Defense of the People of England, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
PErhaps you think, Salmaſius, that you have done enough to ingratiate your ſelf with Princes; that you have deſerved well of 'em; but if they conſider their own Intereſt, and take their meaſures according to what it really is, not according to the falſe Gloſs that your flatteries have put upon it, there never was any man in the world that deſerv'd ſo ill of 'em as you, none more deſtructive and pernicious to them and their intereſt in the whole world than your ſelf. For by exalting the Power of Kings above all Humane Laws, you tell all mankind that are ſubject to ſuch a Government, that they are no better than ſlaves, and make them but the more deſirous of Liberty by diſcovering to them their error, and putting that into their heads that they never ſo much as dreamt of before, to wit, that they are ſlaves to their Princes. And without doubt ſuch a ſort of Government will be more irkſome and unſuff…rable, by how much the more you perſwade the world, that it is not by the allowance and ſubmiſſion of Nations, that Kings have obtained this exorbitant power, but that it is abſolutely eſſential to ſuch a form of Government, and of the nature of the thing it ſelf. So that whether you make the world of your mind, or no, your Doctrine muſt needs be miſchievous and deſtructive, and ſuch as cannot but be abhorred of all Princes. For if you ſhould work men into a perſwaſion that the Right of Kings is without all bounds, they would no longer be ſubject to a Kingly Government; if you miſs of your aim, yet you make men weary of Kings, by telling them that they aſſume ſuch a power to themſelves, as of right belonging to them. But if Princes will allow of thoſe Principles that I aſſert; if they will ſuffer themſelves and their own power to be circumſcribed by Laws, inſtead of an uncertain, weak and violent Government, full of cares and fears, they will reign peaceably, quietly, and ſecurely. If they ſlight this counſel of mine, though wholſome in its ſelf, becauſe of the meanneſs of the Author, they ſhall know that it is not my counſel only, but what was anciently adviſed by one of the wiſeſt of Kings. For Lycurgus King of Lacedemon, when he obſerved that his own Relations that were Princes of Argos and Meſſana, by endeavouring to introduce an Arbitrary Government, had ruin'd themſelves and their people; he, that he might benefit his Countrey, and ſecure the Succeſſion to his own Family, could think upon no better expedient, than to communicate his Power to the Senate, and taking the great men of the Realm into part of the Government with himſelf; and by this means the Crown continued in his Family for many ages: But whether it was Lycurgus, or, as ſome learned men are of opinion, Theopompus, that introduced that mixt form of Government among the Lacedemonians, ſomewhat more than a hundred years after Lycurgus his time, (of whom it is recorded, That he uſed to boaſt, that by advancing the Power of the Senate above that of the Prince, he had ſetled the Kingdom upon a ſure Foundation, and was like to leave it in a laſting and durable condition to his Poſterity); which of them ſoever it was, I ſay, he has left a good Example to Modern Princes; and was as creditable a Councellor, as his Counſel was ſafe: For that all men ſhould ſubmit to any one man, ſo as to acknowledge a Power in him ſuperior to all humane Laws, neither did any Law ever Enact, nor indeed was it poſſible that any ſuch Law ſhould ever be; for that cannot be ſaid to be a Law, that ſtrikes at the root of all Laws, and takes them quite away. It being apparent that your Poſitions are inconſiſtent with the nature of all Laws, being ſuch as render them no Laws at all. You endeavour notwithſtanding, in this Fourth Chapter, to make good by Examples, what you have not yet been able to do by any Reaſons that you have alledged as yet. Let's conſider whether your Examples help your Cauſe; for they many times make things plain, which the Laws are either altogether ſilent in, or do but hint at. We'll begin firſt with the Jews, whom we ſuppoſe to have known moſt of the mind of God; and then, according to your own method, we'll come to the times of Chriſtianity. And firſt, for thoſe times in which the Iſraelites being ſubject to Kings, who, or howſoever they were, did their utmoſt to caſt that flaviſh yoke from off their necks. Eglon the King of Moab had made a Conqueſt of them; the Seat of his Empire was at Jericho; he was no contemner of the True God; when his Name was mentioned, he roſe from his Seat: The Iſraelites had ſerved him Eighteen Years; they ſent a preſent to him, not as to an Enemy, but to their own Prince; notwithſtanding which outward Veneration and Profeſſion of Subjection, they kill him by a wile, as an Enemy to their Countrey. You'l ſay perhaps, that Ehud, who did that action, had a Warrant from God for ſo doing. He had ſo, 'tis like; and what greater Argument of its being a warrantable and praiſe-worthy action? God uſeth not to put men upon things that are unjuſt, treacherous and cruel, but upon ſuch things as are virtuous and laudable. But we read no where that there was any poſitive Command from Heaven in the caſe. The Iſraelites called upon God; So did we: And God ſtirred up a Saviour for them; ſo he did for us: Eglon of a Neighbouring Prince became a Prince of the Jews; of an Enemy to them he became their King: Our Gentleman, of an Engliſh King became an