch For a law is nothing else but the publick and declared will and command of the Law-maker whether he be the Soveraign Prince or the People 2. And hence it necessarily follows that a Soveraign Prince does not receive his authoritie from the laws but laws receive their authoritie from him We are often indeed minded of what BRACTON saies LEX FACIT REGEM that the law makes the King by which that great Lawyer was far enough from understanding that the King receives his Soveraign power from the law for the law has no authoritie nor can give any but what it receives from the King and then it is a wonderful riddle how the King should receive his authoritie from the law But when he saies The Law makes the King he distinguishes a King from a Tyrant and his meaning is that to Govern by laws makes a Soveraign Prince a King as King signifies a Just and equal and beneficial power and authoritie as appears from the reason he gives for it Non est enim Rex ubi dominatur voluntas non lex He is no King who Governs by arbitrarie will and not by law not that he is no Soveraign Prince but he is a Tyrant and not a King 3. And hence it evidently follows that the being of Soveraign Power is independent on laws that is as a Soveraign Prince does not receive his power from the law so should he violate the laws by which he is bound to Govern yet he does not forfeit his power He breaks his faith to God and to his Countrie but he is a Soveraign Prince still And this is in effect acknowledged by these men who so freely confess that let a Prince be what he will though he trample upon all laws and exercise an arbitrarie and illegal authoritie yet his person is sacred and inviolable and irresistible he must not be touch'd nor opposed And allow that saying of David to be Scripture still Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord 's Anointed and be guiltless Now what is it that makes the person of a King more inviolable and unaccountable than other men Nothing that I know of but his sacred and inviolable authoritie and therefore it seems though he act against law yet he is a Soveraign Prince and the Lord s Anointed still or else I see no reason why they might not destroy his person also And yet if nothing but an inviolable and unaccountable authoritie can make the Person of the King inviolable and unaccountable I would gladly know how it becomes lawful to resist his authoritie and unlawful to resist his Person I would desire these men to tell me whether a Soveraign Prince signifies the natural Person or the Authoritie of a King and if to divest him of his authoritie be to kill the King why they may not kill the man too when they have killed the King Thus when men are forc't to mince Treason and Rebellion they always speak Nonsense Those indeed who resist the authoritie of their Prince but spare his Person do better than those who kill him but those who affirm that his Person is as resistible and accountable as his Authoritie speak more consistently with themselves and the Principles of Rebellion 4. And hence I suppose it plainly appears that every illegal act the King does is not an inauthoritative Act but laies an obligation on Subjects to yeild if not an active yet a passive obedience For the King receives not his Soveraign Authoritie from the Law nor does he forfeit his authoritie by breaking the law and therefore he is a Soveraign Prince still and his most illegal acts though they have not the authoritie of the law yet they have the Authoritie of Soveraign Power which is irresistible and unaccountable In a word it does not become any man who can think three consequences off to talk of the authoritie of laws in derogation to the authoritie of the Soveraign power The Soveraign power made the laws and can repeal them and dispence with them and make new laws the onely power and authoritie of the laws is in the power which can make and execute Laws Soveraign Power is inseparable from the Person of a Soveraign Prince and though the exercise of it may be regulated by Laws and that Prince does very ill who having consented to such a regulation breaks the Laws yet when he acts contrarie to Law such acts carrie Soveraign and irresistible Authoritie with them while he continues a Soveraign Prince But if it be possible to convince all men how vain this pretence of Laws is to justifie