The letter which was sent to the author of the doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved, &c. answered and refuted wherein is proved, that monarchy was not originally from God. That kings are not by divine appointment, but that all government proceeds from the people. That the obedience required in Scripture, is to the laws of the land, and no otherwise. That resisting of arbitary power is lawful. That the oath of allegiance to to the late King James was dissolved before the Prince of Orange (our present King) landed. That upon the non-performance of an oath on one side, the other becomes void, is plainly prov'd from several examples in scripture. That protection is the only cause of allegiance, and that obedience or allegiance is due to the present government is proved from Scripture, law and reason; and those texts of scriptures which relate to government, or monarchy, are explained. True son of the Church of England. 1689 Approx. 81 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 21 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2011-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2). A70705 Wing N45 ESTC R223803 99834071 99834071 38550

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

 Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A70705) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 38550) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1837:8) The letter which was sent to the author of the doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved, &c. answered and refuted wherein is proved, that monarchy was not originally from God. That kings are not by divine appointment, but that all government proceeds from the people. That the obedience required in Scripture, is to the laws of the land, and no otherwise. That resisting of arbitary power is lawful. That the oath of allegiance to to the late King James was dissolved before the Prince of Orange (our present King) landed. That upon the non-performance of an oath on one side, the other becomes void, is plainly prov'd from several examples in scripture. That protection is the only cause of allegiance, and that obedience or allegiance is due to the present government is proved from Scripture, law and reason; and those texts of scriptures which relate to government, or monarchy, are explained. True son of the Church of England. True son of the Church of England. aut N. N. aut A. A. aut The second edition. [2], 37, [1] p. printed for Tho. Harrison at the White Swan over against the West-end of the Royal Exchange in Cornhil, London : 1689. From the title page of the first edition,"By a true son of the Church of England". Signed at end: A.A. Wing attributes work to N.N. Reproduction of the original at the Trinity College Library, Dublin, Ireland.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

 eng Divine right of kings -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800. 2020-09-21 Content of 'availability' element changed when EEBO Phase 2 texts came into the public domain 2010-06 Assigned for keying and markup 2010-07 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2010-10 Sampled and proofread 2010-10 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2011-06 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

THE LETTER Which was ſent to the AUTHOR of the DOCTRINE OF Paſſive Obedience AND JURE DIVINO Diſproved, &c.

ANSWERED and REFUTED, Wherein is Proved, That Monarchy was not Originally from GOD. That Kings are not by Divine Appointment, but that all Government proceeds from the People. That the Obedience required in Scripture, is to the Laws of the Land, and no otherwiſe. That Reſiſting of Arbitrary Power is Lawful. That the Oath of Allegiance to the late King James was diſſolved before the Prince of Orange (our preſent King) landed. That upon the Non-performance of an Oath on one ſide, the other becomes void, is plainly prov'd from ſeveral Examples in Scripture. That Protection is the only Cauſe of Allegiance, and that Obedience or Allegiance is due to the preſent Government is proved from Scripture, Law and Reaſon; and thoſe Texts of Scripture which relate to Government, or Monarchy, are Explained.

The Second Edition.

LONDON, Printed for Tho. Harriſon at the White Swan over againſt the Weſt-end of the Royal Exchange in Cornhil. 1689.
A VINDICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF Paſſive Obedience and Jure Divino Diſproved, &c. SIR,

I Queſtion not but that your Anſwer is the Idea of your Mind; which I doubt not but to make appear to be not only pernicious, but tends to the Deſtruction of all Humane Societies; and likewiſe, that you have wreſted the Scripture, and have made Notorious Falſe Aſſertions. For brevity ſake, I ſhall leave out your unneceſſary Prologue. You ſay, you will not recite any of my Words, but refer to my Propoſitions, in that order as I have ſet them down, being Thirty Eight Breaks or Sentences.

I do deſire you, and all impartial Men that read this Book, to take the pains to read my former Sheet, and number the Breaks or Aſſertions therein, and compare them with your Anſwer (which I have ſet down Verbatim,) that they may the better judge of the Ridiculouſneſs thereof.