Enemy to the Engliſh Nation; ſo that he ceas'd to be a King: Thoſe Capacities are inconſiſtent: No man can be a Member of a State, and an Enemy to it at the ſame time. Antony was never lookt upon by the Romans as a Conſul, nor Nero as an Emperor, after the Senate had voted them both Enemies. This Cicero tells us in his Fourth Philippick: If Antony be a Conſul, ſays he, Brutus is an Enemy; but if Brutus be a Saviour and Preſerver of the Commonwealth, Antony is an Enemy: none but robbers count him a Conſul. By the ſame reaſon, ſay I, who but Enemies to their Countrey look upon a Tyrant as a King? So that Eglon's being a Foreigner, and King Charles a Prince of our own, will make no difference in the caſe; both being Enemies, and both Tyrants, they are in the ſame circumſtances. If Ehud kill'd him juſtly, we have done ſo too in putting our King to Death. Sampſon that Renowned Champion of the Hebrews, tho his Countrey-men blam'd him for it, Doſt thou not know, ſay they, that the Philiſtines have dominion over us? yet againſt thoſe Philiſtines, under whoſe Dominion he was, he himſelf undertook a War in his own perſon, without any other help; and whether he acted in purſuance of a Command from Heaven, or was prompted by his own Valour only; or whatever inducement ſoever he had, he did not put to death one, but many that tyranized over his Countrey, having firſt called upon God by Prayer, and implored his Aſſiſtance: So that Sampſon counted it no act of Impiety, but quite contrary, to kill thoſe that enſlaved his Countrey, 'tho they had dominion over himſelf too; and tho the greater part of his Countrey-men ſubmitted to their Tyranny. But yet David who was both a King and a Prophet, would not take away Saul's life, becauſe he was God's Anointed. Does it follow that becauſe David refuſed to do a thing, therefore we are obliged not to do that very thing? David was a private perſon, and would not kill the King; is that a preſident for a Parliament, for a whole Nation? David would not revenge his own quarrel, by putting his Enemy to death by ſtealth; does it follow that therefore the Magiſtrates muſt not puniſh a Malefactor according to Law? He would not kill a King; muſt not an Aſſembly of the States therefore puniſh a Tyrant? He ſcrupled the killing of God's Anointed; muſt the People therefore ſcruple to condemn their own Anointed? Eſpecially one that after having ſo long profeſſed Hoſtility againſt his own people, had waſh'd off that anointing of his, whether Sacred or Civil, with the Blood of his own Subjects. I confeſs that thoſe Kings whom God by his Prophets anointed to be Kings, or appointed to ſome ſpecial ſervice, as he did Cyrus, Iſa. 44. may not improperly be called the Lord's Anointed; but all other Princes, according to the ſeveral ways of their coming to the Government, are the People's Anointed, or the Army's, or many times the Anointed of their own Faction only. But taking it for granted, That all Kings are God's Anointed, you can never prove, That therefore they are above all Laws, and not to be called in queſtion, what Villanies ſoever they commit. What if David laid a charge upon himſelf and other private perſons not to ſtretch forth their hands againſt the Lord's Anointed? Does not God himſelf command Princes not ſo much as to touch his anointed? Which were no other than his people, Pſal. 105. He preferred that Anointing wherewith his People were Anointed, before that of Kings, if any ſuch thing were. Would any man offer to infer from this place of the Pſalmiſt, That Believers are not to be called in queſtion, tho they offend againſt the Laws, becauſe God commands Princes not to touch his Anointed? King Solomon was about to put to death Abiathar the Prieſt, tho he were God's Anointed too; and did not ſpare him becauſe of his Anointing, but becauſe he had been his Father's Friend. If that Sacred and Civil Anointing, wherewith the High-Prieſt of the Jews was anointed, whereby he was not only conſtituted High-Prieſt, but a Temporal Magiſtrate in many caſes, did not exempt him from the Penalty of the Laws, how comes a Civil Anointing only to exempt a Tyrant? But you ſay, Saul was a Tyrant, and worthy of death: What then? It does not follow, that becauſe he deſerved it, that David in the circumſtances he was then under, had power to put him to death without the People's Authority, or the command of the Magiſtracy. But was Saul a Tyrant? I wiſh you would ſay ſo; indeed you do ſo, though you had ſaid before in your Second Book, page 32. That he was no Tyrant, but a good King, and choſen of God. Why ſhould falſe Accuſers, and Men guilty of Forgery be branded, and you eſcape without the like ignominious Mark? For they practice their Villanies with leſs Treachery and Deceit than you write, and Treat of matters of the greateſt moment. Saul was a good King, when it ſerv'd your turn to have him ſo, and now he's a Tyrant, becauſe it ſuits with your preſent purpoſe. But 'tis no wonder that you make a Tyrant of a good King; for your Principles look as if they were invented for no other deſign, than to make all good Kings ſo. But yet David, tho he would not put to Death his Father-in-Law, for Cauſes and Reaſons that we have nothing to do withal, yet in his own Defence he raiſed an Army, took and poſſeſſed Cities that belong'd to Saul, and would have defended K…ilah againſt the King's Forces, had he not underſtood that the Citizens would be falſe to him. Suppoſe Saul had beſieged the Town, and himſelf had