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 â—f his Power when he raised the Ship-money which was â—ontrary to Law and the people refusing to submit to it â—ade the Law the measure of their Priviledges for they â—ere bound by no Law to consent to any thing the King â—hould command contrary to Law much less a Priviledge of â—uch vast Importance as the parting with their Money conâ—rary to Law. 6. Absolute and unconditionate Obedience is I grant due â—nly to God who alone has absolute Authority and to the king no otherwise than as his Vicegerent which Character â—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 broâ—les and quarrels wou'd daily produce Though subâ—dinate Magistrates may be punished for Acts of illegal Vioâ—nce because they are no part of their Office yet as long as â—â—ey continue in Office they are publick Ministers and ought 〈◊〉 be accounted as such till for their crimes they shall be beâ—aded If the King himself has Authority to take away a mans â—â—se contrary to Law then he can give this Authority to ten â—housand persons if he pleases and then they wou'd be no â—rivate persons because they wou'd act by his Authority â—n a state of Nature every man acts according to his Reason â—n righting or preserving himself but every man hath more â—ight of self-preservation in a Civil Government than in a â—ate of Nature because the Law allows of self-preservation â—nd punishes those that endeavour to take away a man's life â—ontrary to Law. If one meets me and endeavours to take â—way my life and I must either die upon the spot or defend â—hy self in this case if I kill him it 's no Murder but if he â—ills me it is Murder Civil Government was surely appointed by God and Man for no other end
is not lawful to persecute contrary to the Laws of the Land it follows that it is lawful to withstand such Persecution And is it not better to dye with the Sword in the Hand in defence of the Gospel and its True Religion against a False one which is endeavoured to be be set up contrary to the Law of God and the Countrey than to be forced by Cruel Tortures and Persecutions to worship god in an Idolatrous way But some may object It can be no Real Idolatry without the Heart joyns with the Ceremony of the Body yet an outward Idolatry is a great sin But who can secure to us that our Children or Childrens Children shan't be Real Idolaters Then the sin of Idolatry which they shall be guilty of will be laid at our Doors when by a timely Defence we might have prevented it 13. Kings 't is true were made to govern and protect the People the People to reverence and obey their Kings both Kings and People to serve God and keep his Commandments The People are obliged to obey their King in every Act of Command of his which does not derogate from the Law of God and the Nation 14. The Design of the Corporation-Oath was most plainly to prevent all Rebellions upon any pretence whatsoever Can any man be so mad as to think the Parliament did give up themselves and the Community to obey whatever the King should command For what is it else if the Oath of Allegiance or Corporation-Oath is to be taken in the strictest sence This were to make the King a Tyrant by Law or at least allowing him to be such No Oath is or can be binding beyond the Design of the Giver It is plain these Oaths were not designed for our Ruine and therefore cannot be taken or kept in that sence All Oaths to a Governour or Government are designed for the Good Safety and Wellfare of the Governed as well as the Governour So no Oath can bind us to our own Destruction though Lawful Authority should command such an Oath it were a Sin to take it but much greater to keep it because such Subjection is inhumane and contrary to the very Design of Government both from God and Man and the lesser Evil ought to be chosen before the greater Rebellion is resisting the Lawful Power of the Government but it is no more Rebellion to resist the Unlawful and Exorbitant Power of the Prince than War Tyler or Jack Cade c. They are Rebels who arm against the Government which is the Laws not they that arm to defend it 14. David made no Resistance at all neither Offensive nor Defensive As for your Negative Resistance by Flight as you term it I do not understand it As for the Forces which he had about him it 's most probable that he raised them for no other purpose but to be Spies and Scouts to give intelligence of Saul 's Ambushments For what would Six Hundred Men have signified to Saul 's Numerous Army had it been David 's intent to have made any Resistance We read indeed that Athaliah was deposed but what was the Reason Not because she was a monstrous Vnnatural Tyrant but because she was an Vsurper He who does not obey the Commands of his Prince when according to Law makes Negative Resistance because he resists the Law and by consequence the Prince What could David mean by having Six Hundred Men but to secure his Person and make positive resistance if he had been forced to a strait and could not have secur'd himself otherwise Surely Fifty or an Hundred Men would have been enough for Spies and Scouts Could not God have delivered Saul's Numerous Army into the Hands of his Six Hundred Men as well as the Numerous Army of the Amalekites into the Hands of but Four Hundred of his Men 1 Sam 30.10.17 1 Sam 26.9 David said to Abishai Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord 's Annointed and be guiltless Abishai had a Design to destroy Saul and in stretching forth his Hand with that Design had been a great sin But he that defends himself from his Prince who though in his own Person contrary to the Laws of the Countrey endeavours to take away his Life and being reduced to a strait 't is not properly to be said stretching forth his hand against him when at the same time he designs not to kill him or do him any harm but to disarm him and secure himself Joash was made King of Israel and Athaliah was slain but it may with