ministration in the husband, than in the wife. 1. Because a man, by nature, education, and experience, is generally rendered more capable to govern, than the woman; therefore, 2. The husband ought rather to rule the wife, than the wife the husband, especially con. sidering the vow in matrimony. 3. The Prince of Orange is not more proper to govern, as he is man and husband only, but as he is a man, a husband, and a prince of known honour, profound wisdom, undaunted courage, and incomparable merit; as he is a person that is naturally inclined to be just, merciful, and peaceable, and to do all publick acts of generosity for the advancement of the interest and happiness of human societies, and therefore most fit, under heaven, to have the sole executive power. THE DOCTRINE OF PASSIVE OBEDIENCE, AND OBEDIENCE TO THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT PROVED, FROM SCRIPTURE, LAW, AND REASON. Written for the satisfaction of all who are dissatisfied at the present Government, BY A LAYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. London, printed for Randal Taylor, near Stationers-Hall, 1689. Folio, containing two pages. GOD by no word binds any people to this, or that form of govern ment, till they by their own act bind themselves. None ought to advance the greatness of his sovereign, with the publick detriment. The end of magistracy is the good of the whole body, head and members conjunctly; but, if we speak divisim, then the good of the society is the ultimate end; and, next to that, as conducent to that, the governor's greatness and prerogative. The measure of our government is acknowledged to be by law; and therefore the king cannot confer authority to any beyond law; so that those agents, deriving no authority from him, are mere instruments of his will, unauthorised persons, in their assaults, robbers. King Charles the First's declaration at Newmarket, 1641, says, that the law is the measure of his power. venants, but much more that, which hath the obligation of an oath to bind it. I ask, whether it is not as reasonable, a king conspiring the ruin and destruction of his people, by breaking his oath or contract, and destroying the very foundation of government, and in lieu thereof bringing in popery and slavery, as the late King James did, he should forfeit and lose the right of governing, as that the people conspiring against him should suffer death? I ask, whether the authority which is inherent in our kings be boundless and absolute, or limited and determined? So that the acts which they do, or command to be done, without that compass and bounds, be not only sinful in themselves, but invalid, and not autho ritative to others. The word loyal comes from the French word la loi, which is to be legal, or true to the laws of the land; and, on the contrary, he that obeys the commands of his prince, contrary to the laws of the land, is so far from being loyal, that he is an illegal person, and a betrayer of the known laws of his country, Passive obedience is popery established by law, whenever the prince shall please, and by consequence slavery; whereas the subjects of England never were slaves in any particular, nor ever would be in the darkest times of popery. I ask, where was the doctrine of passive obedience, when Queen Elisabeth assisted the Hollanders against their lawful sovereign the King of Spain, and when she assisted the Protestants of France at a vast charge, in the reigns of Charles the Ninth, and Henry the Third, and in King Charles the First's reign, the expedition of Rochel was carried on by king and parliament, and cordially agreed to by the fathers of our church, and yet the Protestants of France could never pretend to any such privileges as England can justly claim? The late King James's life has been but one continued and formed conspiracy against our religion, laws, rights, and privileges; and what can be expected from such a prince, who is a Romanist, and has vio lated his oath before God and man, and endeavours to re-establish himself with the sword, by the assistance of one of the greatest tyrants that ever the world produced? It cannot be proved that monarchy was originally instituted by God Almighty, or that we are commanded to obey kings, exclusively to all other government, I ask, where was there such a thing as a king for the first sixteen hundred years and upwards, which is to the deluge, or for several hundred years after it? The first king, at least the first mentioned in holy writ, is Nimrod, of the posterity of Cham, who began his king. dom in the second century after the flood; whose kingdom was foun ded by force and violence; so that the very foundation of monarchy seems to be laid from this person, which makes but little for jure di vino. If kings are by divine appointment, is it not rational to believe that God would have commanded all the world to have been governed by kings, or at least the christian world, and have given them a particular law to govern by? If monarchy be jure divino, then all other government is sinful. Allegiance is due to him from whom we receive protection. This is allowed on by all the world; else why do men, after having sworn allegiance to their native prince, and going into another country, swear allegiance to the prince thereof? Allegiance is due to a king in possession, who is called a king de facto, and treason may be committed against him, as well as against a king by regular descent; and yet, by the law, treason cannot be committed against the rightful heir, who is called a king de jure, who is out of possession of the crown, and all judicial and poli tical acts, done by a king de facto, are as valid and obligatory, as if they had been done by a rightful king, in actual possession of the throne. Whereas, on the contrary, all such acts done by a king de jure, who is not in possession of the crown, are totally void. In like manner, the law prefers the peace and order of the polity, before the particular rights of the king himself; and the great end of the regal authority, and of the law itself, is the quiet and prosperity of the commonwealth. It is an acknowledged aphorism, that the safety of the people is the supreme law, and therefore to be preferred before titles to suc. cession. The succession of the crown of England is not by divine right, but by political institution; and all the prerogatives and authorities of the crown belong to the successor de facto, and not to the heir de jure, or ex ordine, being out of possession; and that allegiance is due in such case to the former, and not to the latter. All the proofs that are brought out of the gospel, for obedience to princes, do confirm this maxim of our law; for neither our Sa. viour or his apostles bid christians enquire into the right and title of the Roman emperors, but obey them, under what government, it