been the firſt that had ſcal'd the Walls; do you think David would preſently have thrown down his Arms, and have betray'd all thoſe that aſſiſted him to his anointed Enemy? I believe not. What reaſon have we to think David would have ſtuck to do what we have done, who when his Occaſions and Circumſtances ſo required, proffered his Aſſiſtance to the Philiſtines, who were then the profeſſed Enemies of his Country, and did that againſt Saul, which I am ſure we ſhould never have done againſt our Tyrant. I'm weary of mentioning your Lies, and aſham'd of them. You ſay, tis a Maxim of the Engliſh, That Enemies are rather to be ſpared than Friends; and that therefore we conceived we ought not to ſpare our King's Life, becauſe he had been our Friend. You impudent Lyar, what Mortal ever heard this Whimſy before you invented it? But we'll excuſe it. You could not bring in that threadbare Flouriſh, of our being more fierce than our own Maſtiffs (which now comes in the fifth time, and will as oft again before we come to the end of your Book) without ſome ſuch Introduction. We are not ſo much more fierce than our own Maſtiffs, as you are more hungry than any Dog whaſoever, who return ſo greedily to what you have vomitted up ſo often. Then you tell us, That David commanded the Amalekite to be put to Death, who pretended to havē killed Saul. But that Inſtance, neither in reſpect of the Fact, nor the Perſon, has any Affinity with what we are diſcourſing of. I do not well underſtand what cauſe David had to be ſo ſevere upupon that Man, for pretending to have haſtned the King's Death, and in effect but to have put him out of his pain, when he was dying; unleſs it were to take away from the Iſraelites all Suſpicion of his own having been inſtrumental in it, whom they might look upon as one that had revolted to the Philiſtines, and was part of their Army. Juſt ſuch another Action as this of David's, do all Men blame in Domitian, who put to Death Epaphroditus, becauſe he had helped Nero to kill himſelf. After all this, as another inſtance of your Impudence, you call him not only the anointed of the Lord, but the Lord's Chriſt, who a little before you had ſaid was a Tyrant, and acted by the impulſe of ſome Evil Spirit. Such mean thoughts you have of that Reverend Name, that you are not aſham'd to give it to a Tyrant, whom you your ſelf confess to have been poſſeſſed with the Devil. Now I come to that Preſident, from which every Man that is not blind muſt needs infer the Right of the People to be Superior to that of Kings. When Solomon was dead, the People Aſſembled themſelves at Sichem to make Rehoboam King. Thither himſelf went, as one that ſtood for the place, that he might not ſeem to claim the Succeſſion as his Inheritance; the ſame Right over a freeborn People, that every Man has over his Fathers Sheep and Oxen. The People propoſe Conditions, upon which they were willing to admit him to the Government. He deſires three days time to adviſe; he conſults with the old Men; they tell him no ſuch thing, as that he had an abſolute Right to ſucceed, but perſuade him to comply with the People, and ſpeak them fair, it being in their Power whether he ſhould Reign or not. Then he adviſeth with the young Men that were brought up-with him; they, as if Salmaſius's Phrenſy had taken them, thunder this Right of Kings into his Ears; perſuade him to threaten the People with Whips and Scorpions: And he anſwered the People as they adviſed him. When all Iſrael ſaw that the King hearkned not to them, then they openly proteſt the Right of the People, and their own Liberty; What portion have we in David? To thy tents, O Iſrael: now look to thine own houſe, David. When the King ſent Adoram to them, they ſtoned him with Stones, and perhaps they would not have ſtuck to have ſerv'd the King himſelf ſo, but he made haſte and got out of the way. The next News is of a great Army rais'd by Rehoboam to reduce the Iſraelites to their Allegiance. God forbids him to proceed, Go not up, ſays he, to war againſt your brethren the children of Iſrael; for this thing is of me. Now conſider; heretofore the People had deſired a King; God was diſpleaſed with them for it, but yet permitted them to make a King, according to that Right that all Nations have to appoint their own Governors. Now the People reject Rehoboam from ruling them; and this God not only ſuffers them to do, but forbids Rehoboam to make War againſt them for it, and ſtops him in his undertaking; and teaches him withal, that thoſe that had Revolted from him, were not Rebels in ſo doing; but that he ought to look upon them as Brethren. Now recollect your ſelf: You ſay that all Kings are of God, and that therefore the People ought not to reſiſt them, be they never ſuch Tyrants. I anſwer you, The Convention of the People, their Votes, their Acts, are likewiſe of God; and that by the Teſtimony of God himſelf in this place; and conſequently according to your Argument, by the Authority of God himſelf, Princes ought not to reſiſt the People. For as certain as it is, that Kings are of God; and whatever Argument you may draw from thence to enforce a Subjection and Obedience to them: So certain is it, that free Aſſemblies of the Body of the People, are of God, and that naturally affords the ſame Argument for their Right of reſtraining Princes from going beyond their Bounds, and rejecting them if there be occaſion; nor is their ſo doing a juſtifiable Cauſe of War, any more than the People of Iſrael's rejecting