1. To begin: (you ſay) By the Word of God it appears, That Monarchy is the Government which God hath choſen above all others, and that the People were always obliged to accept that Form of Government which God had choſen for them, before they did actually bind themſelves: See him, ſaid Samuel to all the People, whom the Lord (not you) hath choſen, 1 Sam. 10.24. Jeroboam indeed was a King of the Peoples making, and preſently after (you know) they made a golden Calf. This Act of the People (though permitted by God for the puniſhment of Solomon's ſin) is more than once called Rebellion in Scripture, 1 Kings 12.19. 2 Chron. 10.19.

1 Sam. 8.19, 20 The Children of Iſrael importuned him for a King over them, that they might be like all the nations, and that he might judge them, and go before them, and fight their Battles. Chap. 10.24, 25. And Samuel ſaid unto the People, See him whom the Lord hath choſen: And he told the People the manner of the Kingdom (which was the Law of the Kingdom), and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord. Surely no man will ſay, but that this Law was a Rule for the King to go by as well as the People: And then where was his Abſolute Authority? Chap. 11.14, 15. Samuel ſaid to the People, Come, and let us go to Gilgal, and renew the Kingdom there. And all the People went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul King before the Lord. 1 Sam. 12.12, 13. Ye ſaid unto me • ſays Samuel, Nay, but a King ſhall reign over us, when the Lord • our God was your King (by which it appears, there was no other King but God): Now therefore behold the King whom ye have choſen. But though he was made King by the appointment of Almighty God, yet it was thought neceſſary the People ſhould confirm, and make him King again: And 1 Chron. 29.22. The people made Solomon King the ſecond time; Which makes not a little for the Peoples Right in Electing their Kings. Jeroboam was a King by the appointment of Almighty God, (though Elected by the People) 1 Kings 11.35. Where the Prophet Ahijah, ſpeaking to Jeroboam, Thus ſaith the Lord, I will take the Kingdom out of Rehoboam's, the Son of Solomon's hand, and will give it to thee, even Ten Tribes. But with what face can you wreſt the Scripture thus, in ſaying, that the Peoples chuſing of Jeroboam, is more than once called a ſin, when both theſe Texts which you quote relates to the aforegoing Verſes, wherein 'tis 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 'tis 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 'tis 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 'tis much more reaſonable, that a King who breaks his Oath, and endeavours to overthrow the Government, and eſtabliſh an Idolatrous Religion (and by conſequence robbing God and the Nation of their Rights), ſhould forfeit his Right to the People. The Safety of the Body (that is the People) is to be valued before the Head, (which is the Chief Governour) becauſe it is an eaſie matter to get a Head to the Body, but not a Body to the Head.

4. The Law preſerves the King from Force and Violence, tho he ſhould not always make it the meaſure of his Power. It hath alſo more reſpect for the meer Inſtruments of his Arbitrary Will, than to treat them as Robbers and Banditi; otherwiſe a man would much rather chuſe to be the Lord Chief Iuſtice's Servant than the King's; becauſe the one can aſſure me, that his Commands are Law, when as the other (rather out of Ignorance of the Law than Malice) may unadviſedly engage me in thoſe Services which are not warranted by the Law.

The Law preſerves the People from Force and Violence as well as the King; but no Force or Violence hath been uſed to the late King James, tho ſome Law with Force has been uſed to ſome of his Inſtruments: And the Law of the Land, Nature, and Self-preſervation, will juſtifie us in what has been done. The Plea of Ignorance in matters of Law, is not allowed on in the meaneſt Subject the King has; and can the King plead Ignorance, when he hath a Learned Council, with Judges always to adviſe with?

5. If the People had made the Law the meaſure of their Priviledges, as well as King Charles the 1ſt did make them the meaſure of his Power, we might probably before this time have ſeen a good agreement between theſe Two Zealous Competitors. A little Paſſive Obedience in the buſineſs of the Ship-Money, would, I'm perſwaded, have done the Kingdom no harm in that Conjuncture.

