the Tribes of Israel 1 Sam. 15.17 and so successively all that were anointed Kings were Kings over Israel and not only over this and that and the other Israelite And our Laws have ever accounted the King post Deum secundus next to God and solo Deo minor less only than God in his Dominions and vicarius Dei Gods Vice-gerent and not the Peoples Vicar-general And the Oath of Supremacy is designed to agnize the King's Highness to be the only Supream Governour of this Realm And if be be Supream he is subordinate to no Person or Body Politick whatsoever if only Supream he hath no equal or coordinate Authority with his if Governour of this Realm he is over all collectively or representatively considered as well as over particular Families or individual Persons And in the Statute of 24 Hen. 8. ch 12. 't is acknowledged That by divers old Authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared that this Realm of England is an Empire and so hath been accepted in the World Governed by one Supream Head and King baving the Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same unto whom a Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People divided into Terms and by Names of Spirituality and Temporality being bounden and owing next to God a Natural and humble Obedience he being instituted and furnished by the goodness and sufferance of Almighty God with plenary whole and entire Power Preheminence and Authority c. Here 't is declared that the Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People do owe unto the one Supream Head and King next to God a Natural and humble Obedience And this Plenary Power of his is not derived and entrusted from the People but is instituted and furnished by the goodness and sufferance of Almighty God And answerably when both Houses of Parliament Address themselves 't is not in a Form implying either Superiority or Equality but as humble Petitioners Faithful and Obedient Subjects e. g. in Stat. of Elizabeth 30. we most humbly beseech your most Excellent Majesty your Faithful and Obedient Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons Assembled in Parliament Or thus we your Majesties loving faithful and obedient Subjects representing your three Estates of your Realm of England c. except we should overmuch forget our Duties to your Highness c. do most humbly beseech c. a plain indication that their Parliamentary Authority is not Imperial or Royal but consultive and approbative And by what Chymical Art or Politick Fetch any Man can from hence infer a real Sovereignty or Majesty lodged in some essential Body of Men in contradistinction to the Personal Sovereignty and Majesty of the King which is superiour to that lodged in and exercised by the King and may as opportunity offers warantably resist and evacate it is past my understanding to imagin Sect. 25. I shall conclude this Branch of my Discourse with this request to you I pray consider to what purpose are all those Ornaments of State with which the Wisdom of our Ancestors have invested the Regal Dignity if the Persons that partake of them cannot prorect themselves against the Assaults and Outrages of their Subjects but may be deposed and have a writ of ease served upon them when they think fit to judge the Power entrusted with them forfeited and to revoke it If a Crown cannot secure the Princes Head that wears it nor the Throne he sits on mount him above force and compulsion nor his Scepter awe the seditious and turbulent they are meer pageantries and pompous ostentations of Vanity and have nothing of real magnificence and usefulness in them But as delight is not seemly for a Fool so much less is it seemly for a Servant or a Subject to Rule over Princes Pro. 19.10 which concludes my Argument against the Resistance of Sovereign Princes drawn from the Principles of common Reason Sect. 26. 2. The next thing to be evinced to you is That 't is against the Principles of Religion as well as of Reason to allow Liberty to Subjects to resist the Sovereign Powers with armed Force in any case and upon any pretence whatsoever And that I may do it the more satisfactorily I will shew you both from the Jewish and Christian Constitution that 't is unlawful for Subjects to resist the Supream Powers with armed Force 1. I shall begin with some Reflections on the Jewish Constitution I find that some very learned Men have thought That in some Cafes 't was lawful under the Jewish State to take Arms against the Sovereign Power who notwithstanding affirm'd that 't is utterly unlawful for Subjects so to do under the Christian Constitution Christians being restrained by the peculiar Precepts of the Gospel from that liberty the Law in that case allowed But so far as I can judge this is an indefenceable Opinion for the Christian Constitution doth not introduce a New Foundation of Civil Policy and common Rights nor establish any new Prohibitions for the Defence of just Rights by a lawful Authority And therefore I conclude 't was unlawful for all Subjects under the Old Testament Dispensation to resist the Higher Powers as well