Rehoboam was. You ask, why the People did not revolt from Solomon? Who but you would ask ſuch an impertinent Queſtion? You ſee they did revolt from a Tyrant, and were neither puniſhed, nor blam'd for it. It is true, Solomon fell into ſome Vices, but he was not therefore a Tyrant; he made amends for his Vices by many excellent Virtues that he was famous for, by many Benefits which accrued to the Nation of the Jews by his Government. But admit that he had been a Tyrant: Many times the Circumſtances of a Nation are ſuch, that the People will not, and many times ſuch, that they cannot depoſe a Tyrant. You ſee they did it when it was in their Power. But, ſay you, Jeroboam's Act was ever had in Deteſtation; 'twas looked upon as an unjuſt revolt from a lawful Prince; he and his Succſſors were accounted Rebels. I confeſs we find his Revolt from the true Worſhip of God often found fault with; but I no where find him blam'd for revolting from Rehoboam; and his Successors are frequently spoken of as wicked Princes, but not as Rebels. Acting contrary to Law and Right, ſay you, cannot introduce, or eſtabliſh a Right: I pray, what becomes then of your Right of Kings? Thus do you perpetually baſtle your ſelf. You ſay, Adulteries, Murders, Thefts are daily committed with impunity. Are you not aware, that here you give an Anſwer to your own Queſtion, how it comes to paſs, that Tyrants do ſo often eſcape unpuniſhed? You ſay, Thoſe Kings were Rebels, and yet the Prophets do no where diſſwade the People from their Allegiance. And why do you, ye Raſcally falſe Prophet, endeavour to perſuade the People of England not to yield Obedience to their preſent Magiſtrates, tho in your Opinion they are Rebels. This Engliſh Faction of Robbers, ſay you, alledge for themſelves, that by ſome immediate Voice from Heaven, they were put upon their bloody Enterprize. It is notoriouſly evident, that you were diſtracted when you wrote theſe Lines; for as you have put the words together, they are neither Latin, nor Senſe. And that the Engliſh pretend to any ſuch warrant, as a Juſtification of their Actions, is one of thoſe many Lies and Fictions that your Book is full of. But I proceed to urge you with Examples. Libna, a great City revolted from Jorom, becauſe he had forſaken God; 'twas the King therefore that was guilty, not the City, nor is the City blam'd for it. He that conſiders the reaſon that's given why that City rejected his Government, muſt conclude that the Holy Ghoſt rather approves of what they did, then condemns them for it. Theſe kind of revolts are no preſidents, ſay you. But why were you then ſo vain, as to promiſe in the beginning of this Chapter, that you would argu… from Examples, whereas all the Examples that you alledg, are mere Negatives, which prove nothing; and when we urge Examples that are ſolid and poſitive, you ſay they are no Preſidents: Who would endure ſuch a way of Arguing? You challenged us at Preſidents; we produced them; and what do you do? You hang back, and get out of the way. I proceed: Jebu at the Command of a Prophet, ſlew a King; nay, he ordered the Death of Ahaziah, his own Liege Prince. If God would not have Tyrants put to Death by their own Subjects, if it were a wicked thing ſo to do, a thing of a bad Example; why did God himſelf command it? If he commanded it, it was a lawful, commendable, and a praiſeworthy Action. It was not therefore lawful to kill a Tyrant, becauſe God commanded it, but God commanded it, becauſe antecedently to his Command, it was a juſtifiable, and a lawful Action. Again, Jehoiada the High Prieſt did not ſcruple to depoſe Athaliah, and kill her, tho ſhe had been ſeven years in actual Poſſeſſion of the Crown. But, ſay you, ſhe took upon her the Government when ſhe had no Right to it. And did not you ſay your ſelf, but a while ago, That Tiberius aſſumed the Soveraignty when it belonged not at all to him. And yet you then affirm'd, that according to our Saviour's Doctrine, we ought to yield Obedience to ſuch Tyrants as he was; 'twere a moſt ridiculous thing to imagine, that a Prince, who gets in by Uſurpation, may lawfully be depoſed; but one that Rules tyrannically may not. But, ſay you, Athaliah could not poſſibly Reign according to the Law of the Jewiſh Kingdom, Thou ſhalt ſet over thee a King, ſays God Almighty; he does not ſay, Thou ſhalt ſet over thee a Queen. If this Argument have any weight, I may as well ſay, The Command of God was, that the People ſhould ſet over themſelves a King, not a Tyrant. So that I'm even with you. Amazias was a Slothful, Idolatrous Prince, and was put to Death, not by a few Conſpirators; but rather, it ſhould ſeem, by the the Nobility, and by the Body of the People. For he fled from Jeruſalem, had none to ſtand by him, and they purſued him to Lachiſh: They took Counſel againſt him, ſays the Hiſtory, becauſe he had forſaken God: And we do not find that Azarias his Son proſecuted thoſe that had cut off his Father. You quote a great many frivolous paſſages out of the Rabbins to prove, that the Kings of the Jews were Superior to the Sanhedrim. You do not conſider Zedekia's own words, Jerem. 