was their lot to fall, for few of them could pretend a legal title to the crown. I challenge all the passive obedience and jure divino men in En. gland, nay in the whole world, to answer these assertions and propo. sitions, and prove the doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino, by scripture, law, or reason. When these are proved, I dare be bold to affirm the nation will send for the late King James, and submit to his yoke, and lay down their necks upon the block, and stand to the mercy of the French and Irish dragoons, to cut their throats. I conjure all the dissatisfied persons, in their majesty's dominions, to be satisfied with these assertions and propositions, or to answer them, and shew sound reason for their dissent from the present go. vernment; for a wilful schism in the state is a sin, and he that endeavours to sow dissensions amongst the people, and to draw their majesties subjects, from their true allegiance, is guilty of a double sin, venants, but much more that, which hath the obligation of an oath to bind it. I ask, whether it is not as reasonable, a king conspiring the ruin and destruction of his people, by breaking his oath or contract, and destroying the very foundation of government, and in lieu thereof bringing in popery and slavery, as the late King James did, he should forfeit and lose the right of governing, as that the people con. spiring against him should suffer death? I ask, whether the authority which is inherent in our kings be boundless and absolute, or limited and determined? So that the acts which they do, or command to be done, without that compass and bounds, be not only sinful in themselves, but invalid, and not autho ritative to others. The word loyal comes from the French word la loi, which is to be legal, or true to the laws of the land; and, on the contrary, he that obeys the commands of his prince, contrary to the laws of the land, is so far from being loyal, that he is an illegal person, and a betrayer of the known laws of his country, Passive obedience is popery established by law, whenever the prince shall please, and by consequence slavery; whereas the subjects of England never were slaves in any particular, nor ever would be in the darkest times of popery. I ask, where was the doctrine of passive obedience, when Queen Elisabeth assisted the Hollanders against their lawful sovereign the King of Spain, and when she assisted the Protestants of France at a vast charge, in the reigns of Charles the Ninth, and Henry the Third, and in King Charles the First's reign, the expedition of Ro. chel was carried on by king and parliament, and cordially agreed to by the fathers of our church, and yet the Protestants of France could never pretend to any such privileges as England can justly claim? The late King James's life has been but one continued and formed conspiracy against our religion, laws, rights, and privileges; and what can be expected from such a prince, who is a Romanist, and has vio lated his oath before God and man, and endeavours to re-establish himself with the sword, by the assistance of one of the greatest tyrants that ever the world produced? It cannot be proved that monarchy was originally instituted by God Almighty, or that we are commanded to obey kings, exclusively to all other government, I ask, where was there such a thing as a king for the first sixteen hundred years and upwards, which is to the deluge, or for several hundred years after it? The first king, at least the first mentioned in holy writ, is Nimrod, of the posterity of Cham, who began his king, dom in the second century after the flood; whose kingdom was foun ded by force and violence; so that the very foundation of monarchy seems to be laid from this person, which makes but little for jure dis vino. If kings are by divine appointment, is it not rational to believe that God would have commanded all the world to have been governed by kings, or at least the christian world, and have given them a particular law to govern by? If monarchy be jure divino, then all other government is sinful. Allegiance is due to him from whom we receive protection. This is allowed on by all the world; else why do men, after having sworn allegiance to their native prince, and going into another country, swear allegiance to the prince thereof? Allegiance is due to a king in possession, who is called a king de facto, and treason may be committed against him, as well as against a king by regular descent; and yet, by the law, treason cannot be committed against the rightful heir, who is called a king de jure, who is out of possession of the crown, and all judicial and poli tical acts, done by a king de facto, are as valid and obligatory, as if they had been done by a rightful king, in actual possession of the throne. Whereas, on the contrary, all such acts done by a king de jure, who is not in possession of the crown, are totally void. In like manner, the law prefers the peace and order of the polity, before the particular rights of the king himself; and the great end of the regal authority, and of the law itself, is the quiet and pros perity of the commonwealth. It is an acknowledged aphorism, that the safety of the people is the supreme law, and therefore to be preferred before titles to suc cession. The succession of the crown of England is not by divine right, but by political institution; and all the prerogatives and authorities of the crown belong to the successor de facto, and not to the heir de jure, or ex ordine, being out of possession; and that allegiance is due in such case to the former, and not to the latter. All the proofs that are brought out of the gospel, for obedience to princes, do confirm this maxim of our law; for neither our Sa viour or his apostles bid christians enquire into the right and title of the Roman emperors, but obey them, under what government, it was their lot to fall, for few of them could pretend a legal title to the crown. I challenge all the passive obedience and jure divino men in En. gland, nay in the whole world, to answer these assertions and propositions, and prove the doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino, by scripture, law, or reason. When these are proved, I dare be bold to affirm the nation will send for the late King James, and submit to his yoke, and lay down their necks upon the block, and stand to the mercy of the French and Irish dragoons, to cut their throats. I conjure all the dissatisfied persons, in their majesty's dominions, to be satisfied with these assertions and propositions, or to answer them, and shew sound reason for their dissent from the present go. vernment; for a wilful schism in the state is a sin, and he that en deavours to sow dissensions amongst the people, and to draw their majesties subjects, from their true allegiance, is guilty of a double sin, |