as under the New Sect. 27. From Moses to Saul the Government of the Jews was a Theocracy that is God himself was their Supreme Lord and King and immediately exercised a ruling Power over them by Persons of his own Election and Constitution who in all cases of difficulty had immediate recourse to God for direction and accordingly when they grew weary of Samuel's Government who was thus appointed over them they are said to reject God himself 1 Sam. 8.7 and 1 Sam. 10.19 and therefore in all that time the Resistance of the Supreme Power was a Resistance of God himself the only Difficulty then is How the Case stood after Saul was invested with the Kingly Government of that People whether that Sovereign irresistible and unaccountable Authority and Power which was formerly subjected in and exercised by Moses and Aaron and the succeeding Judges and High Priests was translated to them who afterwards were possessed of and exercised the Kingly Authority and Power Sect. 28. For the right Understanding of which we are to consult what God commanded Samuel in his Name to protest to the People of Israel concerning the Kingly Office and Power of which we have an account in 1 Sam. 8.9 to 18. in vers 11. This will be the manner Mishpat the Right say some of the King that shall reign over you He shall take your Sons and appoint them for himself for his Chariots and to be his Horsemen and some shall run before his Chariots And he will take your Daughters to be Confectionaries Cooks and Bakers and he will take your Fields and your Vineyards and your Olive yards even the best of them and give them to his Servants and he shall take your Men Servants and your Maid Servants and ye shall he
Invading the legal Rights Properties Liberties and Priviledges of the Subject and Subversion of the established Religion and Tolleration yea Introduction of Idolatrous Worship c. As every English Man knows who is but competently instructed in the pretended Motives of that Rebellion to which these Laws directly refer but 't is further said for the countenancing of this apocryphal Sense of the Declaration aforesaid That when there seems to be a Contradiction betwixt two Artioles in our Constitution as there seems to be betwixt the publick Liberty of the Nation and the renouncing of all Resistance in case it be invaded we are to examine which of the two is most evident and most important and to fix upon that and the publick Liberty of the Nation being the most Plain and most Important of the two the Article against Resistance ought to be softned that it do not destroy the other But to the States of England who certainly are the most Competent Judges in this case there seemed no contradiction but a very fair consistency betwixt these two Articles and to every unprejudiced Man who is not captivated to an Hypothesis from Passion and Interest The Renunciation of resistance upon any pretence whatsoever is as evident an Article in our Constitution as can be expressed in Words and being directly designed for the Preservation of publick Order and Peace and the Security of the Government it is not easily imaginable how any Article should exceed the Importance of it Yes but that of the Publick Liberty may because the Chief Design of our whole Law and of all the several Rules of our Constitution is to secure and maintain it This passage sounds like the Shibboleth of the Scotish Kirk for so it is translated in the Third Article of the solemn League and Covenant We shall endeavour with our Estates and Lives mutually to preserve the Rights and Priviledges of the Parliament and the Liberties of the Kingdoms and to preserve and defend the King's Maiesty's Person and Authority in the Preservation and Defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms Where the Preservation and Defence of the King's Majesty's Person and Authority is not only limited to the Preservation and Defence of the true Religion and Liberâ—ies of the Kingdoms but sate in order after the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament and Liberties of the Kingdoms as the less evident and less important Matter to be attend and â—ndeavoured This is rare Policy Men of a lower Elavation in that Science which we â—all plain meaning Men do ordinarily believe that the Chief Design of our whole Law â—nd all the several Rules of our Constitution is to secure and maintain the Ends of Government Order and Peace and consequently the Government it self and how Order and â—eace can be preserved and maintained and the Government secured when the Subjects â—e authorized and allowed in cases which they being Judges seem evident and â—â—portant â—â—ough to them to disturb the one and resist the other with force of Arms I â—â—nnot apâ—â—ehend because ordinarily the Majority of Subjects have not that veneration fâ—â— their Goâ—â—rnours and respect for the public Welfare becomes them but are suspicious and creduâ—â—â—s and led more by rash Passions and feigned Interests than by wise Judgment and the â—â—blick Safety But suppose the Liberties of the Nation must be acquitted or the Command of God violated what is the Subjects Duty then And therefore as I do not believe that the Terms King Sovereign Supreme so frequently used in our Laws are equivocal Ones so neither do I believe that the Law which requires a Renunciation of Resistance upon any pretence whatsoever is of an equivocal signification but intends that the Subject mean honestly when he declares against Resistance without exceptions or reserves because 't is a Thing unworthy of the Wisdom and Honour of our Government to impose a Law of an equivocal signification and such an Interpretation can serve no good end Sect. 97. 