more Reason be thought for murthering all the King's Sons except Joash who was hid from her than for Usurping the Throne for there is not the least mention made of the cause of her death 2 Kings 11. For do we not find in the next Chap. vers 20. that Joash was killed by his Servants but so soon as the Kingdom was confirmed to Amaziah his Son he slew his Servants which had slain his Father The Proofs of Scripture which I quote have a particular Relation to the Primitive Christians under the Heathen Emperours and to the Children of Israel and 't was usual with God to set up one King over his People the Jews and pull down another for their Misgovernment But we cannot expect God to act so for us because he does not set up or appoint our Kings therefore we ought to turn out such Governours who endeavour to destroy the Government and set up such who will preserve it 16. Neither an Invasion actually made or eminently feared by a Foreign Power doth authorise Subjects to depose their King. We have not deposed the King neither was there any other design than to recover our Rights and Priviledges and secure them for the time to come to our Posterity which every man is bound to endeavour it being for the Common Good of the Nation against the destructive designs of the Prince But by what Reason say some should King James lose the Right he was born to and by the Law ought to have To which I answer If King James had kept to Law he had never lost his Rights for in so doing the Subjects were bound to assist and defend those Rights but if King James invading the Rights of his Subjects and endeavouring to support that Power by Force if by Force he lose his Rights he may thank himself for invading the Rights of others Does not a man though free-born forfeit his life by firing of a House Robbing c. which are but particular Calamities and shall not a Prince who is guilty of a General Calamity by destroying the Laws and endeavouring to inslave the Nation lose the Right of Governing that Nation which is infinitely more reasonable than that the other should suffer death The Law allows a particular man for just Causes to disinherit his eldest Son and settle his Estate upon others of his Posterity for the preserving of his Family What Reason can be given in an
or Allegiance one to the other not to wrong molest or kill the other and one shall be guilty of the great sin of Ingratitude and cheat rob or endeavour to ruine the other or to kill him in these Cases he becomes his Enemy and the Oath which the other hath taken is thereby become void because the Covenant is broken and it is no Ingratitude in the other to right himself by Law by imprisoning him c. or to defend himself Was not King James guilty of this sin of Ingratitude in a very high Nature by breaking of his Natural and Political Allegiance which was due to the Community in destroying the Government that is the Laws and hanging many persons contrary to Law by not allowing them to plead for themselves and endeavouring to make the people Slaves to his exorbitant Will and Pleasure Now I appeal to all the World whether or no our Allegiance is not void as to King James upon his breaking of his Allegiance and whether our Allegiance ought not to be transferr'd to their present Majesties who protect us and preserve us in all our Rights c. Protection is the only Ground and Foundation of Allegiance because the Prince swears to protect and govern the People according to Law for which Reason they swear to be true to him but if he cannot or will not protect and govern them according to their Laws Rights and Priviledges they may seek for it where they can get it For no Allegiance can be due to him from the Community who endeavours to destroy it If one Prince conquers another's Country the People are at the mercy of the Conquerour and if he swear to protect and govern them according to the Law of the Country they ought to swear Allegiance to him and protect him in his Throne by fighting for him against all his Enemies as long as he continues so doing We ought to be subject to him whom the Law hath set over us and who doth protect us and not to the French King or he that is best able to protect us I could have instanced many more moral Arguments which would induce any unbyass'd man to believe that all Oaths and Contracts have a tacit meaning and upon the Non performance on the one side the other becomes absolutely void though not specified at the Agreement but for brevity's sake I shall leave them out these Proofs being sufficient to satisfie all rational impartial men 21. Though the King do not perform his Coronation-Oath yet his Subjects are not therefore absolved from the Oath of Allegiance and on the contrary the King is bound by his Coronation-Oath though his Subjects do not keep that of Allegiance The Subject is not absolved from the Oath of Allegiance for every little Violation of the King 's but if the King endeavours to overthrow the Government which he 's sworn to uphold or to make the People Slaves or destroy them they are not obliged by this Oath to stand still and let him For the Design of this Oath cou'd be nothing less than the Safety of the People as well as the King For if it was to be taken in the Litteral Sense the Parliament bound themselves and the rest of the Body to the King as Head that we should submit to the Invasions of our Religion and Liberties and the Establishing of Idolatry and to all the Outrages and Cruelties that the Devil or Man could invent even to Death it self which is Diametrically opposite to all Laws both Divine Natural and Civil and to all the Sense and Reason of Mankind and that this Oath cannot be taken in the strictest Sense though the Parliament design'd it is plain because all Oaths contrary to our Duty to God our Neighbour or our selves are invalid and by Consequence this Oath is without a tacit meaning because it tends to our own and our Neighbours Destruction There is another thing very