King Charles the Firſt did not make the Law the meaſure • f his Power, when he raiſed the Ship-money, which was • ontrary to Law, and the people refuſing to ſubmit to it, • ade the Law the meaſure of their Priviledges; for they • ere bound by no Law to conſent to any thing the King • hould command contrary to Law, much leſs a Priviledge of • uch vaſt Importance, as the parting with their Money con • rary to Law.

6. Abſolute and unconditionate Obedience is, I grant, due • nly to God, who alone has abſolute Authority; and to the king no otherwiſe than as his Vicegerent, which Character • e doth not altogether loſe by the abuſe of his Power. 7. Inſomuch that they who reſiſt, do reſiſt not only the Vſurpations of men, but the Ordinance of God, though the perſon be a Claudius or a Nero.

A Vicegerent is one that is appointed, but God has no where appointed or commanded the World to be governed by Kings (though he permits them) therefore they are not God's Vicegerents; but they may be very properly called his Vicegerents whilſt they adminiſter Juſtice and Equity to every man: There is no Abſolute Authority given to Princes in Scripture, nor no Abſolute Subjection commanded to them beyond the Laws of the Country; and therefore Kings do loſe the Character of God's Vicegerents, when Guilty of a habit and conſtant tract of Arbitrarineſs and unreaſonable Actions contrary to the Laws of the Land. All Acts of Kings or Magiſtrates, contrary to the Law of God or Man, are no Legal Acts, but Uſurpations, therefore they are the Acts of private perſons, and we are no ways in Scripture commanded to obey ſuch Acts; therefore we may right our ſelves from all ſuch Unreaſonable and Tyrannical Uſurpations. We ought to Obey all Magiſtrates whilſt they keep up Rule, Order, and Government, letting the people live peaceable and quiet lives according to the Laws (which is the deſign of all Government) but inſtead of Executing wrath upon evil doers, (according to the Scripture) they become evil doers themſelves, endeavouring to make the people ſlaves to their Arbitrary Will and Pleaſure; in ſuch caſes they are not Magiſtrates according to Scripture or Law, and therefore it is lawful to ſecure our ſelves from ſuch deſigns; for as the King may with Law and Reaſon ſecure himſelf from the deſigns of all evil men, ſo may the People ſecure themſelves from the unlawful deſigns of any man or men whatſoever. Sir, you are pleaſed to make God the Author or Approver of the Uſurpations of men, which I abſolutely deny, and doubt not but I ſhall make it appear to the contrary: Rom. 12.17. Recompenſe no man evil for evil. If a man robs me, or ſets fire to my Houſe, I ought not to do the like to him, but right my ſelf by the Law; but if he ſhall endeavour to take away my life contrary to Law, 'tis no Evil, but an incumbent duty to defend it: Verſ. 18. If it be poſſible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. It is not poſſible we can live peaceably with thoſe who endeavour to deſtroy us, Ergo we may ſecure our ſelves from ſuch endeavours, and reduce ſuch men to peaceable lives: Verſ. 19. Dearly beloved, avenge us your ſelves, but rather give place unto wrath; That is, rather ſuffer by an unjuſt Law than reſiſt, though it be to a Heathen Prince. I would fain know where was the Abſolute Authority of Kings, when the Children of Iſrael received the Law from the Levitical Prieſthood, and whether thoſe Laws were not binding to the King as well as the People; and whether our Kings have an Abſolute Authority; if not, by what Scripture or Reaſon we may not ſecure our perſons, our Rights and Priviledges from the unlawful and unchriſtian Deſigns of the Prince?

8, 9, 10, 11. I object nothing againſt your eight and ninth Aphoriſms, no nor your tenth, if it be meant only of that Defence which one private perſon may make againſt another. But to your eleventh Maxim I can by no means aſſent; for if every man has the right of ſelf-preſervation as entire under Civil Government, as in a ſtate of Nature, what difference, I beſeech you, is there betwixt the one and the other ſtate? And why was Civil Government inſtituted and appointed by God? Surely for no other end, but that men ſhou'd not be their own Carvers, and involve the publick in thoſe miſeries, which inteſtine bro • les and quarrels wou'd daily produce. Though ſub • dinate Magiſtrates may be puniſhed for Acts of illegal Vio • nce, becauſe they are no part of their Office; yet as long as •• ey continue in Office, they are publick Miniſters, and ought 〈◊〉 be accounted as ſuch till for their crimes they ſhall be be • aded.