5. Another Objection against Non-resistance and to warrant and encourage the taking of Arms against the Kings of England in case they exceed their limited bounds is this The Supreme Power must still be supposed to be lodged with the legislative Power and not with the executive Power when that is appropriated to a distinct Subject from the Legislative Now 't is certain that the executive Part of the English Government is lodged singly in the King so that the whole Administration of that is in him but the Legislative is lodged between him and the Two Houses of Parliament so that the Power of making and repealing Laws is not singly in the King but only so far as the Two Houses concur with him Wherefore the Power of the King is fiduciary only nothing but a Trust and all Trusts saith this Author by their nature import that those to whom they are given are accountable and consequently censurable and punishable and therefore the Kings of England may be resisted with force of Arms and deposed and then dealt withal if under equal guilt as other Criminals guilty of the most Capital Offences Ans That a distinction is to be made between the Legislative and Executive part of Power is not to be doubted but whether this Author have rightly applied it is to be questioned and from as plain evidence as any in the World to be denied for the Legislative Authority of the English Government is not divided into distinct hands from the Executive but lodged in the same Subject even in the King of England only Sect. 98. 1. All the Laws of England are the King's Laws receive their denomination from him only and therefore all offences committed against them are principally and ultimately said to be committed against the King and his Crown and Dignity for although the Matter perhaps of all Laws in some latter Ages is prepared by the Two Houses of Parliament and no Law is or can be enacted without their concurrent Approbation and Consent yet every Law receives its formal Being and Obligation from the Authority of the King only and no Law is repealed but by his Authority only The Authority of the Two Houses is the Authority of Councellors and not of Legislators as Judge Jenkins saith and Sir W. Rawleigh tells us That that which is done in Parliament is done by the Kings absolute Authority The Three Estates do but advise as the Privy Council doth which advice if the King embrace it becomes the King 's own Act in the one and the King's Law in the other And therefore when they have addressed themselves to the King in order to the enacting or abrogating of a Law they have prefaced it in a petitionary Stile as acting in the capacity of Loving and Loyal Subjects Sir Edward Coke tells us 4 Inst p. 25. That in Ancient time all Acts of Parliament were in form of Petitions For instances thus 't was in 1 Edw. 3. When Magna Charta was confirmed there you shall find
this Preamble At the Request of the Commonalty by their Petition made before the King in his Parliament c. so again in 9 Edw. 3. 'T is thus prefaced Whereas the Knights Citizens and Burgesses desired our Sovereign Lord the King in his Parliament by their Petition and many of the Statutes are penned in this Imperial Stile The King Commands The King wills Our Lord the King hath established Our Lord the King hath ordained And of his special grace hath granted c. See 3 Edw. 1. and 6 Edw. 1. and 25. Edw. 3. Statute of Marleburdg 52 Hen. 1. and Statute of Quo Warranto A sufficient Evidence That all our Laws owe their Being to the King's Authority only Sect. 99. 2. All the judicial Courts of England are the King's Courts and derive all their Authority originally from him and are obliged to refer the Exercise of their respective Jurisdictions finally for the Preservation of his Person Crown and Dignity and consequently the High Court of Parliament is the King's Court too and depends on him for that Authority which is there exercised And 't is well observed by my Lord Coke That the King is Principium Caput Finis Parliamenti and answerably in the Parliament writ the King calls it Quoddam Parliamentum nostrum Thereby signifying a Subordination of the Estates convented in Parliament under him sitting there in his Royal Political capacity And consequently the Acts of the Two Houses of Parliament without an impress of Royal Authority are nothing worth to the Purposes of Government 'T is no Argument that the Two Houses of Parliament have a Co-ordination with him in his legislative Authority because he hath restrained himself from the Exercise and Use of it without their Request and Consent for it is no more than a Conditio sine qua non which hath only the Force of a Negative without the Concurrence of which the principal Efficient obtains not its Effect Sect. 100. 