observable here that is our Baptismal Vow by which we oblige our selves to perform all Christian Duties to God our Neighbours and our Selves which is to be pious do Justice and Charity c. which we cannot perform if we were obliged by this Oath to let the Prince be guilty of all manner of Outrages Besides all Oaths opposite to the First a man takes are not binding till the Obligation of the First ceases yet the taking of such Oaths is a great sin and ought to be avoided There is an Allegiance due to the Government as well as to the King and he that bears true Allegiance to the Government bears true Allegiance to the King and he that bears true Allegiance to the King bears true Allegiance to the Government There is a Natural Allegiance due from the King to the Government of preserving it as well as a Political one by his Coronation Oath It is truer Allegiance to defend the Government against the King and his Adherents who shall endeavour to destroy it than to defend the King and his Adherents against the Government Then how do we bear true Allegiance to the Government if we stand still and let it be violated every day If King James by his Illegal Administration gives accasion for an Invasion and cannot hinder it and makes himself uncapable to give Protection by deserting the Kingdom and so leaves his People to the Mercy of the Invader who cannot fight against him without fighting against their Religion and their Conscience Whilst they remain thus they have neither Government Justice or Benefit of the Law in this Case the Oath of Allegiance or Bond which tied them together is broken and ceases as much as if he was actually dead he being dead in Law and they are no longer his Leiges but at liberty to get protection where they can find it Upon the Fortune of War in Flanders and many other Countries where Towns and Cities have been one while one Prince's and another while anothers and so have been transfer'd forwards and backwards several times and with them the Peoples Allegiance And that this is the Practice of the whole World I need not intimate to you Now will any man say that these men have broke their Oaths by swearing Allegiance to him in Possession which must be if their former Oaths are not void and their Allegiance transfer'd to him in possession From hence it follows That Protection is the only Ground and Foundation of Allegiance The Scripture does not direct Obedience to the Right Heir but the Powers in being If the People endeavour to destroy or kill the King the Coronation Oath neither does nor can bind him to protect them but on the contrary he commits a notorious sin against the Law of Nature if he does not defend himself and destroy them if there is a necessity for it to preserve himself 22. 'T is not an reasonable that an arbitrary King should be depâ—â—â— for that must be the meaning of forfeiting and losing the Right of governing as it is that Subjects should
suffer Death for conspiring against him My Reason is because the publick would suffer more by the impunity of had Subjects than of evil Kings 'T is more reasonable a King should lose his Right of Governing call it what you will for endeavouring to overthrow the Government than that it should be overthrown by him and the People lose the Right of being governed according to Law which being done they must by Consequence be Slaves to his Arbitrary Will and Pleasure The Community would suffer more by one Evil King than by an Hundred Bad Subjects because the Subjects are punishable for the least Misdemeanour and the King not When a King ceases to govern by Law he ceases to govern and when he ceases to govern he ceases to be King And this was the Case of King James before the Prince of Orange Landed Pray observe the Reply to the 18th and 19th Paragraphs 23. The Authority of no King but the King of Kings is boundless and absolute So that the Kings of the Earth may command things that are sinful and which none are obliged to perform This is a certain Verity and it agrees with my Quaery 24. The Word Loyal 't is true comes from the French La Loy and signifies one that is true to the Laws Now he who is so will perform his Duty both to his King and his Countrey and will not be Rebel either to the one or the other How can I be true to my King and Countrey if I let men rebel against the Laws by violating them every day Though they Act by the King's Command by the Advice of false Counsellours yet are they Enemies to him and Rebels to the Government because it tends to the Ruin of both 25. Passive Obedience is neither Popery nor Slavery establisht vy Law but the Doctrine of Iesus Christ grievous to none but those who desire to use their Liberty as a Cloak of Maliciousness This is far from a direct Answer to my Assertion wherein I said and do again affirm That Passive Obedience is Popery established by Law and by consequence Slavery when ever the Prince shall please I ask if King James when here had put Papists into all Places of Trust relating to the Choice of Parliament-men which he had already begun throughout England and required them to return Papists to Parliament and upon their Meeting they should have Established Popery as the Parliament did in Queen Mary's dayes as no doubt they would I would fain know how far we should have been from Slavery and all this by the Doctrine of Passive Obedience without which they could not pretend to Establish their Religion It is not the Doctrine of the Gospel or of Jesus Christ to be Passive beyond the Laws and Customs of the Countrey this were to make Christ the Author or approver of Confusion and Destruction amongst Mankind instead of Justice and Order 'T is against all the sence of Scripture and Reason of Mankind to say that God Almighty created Mankind to be subject to Princes and of the Peoples making too that in Case they should overthrow the Government or use the People like so many Beasts instead of rational Men and Persecute them with all manner of Cruelty