If the King himſelf has Authority to take away a mans •• ſe contrary to Law, then he can give this Authority to ten • houſand perſons (if he pleaſes) and then they wou'd be no • rivate perſons, becauſe they wou'd act by his Authority. • n a ſtate of Nature every man acts according to his Reaſon • n righting or preſerving himſelf; but every man hath more • ight of ſelf-preſervation in a Civil Government, than in a • ate of Nature, becauſe the Law allows of ſelf-preſervation, • nd puniſhes thoſe that endeavour to take away a man's life • ontrary to Law. If one meets me, and endeavours to take • way my life, and I muſt either die upon the ſpot, or defend • hy ſelf, in this caſe, if I kill him, it's no Murder; but if he • ills me, it is Murder. Civil Government was ſurely appointed by God and Man for no other end, but that men • hou'd live peaceable and quiet lives, and not that Magiſtrates ſhou'd be their own Carvers, and inſtead of protect • ng and governing the people (according to the Laws of the • and) deſtroy them.

12. This is right Common-wealth Rhetorick, they were Children of Belial (i. e. Maſterleſs perſons, as the word ſigni •• es) who ſaid, How ſhall this man ſave us, and they deſpiſed him, • 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. 'Tis 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 evildoers, 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 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 ('tis 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, 'tis 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 'twas 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 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, • nd leaving no Commiſſioner or Commiſſioners to officiate in • is ſtead; and throwing away the Seals of England, was no • 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) • 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, 'tis 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 Autho • ity at all but to live according to the Laws, whereas a King • s an Executor of the Laws. But you would fain ſet the King • bove the Laws, though 'tis certain the Laws are his Rule, • 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 • ith the 23 and 24 following, which yet I ſhall take notice of • n their places. As to the 19. I anſwer, Simnel and Warbeck • ad either of the Cheats ſucceeded, might properly have been cal • ed Counterfeit Kings; but a King who aſcends the Throne • 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, 'tis 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 prote •• 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 a • 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 • bey their Kings contrary to Law, God did puniſh them, • nd likewiſe their Kings by delivering them into the hands • f their Enemies, &c. Ezek 17. The King of Babylon made • he King of Jeruſalem's Son King of Jeruſalem (during his father's life, whom he had taken Captive with him) and • ade a Covenant with him, and took an Oath of him, Verſ. • 2, 13. The King of Jeruſalem broke this Covenant in • ending for Horſes and much people from Egypt, Verſ. 15. • ut Verſ. 16. the Lord does declare he ſhall die for breaking • he Covenant, which is called the King of Babylon's Cove • ant. What is breaking of a Covenant, but one's cancel • ng of the obligation to the other by the non-performance • n his ſide? 'Tis plain from hence, that the ſin lieth at his • oor who breaks the Covenant, and that it thereby becomes • s void to the other, as if never taken. Joſ. 2. The two • pies that were ſent by Joſhua to Jerico, ſwore to Rahab • hat ſhe and all her Father's houſe ſhould be ſaved alive, • erſ. 20. But if thou utter this our buſineſs, then we will be quit • f thine Oath which thou haſt made us to ſwear. What can be • nore plain, but that upon the Non-performance of an Oath • n one ſide, the other becomes void? Can any man believe • he Nation would have been ſo mad, as to have taken the Oath of Allegiance, if King James ſhould have refuſed to • ake the Coronation-Oath, which are mutual Ties of Faith • lneſs one to the other? What greater Nonſenſe can there be • han to ſay, That one man muſt be true to another, when he • ath broken his Oath, and endeavours to ruine or deſtroy • im? Certainly in this caſe his Oath is void, and his right • ng or defending and ſecuring himſelf, is no falſeneſs to the • ther, and the miſchief that in that caſe happens, is a ſin • o the Invader, not to him that endeavours to right him • elf; this is allowed on by the Laws of the Land and Nature. • 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 'tis 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 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. 'Tis not an reaſonable that an arbitrary King ſhould be dep ••• (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.