3. The Measures or Degrees of all Civil Authority and Power are to be taken either from the express Laws of any State or the immemorial Customs and Prescriptions thereof from a long Possession or from the Oaths the Subjects swear to their Princes This is acknowledged by the Author who pleads for a Co-ordination of the Houses of Parliament with the King in the Legislative Authority of the Kingdom as a proper Rule by which to judge where the Legislative Power of a Nation is lodged and this being impartially attended will evidently discover That the Legislative Power is in the King only For 1. If we consider what the Laws determine we shall find that they ascribe it wholly to the King See to this purpose the afore-quoted Preface to a Statute in 24. Hen. 8. where 't is thus said For by divers Old Authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that this Realm of England is an Empire and so hath been accepted in the World governed by our Supreme Head and King having the Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the Same unto whom a Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People divided in Terms and by Names of Spiritualty and Temporalty have been bounden and ought to bear next to God natural and humble Obedience he being also in Statute and furnished by the Goodness and Sufferance of Almighty God not of the People with Plenary whole and entire Power Preheminence Authority Prerogative and Jurisdiction to render and yield Justice and final determination in all Causes Matters and Debates Likewise in the Statute of the 35 of Eliz. this Submission after Non-conformity to divine Service is to be made openly in some Church I do acknowledge and testify in my Conscience that no other Person hath or ought to have any Power or Authority over His Majesty Which Statute was declared to be in full force in the 16 of Ch. 2. 2. This Authority and Preheminence as the former Statute mentioned implies is of immemorial Custom and Prescription and was so far as I can discover never questioned in any Parliamentary Convention of the States till 1642. and then by the Two lower States only too and then the Co ordination in the Legislative Power was asserted to warrant and justify one of the most unreasonable and barbarous Rebellions that ever was in this Kingdom 'T is declared by the Statute of 16 Rich. 2. That the Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly Subjection but immediately subject to God in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown and to none other and if to none other then not to the Two Houses of Parliament and in 1 Jam. 1. The High Court of Parliament wherein as they speak the whole Kingdom in Person or Representative was present i. e. all Estates and Degrees call themselves his Majesty's Loyal and Faithful Subjects and declare his Majesty to be their only Liege Lord and Sovereign and agnize their constant Faith Obedience and Loyalty to his Majesty and Royal Progeny And I will be so bold as to challenge this Author to shew from any Parliamentary Record that ever the Two Houses claimed or pretended to a Co-ordination with the King in the Legislative Power till the time above mentioned 3. What can be more evident for the Determination of this matter than the Oath of Supremacy by which every Subject is obliged to testify and declare in his Conscience that the Kings Highness is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm and of all other His Highnesses Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes as Temperal as He is Supreme He hath no Superior and as He is only Supreme He can have no equal they that wrest the Supremacy of the King's Government to import only the executive part of Government manifestly subvert the primary Design of the Oath which was to restrain and preserve the King's Subjects from a Submission to the usurped legislative and juridical Authority of the Bishop of Rome So that if the Bishop of Rome pretended to both parts of Government as 't is certain he did and still doth then the Oath directly intends an opposition to both and consequently ascribes the only Supremacy appropriately to the King both respectively to the Legislative and Executive part of the Government Sect. 101. 4. Suppose contrary to all this plain evidence that the legislative Power is lodged between the King and Two Houses of Parliament how will this prove a Superior Authority in them above that in the King Par in Parem non habet potestatem An Equal is no Superior Indeed according to our Authors affirmation here are Two to One which is very great odds if he intended to press to his Service that Maxim Major pars obtinet rationem totius the major part of the Legislators virtually are the whole For this will at the Pleasure of the Two Houses render the Concurrence of the King