or endeavour â—tterly to destroy them though they lived quiet and peaceable Lives yet that they should not defend and secure themselves from all such evil Designs If God expects such Subjection surely it would have been mentioned in Scripture but as he is no Respecter of Persons at the great Tribunal so who can imagine that he is such a Respecter of Persons on Earth as to set up or allow one Man so much above another as in the foregoing sense What can be said of such Men that assert Passive Obedience in the strictest sence but that they have degenerated from Nature in cherishing a Doctrine which tends not only to the Destruction of themselves but to the rest of Mankind according to the Will and Pleasure of the Prince Good God! to what a degree of Folly and Madness are some Men arrived at to assert a Doctrine which if once believed and practised inevitably tends to the Destruction of Christianity and to all humane Societies 't is a Doctrine not fit for savage Heathens much less for rational Men. These are the only Men fit to be compared to Papists and are as necessary for the support of the Mother Church as Fire and Faggot the one prepares them for Destruction whilst the other Destroys them 26. The Assistance which Q. Elizabeth gave to the Hollanders and French Protestants against their lawful Sovereigns as also the Business of Rochel in King Charles the First 's time are improperly argued against the Doctrine of Passive Obedience Independant Princes for Reasons of State best known to themselves may help their Neighbours without injuring the Doctrine of Passive Obedience One Prince may assist another for Political Ends against another Prince or State but he cannot assist his Subjects who are in actual Rebellion against him though their Pretensions be never so reasonable without committing a notorious Sin according to the Doctrine of Passive Obedience because He that is aiding and assisting to Rebels is as guilty of Rebellion as if he were actually in it 27. Oh do not revile the King though he lay in Ashes much less whilst he is on this side of the Grave I question not but that the Vnfortunate King James 's Life will be more favourably represented in History than you have here described him You seem to be bery angry with him because he endeavours to re-establish himself with the Sword and yet you have given to every Man even the meanest Cobler the Right of Self-preservation as entire under Civil Government as he had in a State of Nature Vpon my Word Sir this is very hard and unequal dealing at once to Abdicate your King and at the same time complain of him for endeavouring to recover his Right I have as Honourary a Respect for a King as any Man whatsoever whilst he continues his Kingly Office that is Governing according to the Laws of the Countrey but when he shall degenerate and break all his Sacred Oaths and Promises and destroy the very Foundation of Government which ought to be kept inviolable then have I Reason to turn my Love into Contempt I having as all Men ought to have a real and truer Love for my Countrey and its excellent Constitution than for ten Thousand Kings who shall endeavour to destroy it I have not reviled the â—ate King James but spoken the Truth as will appear by what follows Were not his Creatures as Papists and Popishly affected put into Places of Trust by his Means during his Brothers Reign and Parliaments Prorogued and Dissolved And was he not believed by most of the Nation to be the Head of the Popish Plot these are sufficient to prove that he Conspired against the People and Government when Duke of York I need not mention his
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 â—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
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 meâ— says Samuel Nay but a King shall reign over us when the Lord â—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
extreme Necessity why such an Advantage should be denied for the preservation of the Nation But to proceed The Constitution of our Laws is the happiest in the World it having Instituted the Legislative Power in three Heads or Parts of Government that is the King Lords and Commons and that neither one or two of these parts can make or annul a Law is most certain and if either one or two of these parts should assume that Authority that part of the Government or Constitution is dissolved and broken off If I prove King James did take upon him this Authority it will appear he thereby became no Governour or part of the Government Which premised I proceed What could the compleat Legislative Authority done more than in making a Law to annul any Law or Laws of the Land Did not the King take upon him this whole Authority that is to make a Law to dispense with the Laws of the Land And was not its effect accordingly by putting Papists into places of Trust and by setting up Popish Schools and Chappels Monasteries Frieries c What was this but making himself the whole Fountain of the Government when he was but a third part of it in doing of which Act he hath dissolved that part of the Government which related to himself by laying aside his Kingly Authority which is to govern according to the Laws of the Land and Governing by his Absolute Will and Pleasure whereby he ceased to be King upon which the Oath of Allegiance is void as truly and really as if he was actually dead or had signed a Resignation of his Crown because it was taken to him as King ruling according to the Laws of the Land not according to his Will and Pleasure But suppose no Forfeiture could be made for his male Administration If King James has Power to absolve his Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance by resigning up his Crown which is allowed on by all men then the Stipulation which hath been taken does naturally fall by his deserting the Throne â—nd leaving no Commissioner or Commissioners to officiate in â—is stead and throwing away the Seals of