38. The King is not he that can do any thing againſt you. So that this was the Princes own ſtile. Thus he confeſſed himſelf Inferior to the great Council of the Realm. Perhaps, ſay you, he meant that he durſt not deny them any thing for fear of Sedition. But what does your perhaps ſignify, whoſe moſt poſitive aſſerting any thing is not worth a Louſe? For nothing in Nature can be more Fickle and Inconſtant than you are. How oft have you appear'd in this Diſcourſe inconſiſtent with your ſelf; unſaying with one Breath what you had ſaid with another? Here, again, you make Compariſons betwixt King Charles, and ſome of the good Kings of Judah. You ſpeak contemptibly of David, as if he were not worthy to come in Competition with him. Conſider David, ſay you, an Adulterer, a Murderer; King Charles was guilty of no ſuch Crimes. Solomon his Son, who was accounted wiſe, &c. Who can with Patience hear this filthy, raſcally Fool, ſpeak ſo irreverently of Perſons eminent both in Greatneſs and Piety? Dare you compare King David with King Charles; a moſt Religious King and Prophet, with a Superſtitious Prince, and who was but a Novice in the Chriſtian Religion; a moſt prudent, wiſe Prince with a weak one; a Valiant Prince with a Cowardly one; finally, a moſt juſt Prince with a moſt unjuſt one? Have you the impudence to commend his Chaſtity and Sobriety, who is known to have committed all manner of Leudneſs in company with his Confident the Duke of Buckingham? It were to no purpoſe to enquire into the private Actions of his Life, who publickly at Plays would Embrace and Kiſs the Ladies laſciviouſly, and handle Virgins and Matrons Breaſts, not to mention the reſt? I adviſe you therefore, you Counterfeit Plutarch, to abſtain from ſuch like Parallels, leſt I be forced to publiſh thoſe things concerning King Charles, which I am willing to conceal. Hitherto we have entertain'd our ſelves with what the People of the Jews have acted or attempted againſt Tyrants, and by what Right they did it in thoſe times, when God himſelf did immediately, as it were, by his Voice from Heaven govern their Commonwealth. The Ages that ſucceeded, do not afford us any Authority, as from themſelves, but confirm us in our Opinion by their imitating the Actions of their Fore-fathers. For after the Babyloniſh Captivity, when God did not give any new command concerning the Crown, tho the Royal Line was not extinct, we find the People returning to the old Moſaical Form of Government again. They were one while Tributaries to Antiochus, King of Syria; yet when he injoyn'd them things that were contrary to the Law of God, they reſiſted him, and his Deputies, under the Conduct of their Prieſts, the Maccabees, and by force regain'd their former Liberty. After that, whoever was accounted moſt worthy of it, had the Principality conferr'd upon him. Till at laſt, Hircanus the Son of Simon, the Brother of Judah, the Maccabee, having ſpoiled David's Sepulchre, entertain'd foreign Soldiers, and began to Inveſt the Prieſthood with a kind of Regal Power. After whoſe time his Son Ariſtobulus was the firſt that aſſum'd the Crown; he was a Tyrant indeed, and yet the People ſtirred not againſt him, which is no great Wonder, for he reigned but one year. And he himſelf being overtaken with a grievous Diſeaſe, and repenting of his own Cruelty and Wickedneſs, deſired nothing more than to dye, and had his wiſh. His Brother Alexander ſucceeded him; and againſt him, you ſay, the People raiſed no Inſurrection. tho he were a Tyrant too. And this lie might have gone down with us, if Joſepbus's Hiſtory had not been extant. We ſhould then have had no memory of thoſe times, but what your Joſippus would afford us, out of whom you tranſcribe a few ſenſeleſs and uſeleſs Apothegms of the Phariſees. The Hiſtory is thus; Alexander Adminiſtred the Publick Affairs ill both in War and Peace; and tho he kept in pay great numbers of Piſidians and Cilicians, yet could he not protect himſelf from the Rage of the People; but whileſt he was Sacrificing they fell upon him, and had almoſt smother'd him with Boughs of Palmtrees and Citron-trees; afterward the whole Nation made War upon him ſix years, during which time, when many thouſands of the Jews had been ſlain, and he himſelf being at length deſirous of Peace, demanded of them, what they would have him do to ſatisfy them; they told him nothing could do that but his Blood; nay, that they ſhould hardly pardon him after his Death. This Hiſtory you per… was not for your purpoſe, and ſo you put it … with a few …hariſaical Sentences; when it had been much better, either to have let it quite alone, … to have given a true Relation of it; but you truſt to …ies more than to the Truth of your Cauſe. Even … eight hundred Phariſees, whom he commanded to be cruciſied, were of their number that had taken up Arms againſt him. And they with the rest of the People had ſolemnly proteſted, That if they could ſubdue the Kings Forces, and get his Perſon into their Power, they would put him to Death. After the Death of Alexander, his Wife Alexandra took the Government upon her, as Athalia had formerly done, not according to Law, for you have confessed, that the Laws of the Jews admitted not a Female to wear the Crown; but ſhe got it partly by force, for ſhe maintain'd an Army of Foreigners; and partly by favour, for ſhe had brought over the Phariſees, to her Intereſt, which ſort of Men were of the greaten Authority with the People. Them ſhe had made her own, by putting the Power into their hands, and retaining to her ſelf only the Name. … as the Scotch Presbyterians lately allowed Cha… the Name of King, but upon Condition, that … would let them be King in effect. After the … of Alexandra, Hyrcanus and Ariſtobulus, her Sons, contended for the Sovereignty: Ariſtobulus was … induſtrious, and having a greater