'Tis 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, 'tis 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. 'Tis 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 • 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; 'tis 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 • 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 Actions when King, • hey being freſh in every Man's Memory. Self-preſervation • s inherent to all Men, but it does not follow that a King who has • enounced his Throne, and abandoned the Kingdom, ſhould endeavour to re-eſtabliſh himſelf through a • ea of Blood, though the Government is provided with • nother Governour. What right hath a King to the Throne • ut from the People? If you can make out your Doctrine of Jure Divino, then you may lay Claim to ſuch Rights for your King James, as neither the Law or Reaſon does or can allow.

28. That God did originally Inſtitute Monarchy, I do ſay; but that we are Commanded to obey Kings excluſively to all other Government, doth not follow, and I do not maintain.

If God did Command or Appoint the World to be Governed by Kings, and that he hath not revok'd that Decree, then it does follow, that all other Government is ſinful, becauſe any thing contrary to the Appointment or Command of God is a Sin.

29, 30. We have very little Account of the World from the Creation to the Flood, but by what appears, we may ſafely conclude, that God then Governed his People by a Paternal Monarchical Authority; and afterwards Melchizedeck, Abraham, and the Patriarchs, were great Kings and Princes; Moſes was King of Jeſhurun; the Iudges were ſo many Monarchs for the time being, and ſo all along the Jews were under a Monarchical Government, and therefore it was their Fault to deſire a King after the manner of the Nations, when they already had ſuch a Regal Government as God thought fit to appoint. Nimrod is not the firſt Monarch, but the firſt mighty Hunter (or cruel Tyrant) we meet with in Scripture: but conſider I pray, whether the Dominion which God gave unto Adam did not make him the firſt and greateſt Monarch upon Earth; and if ſo, this makes not a little for the Jure Divino Doctrine, (which term of Art yet I proſeſs my ſelf not to be in love with:) Doth not God himſelf tell us, That by him Kings reign? doth he not ſay of David, He hath exalted one choſen out of (not by▪) the People? doth he not call Cyrus (an Heathen King) his Anointed? and are we not told what horrid Wickedneſs was committed when there was no King in Iſrael? All theſe things ſhew that Monarchy is from God, and that there were Kings in the World before Nimrod; unleſs you underſtand by Kings only ſuch wicked Perſons as he was, (as you ſeem to do:) But yet though this be true, yet 'tis 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 'tis 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 'tis certain there is not the leaſt Intimation thereof in Scripture. Melchiſedeck was a Type of Chriſt, being both King and Prieſt, he was King of Righteouſneſs, and King of Salem, which is King of Peace, without Father or Mother having neither beginning of Dayes nor end of Life, Heb. 7.2, 3. He was a Sovereign King and High Prieſt of the Church, and ſuch was Chriſt, not uſing Authority like unto worldly Kings. Deut. 34.10. ſpeaking of Moſes, There aroſe not a Prophet ſince in Iſrael, whom the Lord knew face to face; he being a very Holy Man, and ſuch a ſingular Prophet, and whom the Lord had ſuch a reſpect for that he buried him Himſelf, Ver. 6. therefore it may with Reaſon be concluded that God gave him an Honour above other Prophets by making him a King, and likewiſe Milchiſedeck • as a Type of Chriſt: But theſe Kings did not act by their own Will, but by the Will and Appointment of Almighty God: We read of no other King or Kings over the Children of Iſrael, 'till they deſired a King. Iſa. 44.28. & 45.1. Thus ſaith the Lord to his Anointed Cyrus, he is my Shepherd, and ſhall perform all my pleaſure, whoſe right hand I have holden to ſubdue Nations before him: But doth God call any other Heathen Kings his Anointed, of which there was a great Number during the time of the Children of Iſrael? Was not St. Paul by the appointment of the Almighty one of the chief of the Apoſtles, though he had been a violent Perſecutor? And it may very well be thought that God by a particular Providence cauſed Cyrus to be made King, by whom he deſign'd to ſubdue Nations, and therefore may be very properly called his Choſen or Anointed, for in the firſt Year of his Reign he made a Decree to build the Houſe of God, &c. Ezra 5.13, 14. I do once more affirm, that Nimrod is the firſt King mentioned in Scripture, Gen. 10.9. Deut. 16.18, 19. The Children of Iſrael are commanded to make Judges and Officers throughout their Tribes, (of which they had Twelve, Gen. 49.28. Mat. 19.28. which were Societies,) And they ſhall Judge the People with juſt Judgment, not wreſting Judgment or reſpecting Perſons: This was the Government that God had appointed over the Children of Iſrael, which was by Judges and Prophets, not by Kings: But ſuppoſe theſe Judges were Kings, according to your Aſſertion, it follows, that the People have right to Elect their Kings by Divine Appointment. This makes not a little againſt the preſent pretended Jure Divino Doctrine; yet 'tis certain that there was many Kings by Divine Appointment in the time of the Children of Iſrael, but that they are ſo now, I do abſolutely deny. Pray Sir examine this Paragraph well, for I do poſitively charge you with Wreſting the Scriptures, and making very falſe Aſſertions: I require you to prove that Kings are by the Command or Appointment of Almighty God, which done, I'le prove ſuch Government to be neceſſary, and that all others are ſinful.