England was noâ—hing less than a publick Resignation of his Throne to the Nation But what can be said for Scotland say some he having a Commissioner there To which I answer That he never was a lawful King there if what they say is true â—hat he never took their Coronation-Oath as well as for his Ruling by and declaring of an Absolute Authority and that the People ought to obey him without reserve But though they obey'd him for the sake of Peace yet it was highly reasonable as well as necessary to throw off this Arbitrary and Unlawful Governour If no Forfeiture could be made as some would insinuate to the World what Anarthy and Confusion by consequence must this Government have run into For if we could only oblige him to promise or swear to govern according to Law and not to commit the like Enormities for the future what would this signifie to a Prince whom no Oath can bind and by the same Rule he has broken one Oath he can break a thousand But suppose he had sworn this and immediately after should have committed all manner of Outrages and Cruelties what must we have done in that case Why we must have made him swear again and again as oft as he shou'd break his Oath But if he had refused to take such an Oath or declared he neither could nor would keep it which is much the same thing as if he had taken it then after having given our selves all this unnecessary trouble we must e'ne have set down and cryed Lord have mercy upon us and expect our deliverance by Miracle though Miracles are ceas'd I say what Destruction and Confusion must we by consequence hereof have run into even to the utter Extirpation of all our Civil Rights and what is most dear to us our Religion and destroying of many thousand Souls which he could not have stuck at for the promoting his Religion by which he is obliged under the pain of Damnation to root out all Heresie and Hereticks for so they call the Protestants if he could not have perverted us by English and Irish or French Souldiers he must have consented to the cutting our Throats or else damn himself by the neglect thereof to prevent the spreading of Heresie by which Act he wou'd have merited Heaven in the highest degree according to the Doctrine of their Church Ah but say some we might have bound up his Hands from breaking of the Laws for the future How absurd is this to talk of binding a King's hands whom no Oath could or can bind and who has declar'd himself Absolute that is above all Laws his Will being his Pleasure his Pleasure his Law Besides all forced Bonds or Contracts are void by the Law as for Example if A. Debtor to B. gives him Bond for so much Money to release him out of Prison 't is of no force he being forced to it in order to get his liberty and that such an Agreement tho' by Lords and Commons in Parliament wou'd not be voluntary but forced is most certain because it wou'd be to get a peaceable Possession of his Throne and therefore it wou'd become ipso facto void to all intents and purposes There cou'd be no other way of binding his Hands than in effect to dethrone him by taking from him the Authority and leaving him only the Title of a King and appointing of a Regent to Execute the Kingly Office for him which he wou'd never have consented to because he wou'd have been nothing but a meer stalking Horse and the result of this Action cou'd have been nothing less than a continued Confusion during his life if not a Civil War for no doubt he wou'd have endeavoured to get a full possession of the Throne and to that end the King of France would have assisted him with Men who with the Male-contents already here wou'd have occasioned a Civil War for we must have defended the Regency I say if the Nation hath Power to take from him his Authority and make him only a Titular King surely they have Authority when an absolute necessity requires such as in our present Circumstances to set up or appoint another King. 17. This Apothegm gives just as much and no more to a Crowned Head as to a private person This Assertion I deny for a private person has no Authoâ—ity at all but to live according to the Laws whereas a King â—s an Executor of the Laws But you would fain set the King â—bove the Laws though 't is certain the Laws are his Rule â—s well as the People's and he cannot go contrary to them without robbing the People of their Rights 18 19. The eighteenth is much the same with the 4 as also â—ith the 23 and 24 following which yet I shall take notice of â—n their places As to the 19. I answer
Simnel and Warbeck â—ad either of the Cheats succeeded might properly have been calâ—ed Counterfeit Kings but a King who ascends the Throne â—y a regular Title is a true and real King though he doth not as he ought make the general good of the people his chief and main end Were the Kings over the Children of Israel counterfeit Kings because they were not by regular Descent of which there are many Instances 2 Kings 23.30 2 Kings 23.26 〈◊〉 Chron. 3.16 c. and Obedience was paid to them as much as to the others a King is a true and real King when in possession of the Throne though not by regular Descent having taken the Coronation-Oath and Governing according to the Laws of the Land 't is not the Title but the Office that makes him a King which if any King derogates from he forfeits his Right of Governing For Example Sigisbert King of the West-Saxons for his male Administration was driven out of his Kingdom by the Nobles and People assembled together and King John. King Edward the Second and Richard the Second were for breaking their Oaths and Governing contrary to the Laws of the Land turn'd out out of their Thrones and others appointed in their stead and a Clause of King Henry's Charter says If the King invades those Rights meaning the Rights of the people it is lawful for the Kingdom to rise against him and to do him what injury they can as though they ow'd him no Allegiance Whilst the Lady Elizabeth the true Heir of the Crown was living Henry