Party, forced his Elder Brother out of the Kingdom. A while after, when Pompey paſſed through Syria, in his return from the Mithridatick War; the Jews, ſuppoſing they had now an opportunity of regaining their Liberty, by referring their Cauſe to him, diſpatcht an Embaſſy to him in their own Names: they renounce both the Brothers; complain that they had enſlaved them. Pompey depoſed Ariſtobulus, leaves the Prieſthood, and ſuch a Principality as the Laws allowed, to Hyrcanus the Elder. From that time forward, he was called High Prieſt, and Ethnarcha. After theſe times in the Reign of Archelaus, the Son of Herod, the … … fifty Ambaſſadors to Auguſtus Caeſar, accuſed … that was dead, and Archelaus his Son, that then Reigned; they depoſed him as much as in them lay, and petition'd the Emperor, that the People of the Jews might be govern'd without a King. Caeſar was moved at their entreaty, and did not appoint a King over them, but a Governour, whom they called an Ethnarch. When that Governor had preſided ten years over Judea, the People ſent Ambaſſadors again to Rome, and accuſed him of Tyranny. Caeſar heard them graciouſly; ſent for the Governour, condemn'd him to perpetual Exile, and baniſhed him to Vienna. Anſwer me now, That People that accuſed their own Princes, that deſir'd their Condemnation, that deſir'd their Puniſhment, would not they themſelves, rather, if it had been in their Power, and that they might have had their choice; would not they, I ſay, rather have put them to Death themſelves? You do not deny, but that the People, and the Nobles often took up Arms againſt the Roman Deputies, when by their Avarice, or their Cruelty, their Government was burdenſome and oppreſſive. But you give a ridiculous reaſon for this, as all the reſt of yours are. You ſay, They were not yet accuſtomed to the Yoak; very like they were not, under Alexander, Herod, and his Son. But, ſay you, they would not raiſe War againſt Caius Caeſar, nor Petronius. I confeſs they did not, and they did very prudently in abſtaining, for they were not able. Will you hear their own words upon that occaſion? We will not make War, ſay they, becauſe we cannot. That thing which they themſelves acknowledge, they refrain'd from for want of Ability; you, falſe Hypocrite, pretend they abſtain'd from out of Religion. Then with a great deal of toil you do juſt nothing at all; for you endeavour to prove out of the Fathers (tho you had done it as ſuperficially before) that Kings are to be prayed for. That good Kings are to be pray'd for, no Man denies; nay, and bad ones too, as long as there are any hopes of them; ſo we ought to pray for Highway-men, and for our Enemies. But how? Not that they may Plunder, Spoil and Murder us; but that they may repent. We pray both for Thieves and Enemies; and yet whoever dreamt but that it was lawful to put the Laws in execution againſt one, and to fight againſt the other? I value not the Egyptian Liturgy that you quote; but the Prieſt that you mention, who prayed that Commodus might ſucceed his Father in the Empire, did not pray for any thing in my opinion, but Imprecated all the miſchiefs imaginable to the Roman State. You ſay, that we have broken our faith, which we engaged more than once in ſolemn Aſſemblies to preſerve the Authority and Majeſty of the King. But becauſe hereafter you are more large upon that ſubject, I ſhall paſs it by in this place; and talk with you when you come to it again. You return then to the Fathers; concerning whom take this in ſhort. Whatever they ſay, which is not warranted by the Authority of the Scriptures, or by good reaſon, ſhall be of no more regard with me, than if any other ordinary man had ſaid it. The firſt that you quote is Tertullian, who is no Orthodox Writer, notorious for many errors, whoſe authority, if he were of your opinion, would ſtand you in no ſtead. But what ſays he? he condemns Tumults and Rebellions. So do we. But in ſaying ſo, we do not mean to deſtroy all the peoples Rights and Priviledges, all the Authority of Senates, the Power of all Magiſtrates, the King only excepted, The Fathers decla…m againſt Seditions raſhly raiſed, by the giddy heat of the multitude; they ſpeak not of the inferior Magiſtrates, of Senates, of Parliaments encouraging the people to a lawful oppoſing of a Tyrant. Hence Ambroſe whom you quote, Not to reſiſt, ſays he, but to weep and to …igh, theſe are the Bulwarks of the Prieſthood; what one is there of our little number who dares ſay to the Emperor, I do not like your Laws? This is not allowed the Prieſts, and ſhall Lay-men pretend to it? 'Tis evident of what ſort of perſons he ſpeaks, viz. of the Prieſts, and ſuch of the people as are private men, … of the Magiſtrates. You ſee by how weak and pre… a reaſon he lighted a Torch as it were to the diſtentions that were afterwards to ariſe betwixt the L…ity and the Clergy concerning even Civil, i.e. Temporal Laws. But becauſe you think you preſs hardeſt upon us with the Examples of the Primitive Chriſtians; who though they were haraſſed as much as a people could be, yet, you ſay, they never took up … … the Emperour: I will make it appear, in the firſt place, that for the moſt part they could … …ondly, that whenever they could, they did: And thirdly, that whether they did or did not, they … ſuch a ſort of people as that their example de… … to have little ſway with us. Firſt therefore, … … can be ignorant of this, that when the Com… of Rome expired, the whole and Soverign… power in the Empire was ſetled in the Empe… that all the Soldier were under his Pay; in… … … if the whole Body of the Senate, the E… …, and all the common people had endea… … … a change, they might have made way for a … of themſelves, but could not in any … … then loſt Liberty; for the Empire would … have …, though they might per… … … ſo lucky as to have kill'd the Emperour. This being … what could the Chriſtians do? 