31. Some ſort of Allegiance is due to hint from whom we receive Protection; that it is the only Foundation of Allegiance, I do again deny.

The Coronation Oath, and Oath of Allegiance, are mutual Ties of Protection, and of Obedience to the Laws; the King to obey the Laws in Adminiſtration of Juſtice, and the People to obey the Laws in being Paſſive to them. It is impoſſible for a King to Govern with that Juſtice and Equity, but he will have ſome Enemies; and if the People do not protect him, how can he be ſafe in his Throne? There is a Natural Allegiance due to all Men, that is, from one Man to another; and there is a Political Allegiance due to the King for protecting me in my Civil Rights, &c. and this is the only Cauſe and Foundation of Allegiance, to which I have ſpoken more large in the 20, and 21, Replyes.

32. The Law indeed Indemnities the People for Obeying an Vſurper, (or a King only de Facto) but this ſuppoſes a Fault which without this Law was ſeverely puniſhable; beſides, it doth not ſay that they ſhall aſſiſt the King de Facto in his Warrs, &c. but only take care to ſecure them if they do ſo.

What Fault can there be ſuppoſed in Obeying or Aſſiſting an Uſurper or King de Facto, when the Law does not Puniſh, but allows of ſuch Obedience and Aſſiſtance. Treaſon cannot be committed againſt a King out of Poſſeſſion of the Throne, but it is Treaſon to be aiding or aſſiſting towards his Reſtoration, which is Conſpiring againſt the King de Facto: And as long as a King in Poſſeſſion (tho not by regular deſcent) governs according to the Laws of the Land, he ought to be aſſiſted, and may require his Subjects Aſſiſtance in his Warrs. After all the Clamour and Noiſe that hath been made about the Obligation of the Oath of Allegiance, it appears by this that it is only Conditional, and that it is diſſolved whenever the King ceaſes to Govern or Reign.

33. As for your Aphoriſm the Safety of the People, &c. I do not diſpute the truth of it. But whether the Way to obſerve this ſupream Law, be, to violate the Right of Succeſſion, I do, and ſo will you, I believe, upon ſecond thoughts very much queſtion.