the Seventh was declared King without joyning her in the Title or so much as making any mention of her Right yet notwithstanding the Kingdom bore Allegiance to this King de facto before he confirmed his Title to the Crown by marrying her By a Law made in King Edward the Confessor's Reign it is declared That if the King doth not perform his Office he shall not so much as retain the Name of a King. If a King that comes to the Throne by regular Descent shou'd refuse to take the Coronation Oaths the People are not bound to swear Allegiance to him and he neither ought nor can be obeyed as a King in the least Command though he shou'd promise to govern according to Law he being not qualified according to Law therefore could not be Head and Governour A King acting contrary to the Laws of the Land is so far from being a true and real King that in every such Action he is no King at all because his Kingly Office is to Act according but not contrary to the Laws 20. Here let me speak to you in the words of Solomon 〈◊〉 counsel thee to keep the King's Commandment and that because of the Oath of God Eccless 8.2 The Obligation of our Oaths doth not cease though the King be not in a capacity to proteâ—â— us If protection be the only ground and foundation of Allegiance we ought to become Subjects of the strongest Monarchy If the King of France be best able to protect me it is not only my Interest but Duty according to this Doctrine to swear Allegiance to him though he be as you say one of the greatest Tyrants that ever the World produced The Oath of God that is mentioned Eccles 8.2 was the Oath of Obedience which the People had taken to the King of obeying him in the Execution of the Laws which were the Laws appointed by God for Kings to Govern by 1 Sam. 10.24 Nehem. 10.29 the Children of Israel took a Curse and aâ— Oath to walk in God's Law and to observe all the Commandments of the Lord his Judgments and his Statutes which were the Laws of the Kingdom but when they did â—bey their Kings contrary to Law God did punish them â—nd likewise their Kings by delivering them into the hands â—f their Enemies c. Ezek 17. The King of Babylon made â—he King of Jerusalem's Son King of Jerusalem during his father's life whom he had taken Captive with him and â—ade a Covenant with him and took an Oath of him Vers â—2 13. The King of Jerusalem broke this Covenant in â—ending for Horses and much people from Egypt Vers 15. â—ut Vers 16. the Lord does declare he shall die for breaking â—he Covenant which is called the King of Babylon's Coveâ—ant What is breaking of a Covenant but one's cancelâ—ng of the obligation to the other by the non-performance â—n his side 'T is plain from hence that the sin lieth at his â—oor who breaks the Covenant and that it thereby becomes â—s void to the other as if never taken Jos 2. The two â—pies that were sent by Joshua to Jerico swore to Rahab â—hat she and all her Father's house should be saved alive â—ers 20. But if thou utter this our business then we will be quit â—f thine Oath which thou hast made us to swear What can be â—nore plain but that upon the Non-performance of an Oath â—n one side the other becomes void Can any man believe â—he Nation would have been so mad as to have taken the Oath of Allegiance if King James should have refused to â—ake the Coronation-Oath which are mutual Ties of Faithâ—lness one to the other What greater Nonsense can there be â—han to say That one man must be true to another when he â—ath broken his Oath and endeavours to ruine or destroy â—im Certainly in this case his Oath is void and his rightâ—ng or defending and securing himself is no falseness to the â—ther and the mischief that in that case happens is a sin â—o the Invader not to him that endeavours to right himâ—elf this is allowed on by the Laws of the Land and Nature â—or there is no Oath can bind a man contrary to the Duty which is due to himself then how can a man be true to himself if he lets another ruine or destroy him Numb 30. If a woman vow a Vow unto the Lord and bind her Soul by Bond if her Father disallow thereof the Lord shall forgive her And speaking of a married Woman Vers 13. Every Vow and every binding Oath to afflict the Soul her Husband may establish it or make it void Surely 't is more reasonable to believe that God does absolve men from their Oaths of Fidelity to a Prince upon the breaking of his Oath which is the Covenant by endeavouring to destroy the People or make them Slaves than that a Father or a Husband might make a Woman's Oath void and that God would then absolve her without any considerations of the unreasonableness thereof The obligation of an Oath ceases viz. if I borrow a Sword and swear to return it by such a time and the person grows furiously mad the Obligation is void or if I swear to pay a man so much Money and he forgives me the Debt ceaseth as much as if I had paid him the Debt tho' no such Condition was specified or if two persons bind themselves by Oath to a perpetual Friendship
Actions when King â—hey being fresh in every Man's Memory Self-preservation â—s inherent to all Men but it does not follow that a King who has â—enounced his Throne and abandoned the Kingdom should endeavour to re-establish himself through a â—ea of Blood though the Government is provided with â—nother Governour What right hath a King to the Throne â—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 â—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