'tis true there were a great many of them; but they were diſperſed, they were generally perſons of mean quality, and but of ſmall intereſt in the world. How many of them would one Legion have been able to keep in awe? Could ſo inconſiderable a body of men as they were in thoſe days, ever expect to accompliſh an Enterprize that many famous Generals, and whole Armies of tried Soldiers had loſt their lives in attempting? when about three hundred years after our Saviour's Nativity, which was near upon twenty years before the Reign of Conſtantine the Great, when Di…cleſian was Emperour, there was but one Chriſtian Legion in the whole Roman Empire; which Legion for no other reaſon than becauſe it conſiſted of Chriſtians, was ſlain by the …eſt of the Army at a Town in France called Octodurum. The Chriſtians, ſay you, conſpir'd not with Caſſius, with Albinus, with Niger; and does Tertullian think they merited by not being willing to loſe their lives in the quarrels of Inndels? 'Tis evident therefore that the Chriſtians could not free themſelves from the yoke of the Roman Emperours; and it could be no ways advantagious to their intereſt to conſpire with Infidels, as long as Heathen Emperors reign'd. But that afterwards the Chriſtians made War upon Tyrants, and defended themſelves by force of Arms when there was occaſion, and many times revenged upon Tyrants their Enormities, I am now about to make appear. In the firſt place, Conſtantite being a Chriſtian, made War upon Lacinius, and cut him o…, who was his Partner in the Soveraign Power, becauſe he moleſted the Eaſtern Chriſtians; by which act of his he declared thus much at leaſt That, one Magiſtrate might puniſh another; for he for his Subjects take puniſhed …icinius, who to all intents was as abſo… in the Empire as himſelf, and did not leave the vengeance to God alone: Licinius might have done the ſame to Conſtantine, if there had been the like occaſion. So then, if the matter be not wholly reſerved to Gods own Tribunal, but that men have ſomething to do in the caſe, why did not the Parliament of England ſtand in the ſame relation to King Charles, that Conſtantine did to Licinius? The Soldiers made Conſtantine what he was. But our Laws have made our Parliaments equal, nay, ſuperior to our Kings. The Inhabitants of Conſtantinople reſiſted Conſtantius an Arrian Emperour, by force of Arms, as long as they were able; they oppoſed Hermogenes whom he had ſent with a Military power to depoſe Paul an Orthodox Biſhop; the houſe whither he had betaken himſelf for ſecurity, they fired about his ears, and at laſt killed him right out. Conſtans threatned to make War upon his Brother Conſtantius, unleſs he would reſtore Paul and Athanaſius to their Biſhopricks. You ſee thoſe holy Fathers, when their Biſhopricks were in ☞danger, were not aſhamed to ſtir up their Prince's own Brother to make War upon him. Not long after, the Chriſtian Soldiers, who then made whom they would Emperors, put to death Conſtans the Son of Conſtantinus, becauſe he behaved himſelf diſſolutely and proudly in the Government, and Tranſlated the Empire to Magnentius. Nay, thoſe very perſons that ſaluted Julian by the name of Emperour, againſt Conſtantius his will, who was actually in poſſeſſion of the Empire, (for Julian was not then an Apoſtate, but a vertuous and valiant perſon) are they not amongſt the number of thoſe Primitive Chriſtians, whoſe Example you propoſe to us for our imitation? which action of theirs, when Conſtantius by his Letters to the people very ſharply and earneſtly forbad, (which Letters were openly read to them) they all cried out unanimouſly, That themſelves had but done what the Provincial Magiſtrates, the Army, and the Authority of the Commonwealth had decreed. The ſame perſons declared War againſt Conſtantius, and contributed as much as in them lay, to deprive him both of his Government and his Life. How did the Inhabitants of Antioch behave themſelves, who were none of the worſt ſort of Chriſtians? I'le warrant you they prayed for Julian, after he became an Apoſtate, whom they uſed to rail at in his own preſence, and ſcoffing at his long Beard, bid him make Ropes of it: Upon the news of whoſe death they gave publick Thankſgivings, made Feaſts, and gave other publick Demonſtrations of Joy; do you think they uſed when he was alive to pray for the continuance of his life and health? Nay, is it not reported, that a Chriſtian Soldier in his own Army was the Author of his Death? Sozomen, a Writer of the Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory, does not deny it but commends him that did it, if the fact were ſo; For it is no wonder, ſays he, that ſome of his own Soldiers might think within himſelf, that not only the Greeks, but all Mankind hitherto had agreed that it was a commendable action to kill a Tyrant; and that they deſerve all mens praiſe, who are willing to die themſelves to procure the liberty of all others; ſo that that Soldier ought not raſhly to be condemned, who in the cauſe of God and of Religion, was ſo zealous and valiant. Theſe are the words