The Divine Law is the ſame in one Countrey as in another. I would fain know whether the Law that is made in France, That no Woman ſhall Inherit the Throne, and the turning out the King of Portugal, and ſetting up his younger Brother, who was more fit to govern, (and many like Inſtances might be given) be againſt this Divine Law; and whether or no England for its Security may not exclude the next Heir to the Crown, or turn out He that ſhall be upon the Throne, who are uncapable, or will not govern according to the Laws of the Land. I do affirm, that there is no other Right of Succeſſion than what proceeded from the People, and that this was given to the King for the time being, and to his Heirs, upon Condition that He and they ſhould Govern according to the Laws and Cuſtoms of the Countrey; elſe to what purpoſe was theſe Rules and Bounds of Government given, but that he ſhould be obliged to govern according to them, and not according to his Will and Pleaſure? What an Eſſay would it be upon our Reaſon, to think that our Anceſtors who made Kings, were ſuch Fools or Mad Men, as not to reſerve to themſelves a Power of turning them out if they endeavour'd to deſtroy them, or act contrary to thoſe Rules they had ſet them: If they had no ſuch Intention or Reſerve, yet it follows they had ſuch Power, and that it ſtill remains; becauſe there neither was, • or is any Law to the contrary, and this has been ſeveral times Executed, as may be ſeen in the 18, and 19, Reply.

34. The Kings of England (as all other Kings) came to their Crowns by Divine Appointment, and are only recognized or received to their Rights by the People. The Prerogatives and Authorities of the Crown are given to the King for the time being, only to prevent what Miſchiefs might otherwiſe enſure to the Community.

Sir, You are pleaſed to take no Notice of the latter Part of my 29th. Query, which is as diſtinct a Head as any one, and begins at the ending of a full Point, thô not in a Break like the reſt, which being very proper, in Anſwer to this Aſſertion of yours, I ſhall here inſert it, viz. If Kings are by Divine Appointment, is it not rational to believe that God would have commanded all the World to have been Govern'd by Kings, or at leaſt the Chriſtian World; and have given them a Law to Govern by? The Prerogatives and Authorities of the Crown are nothing but the bounds and ſupports of the Regal Authority, and are given to the King for the time being; but if he exceeds thoſe Bounds, it is no Prerogative or Authority, and then moſt certain the People who gave him his Authority has Authority to take it away. Now I would fain know what your Jure Divino King would ſignifie, (more than a ſtalking Horſe) when his Prerogatives and Authorities are taken from him, (for you allow them to be in the People) for I am ſure this is the only way to prevent the Miſchiefs which would otherwiſe enſue to the Community from a falſe and deſtructive Governour. It cannot be proved that there hath been a King by Divine Appointment for theſe many Ages laſt paſt: If they were by Divine Appointment, then they would be ſet up by the immediate Appointment of Almighty God, as over the Children of Iſrael; or elſe the Scripture would have ſaid, that their Iſſue ſhould be Kings, (and then you muſt prove a right Line from that Iſſue, which is impoſſible to beproved) or that the World ſhould be Govern'd by Kings. Since God Almighty hath no where Commanded or appointed the World to be Govern'd by Kings, it abſolutely follows, That it is the Peoples Right to chooſe their Kings and Governours; and then what greater Nonſenſe can there be, than to affirm the People hath not Right to Puniſh their Kings, by turning them out of the Throne for not Adminiſtring of Juſtice!

35. In the firſt Ages of Chriſtianity, the Right of Succeſſion was not a ſettled Title to the Empire, neither were the Chriſtians of that time bound by Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; And this is the reaſon moſt probably why our Saviour and his Apoſtles only warn'd them in general to Obey the Emperours who were then in Power, without enquiring into their Right and Title.

Although in the firſt Ages of Chriſtianity the Roman Emperours were ſeldom by a Hereditary Right, and the Chriſtians were not bound to them by Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, yet the Commands of our Saviour and his Apoſtles for their Obedience to thoſe Heathen Princes, under the Pain of Damnation, was more binding than any Oath thoſe Princes could have required of them.

36. As for your Challenge, I do undertake to prove the Doctrine of Paſſive Obedience, and Vnlawfulneſs of Depoſing of Kings, 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 Ʋſurpations of Men, but the Ordinance of God, thô • 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 Ʋnconditionate 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 'tis 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.