but that men â—hou'd live peaceable and quiet lives and not that Magistrates shou'd be their own Carvers and instead of protectâ—ng and governing the people according to the Laws of the â—and destroy them 12. This is right Common-wealth Rhetorick they were Children of Belial i. e. Masterless persons as the word signiâ—â—es who said How shall this man save us and they despised him â—ays the Text 1 Sam. 10.27 More Throats have been cut by the Doctrine of Resistance than ever were by that of Passive Obedience witness our Nation in all Ages These are Passive Obediences with a Vengeance and right Antichristian Principles to set up one Member so much above the rest that if it endeavours to destroy them they are obliged to make no Resistance more Throats have been cut by this Doctrine of Passive Obedience than that of Resistance witness all the Cruel Persecutions under the Roman Emperours the Massacres of Paris Piedmont and Ireland and many more Instances might be given But suppose the contrary the sin lies at their doors who by their Cruel Persecutions and Violations of the Rights of the People force them to right themselves 'T is certain the Gospel does no where require or permit the planting of Religion by the Sword tho the Papists have practised it in all Ages to the destroying of many Thousands of Souls We ought not to defend our Religion when the Laws of the Country are against it But the Scripture does not require us not to defend our Religion or Civil Rights which is established by the Laws of the Country Ergo we may defend them for where there is no Law there can be no transgression If it is not lawful to defend our Religion then any Army or number of Heathens may come and settle their false Religion here And if it is lawful to hinder the settling of Religion hereby a Forreign Power it must be lawful to hinder the settling of a False Religion amongst our selves as the Romish Religion is if the Scripture is true And I think no man can without Impudence deny but that King James had a design to settle his False Religion here by consequence it is lawful to hinder him When Julian the Apostate told the Christians their Doctrine was to suffer an Eminent Man of that Age wrote a Tract de Regibus Apostaticis and approved as Orthodox Doctrine by Bishop Athanasius wherein the Emperour was informed That the Christian Religion when Established by Law allowed them to justifie their Rights and not to be ruined and destroyed to gratifie an Idolatrous Prince Eccles 8.4 Where the Word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou The Word or Command of a King is supposed to be according to the Law or Custom of the Countrey in which Acts no body ought to controul him But suppose a King be guilty of all manner of Illegalities and Cruelties must not a Bishop or a Nobleman in an humble manner tell him of his Faults Surely the Scripture never meant it in such a sence 1. Pet. 2.13 14. Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake which is every Law of man whether it be to the King as supream that is the Chief Executor of the Laws or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him which are Officers appointed by the King for the executing or fullfilling of the Laws for the punishment of evil-doers and for the praise of them that do well Rom. 13.1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers that is to the Laws or Customs of the Country and to the Prince as the Executor thereof for there is no power but of God the greatest Villain amongst Mankind acts by the Power of Almighty God but not by his appointment or approbation the powers that be are ordained of God the power which every man hath is from God ver 2. Whoso therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God he that resists the Laws resists the Powers beyond which a Prince hath no power except to act by Fraud or Force which is against Divine and Humane Laws and shall receive to themselves damnation ver 3 4. For Rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil for he is the Minister of God to thee for good a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil He is the Minister of God for good whilst he administers Justice and Equity to every man and punisheth him that doth evil or violates the Laws Vers 5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake which can be nothing else than to suffer according to the Laws of the Country tho never so unreasonable The Laws of Countries are supposed to be made agreeable to the Inclinations of the Majority of the People and therefore the lesser number ought to conform to the greater but if against their Conscience to suffer for it is impossible to make Laws for the Security and well-Government of a Nation to please every body Prov. 8.15 By me Kings reign and Princes decree Justice That is by the appointment or permission of God Kings and Princes reign and decree Justice but it cannot from hence be inferr'd that he commands or allows of their Injustice and endeavours to destroy the People whom they ought to preserve Rom. 12.17 Render therefore to all their dues tribute to whom tribute is due custom to whom custom fear to whom fear honour to whom honour That is Tribute Custom Fear and Honour to whom it is due by the Laws of the Land. There is no Fear due to a Prince from him who liveth according to the Laws of the Land but from him that doth not What a sin are you and all other men that are for Passive Obedience guilty of that wrest the Scriptures which was appointed for the Suffering State of Christianity whilst under Heathen Princes and without Laws to support them and compare them to our present Circumstances and would oblige us to be passive as they were though our Religion and Liberties are Established by the Laws of the Land All that Men can blame us for is for doing that which is Just viz. for rescuing a True Religion from an Idolatrous one and preserving our Laws Ancient Rights and Liberties from the Ruine and Slavery of Arbitrary and Unreasonable Men and Establishing them upon a sure and lasting Foundation I ask whether it can be found that one Christian in Ten or Twenty God hath given so much Courage and Strength as he did to the Primitive Christians to withstand the cruel persecutions of their Enemies for the sake of Religion Witness France and Hungary And many more Instances might be given by which it appears that God hath not only left us to Humane Means for the preservation of our Religion when Established by Law but that he expects it it being for the preservation of our own and our Childrens Temporal and Eternal Happiness As it
by Scripture Law and Reason when you shall think fit to make any material Objections against them but yet when I have done this I am I assure you and shall be as averse as you are from having my Throat cut either by French or Irish Dragoons As for the Jure Divino Doctrine in your sense I do not undertake for it Sir You undertake to prove the Doctrine of Passive Obedience why did you not joyn Jure Divino to it which you have strove hard to prove in your 29th Answer and have asserted in your 34th Answer for they used to go together during the time of the Children of Israel when God set up their Kings but since he hath ceas'd to set up or appoint Kings Passive Obedience and Jure Divino do cease also In your sixth Answer you have afferted that which is diametrically opposite to this Answer of yours viz. For you there assert that He that resists meaning the King does not only resist the Vsurpations of Men but the Ordinance of God thô â—e were a Claudius or a Nero who were two great Tyrants especially Nero who I believe cannot be parallel'd And you likewise there declare that Absolute and Vnconditionate Obedience is due to the King as God's Vicegerent what is this but asserting Passive Obedience in the strictest sence imaginable which Doctrine if true then if the King destroyed the People by Hundreds and Thousands they ought not to resist for that God would punish him himself as he did the Kings over the Children of Israel But where have we had an Example or Examples for these several Hundred Years last past where God hath sent his visible Judgments upon wicked Kings whereof the World hath been pester'd with a great many I say if God should send his private Judgments upon Kings or Damn them for their Wicked Government which we ought not to Judge what would this signifie by way of Example to other Kings What a notorious Hypocrite are you become to Preach up Passive Obedience to others yet at the same time assuring me that you are and shall be as averse from having your Throat cut as I am if so then you are for resisting any Man or Men whatsoever who shall endeavour to take away your Life contrary to Law and you could not but understand these were my Sentiments by my 6 7 8 and 10. Paragraphs I would desire You or any Men else to reconcile these Contrarieties together if they can As for the Unlawfulness of Deposing Kings as you call it I need say no more having already spoke sufficient in Answer to your sixteenth Apothegm But pray Sir what do you mean by not Undertaking for the Jure Divino Doctrine in my sence when 't is plain I have not asserted any such thing by my Challenge to the whole World for to prove that Doctrine 37. At last you turn Conjurer but you see that your Charms have had no Opperation upon me I am still unsatisfied with your Auertions and Propositions and I doubt not but that all honest Men who shall impartially Judge betwixt us will be so too I am equally against Rebellion in the State and Schism in the Church I am far from sowing Dissentions amongst the People or perswading any Subject from the true Allegiance Let those who are guilty of this double sin beware lest they be doubly Punished with the Judgments of God in this World and Damnation in the World to come If your Answer be your Sentiments which no body ought to doubt of then there is great Reason to believe that your Conversation amongst Mankind is to the same purpose and then you are guilty of this double sin of sowing Dissentions amongst the People and disswading their Majesties Subjects from their true Allegiance Now let all impartial Men that read this Book judge between us two 38. Thus Sir you have a short and I hope a direct Answer to your Propositions if you shall think fit to Print it you have the consent of N.N. I Challenge you and all other Men that do still persist in these inhumane and damnable Principles to answer what hath been said I could wish that you and they would consult together that the strongest Arguments that can be said for your Doctrine may be there inserted which if short and sent to Mr. Harrison the Bookseller I do Promise once more to defend what I have asserted and Print the Answer that shall be sent with my Defence annext to it But I hope that you and all other Men that have such Erroneous and destructive Principles will upon the whole examine well what hath been said and like good Christians acknowledge your Faults and not add sin to sin in Justifying your selves in such an ill Principle and in so doing you may be a means of adding Happiness to this Golden Age And that Peace and Plenty Justice and Judgment may flow in our Streets as long as the Sun and Moon endures is the desire of him who wisheth an Eternal Happiness to this our Israel A. A. FINIS Advertisements THE Author hath received two other Answers but thinks them not worth Answering and being resolved to expose that Irrational Doctrine and the weakness of the pretended Justifiers thereof but that the World may say that they have a fair Adversary to deal with who is not willing to expose their Persons but only their Folly least some Persons might know their hands doth promise to leave the true and exact Copies of those Letters at Mr. Harrison 's the Bookseller in Cornhil where any Gentleman that desires it may see them The Anatomy of an Arbitrary Prince or King James the Second set forth in his proper Colours and what England may Expect from such an one Wherein is set forth his Unlawful Actions when King of England and his first Speech which he made to the Council Feb. 6. 1684. and the Heads of several other Speeches with many of his Actions in Ireland since his Arrival there Written for the Information and Satisfaction of all the Grumbletonians in their Majesties Dominions but especially of the poorer sort Price 1 d. They are to be Sold at Mr. Harrison's