of Sozomen, a good and Religious man of that age; by which we may eaſily apprehend what the general opinion of pious men in thoſe days was upon this point. Ambroſe himſelf being commanded by the Emperour Valentinian the Younger, to depart from Milan, refuſed to obey him, but defended himſelf and the Palace by force of Arms againſt the Emperour's Officers, and took upon him contrary to his own Doctrine, to reſiſt the higher powers. There was a great ſedition raiſed at Conſtantinople againſt the Emperour Areadius, more than once, by reaſon of Chryſoſtom's Exile. Hitherto I have ſhewn how the Primitive Chriſtians behaved themſelves towards Tyrants; how not only the Chriſtian Soldiers, and the people, but the Fathers of the Church, themſelves have both made War upon them, and oppoſed them with force, and all this before St. Auſtin's time; for you your ſelf are pleaſed to go down no lower; and therefore I make no mention of Valentinian the Son of Placidia, who was ſlain by Maximus a Senator, for committing Adultery with his Wife; nor do I mention Avitus the Emperour, whom, becauſe he disbanded the Soldiers, and betook himſelf wholly to a luxurious life, the Roman Senate immediately depoſed; becauſe theſe things came to paſs ſome years after St. Auſtin's death: But all this I give you: Suppoſe I had not mentioned the practice of the Primitive Chriſtians; ſuppoſe they never had ſtirred in oppoſition to Tyrants; ſuppoſe they had accounted it unlawful ſo do; I will make it appear that they were not ſuch perſons, as that we ought to …ely upon their Authority, or can ſafely follow their Example. Long before Conſtantine's time the generality of Christians had loſt much of the Primitive Sanctity and integity both of their Doctrine and Manners. Afterwards, when he had vaſtly enriched the Church, they began to fall in love with Honour and Civil Power and then the Chriſtian Religion went to wrack. Firſt Luxury and Sloth, and then a great drove of Herches and Immoralities broke looſe among them; and theſe begot Envy, Hatred and Diſcord; which abounded every where: At laſt, they that were linked together into one Brotherhood by that holy band of Religion, were as much at variance and ſtrife amongſt themſelves, as the moſt bitter Enemies in the world could be: No reverence for, no conſideration of their duty was left amongſt them; the Soldiers and Commanders of the Army, as oft as they pleaſed themſelves, created new Emperors, and ſometimes killed good ones as well as bad. I need not mention ſuch as Verannio, Alaximus, Eugenius, whom the Soldiers all on a ſudden advanced and made them Emperors; nor Gratian, an excellent Prince; nor Valentinian the younger, who was none of the worſt, and yet were put to death by them. It is true, theſe things were acted by the Soldiers, and Soldiers in the field; but thoſe Soldiers were Chriſtians, and lived in that Age which you call Evangelical, and whoſe example you propoſe to us for our imitation Now you ſhall hear how the Clergy managed themſelves: Paſtors and Biſhops, and ſometimes thoſe very Fathers whom we admire and extol to ſo high a degree, every one of whom was a Leader of their ſeveral Flocks; thoſe very men, I ſay, fought for their Biſhopricks, as Tyrants did for their Soveraignty; ſometimes throughout the City, ſometimes in the very Churches, ſometimes at the Altar, Clergy-men and Lay-men fought promiſcuouſly; they ſlew one another, and great ſlaughters were made on both ſides. You may remember Damaſus and Vrſicinus, who were Contemporaries with Ambroſe. It would be too long to relate the Tumultuary Inſurrections of the Inhabitants of Conſtantinople, Antiach, and Alexandria, eſpecially thoſe under the Conduct and Management of Cyrillus, whom you extol as a Preacher up of Obedience; when the Monks in that fight within the City, had almoſt ſlain Oreſtes, Theodoſius's Deputy. Now who can ſufficiently wonder at your Impudence, or Careleſsneſs and Neglect. Till St. Auſtin's time, ſay you, and lower down than the age that he lived in, there is not any mention extant in Hiſtory, of any private perſon, of any Commander, or of any number of Conſpirators, that have put their Prince to death, or taken up Arms againſt him. I have named to you out of known and approved Hiſtories, both private perſons and Magiſtrates, that with their own hands have ſlain not only bad, but very good Princes: Whole Armies of Chriſtians, many Biſhops amongſt them, that have fought againſt their own Emperors. You produce ſome of the Fathers, that with a great flouriſh of words, perſuade or boaſt of Obedience to Princes: And I, on the other ſide, produce both thoſe ſame Fathers, and others beſides them, that by their actions, have declined Obedience to their Princes, even in lawful things, have defended themſelves with a Military Force againſt them; others that have oppoſed forcibly, and wounded their Deputies; others that being Competitors for Biſhopricks, have maintained Civil Wars againſt one another: As if it were lawful for Chriſtians to wage War with Chriſtians for a Biſhoprick; and Citizens with Citizens; but unlawful to fight againſt a Tyrant, in defence of our Liberty, of our Wives and Children, and of our Lives themſelves. Who would own ſuch Fathers as theſe? You produce St. Auſtin, who you ſay, aſſerts that the Power of a Maſter over his Servants, and a Prince over his Subjects, is one and the ſame thing: But I anſwer; If St. Auſtin aſſert any ſuch thing, he aſſerts what neither our Saviour, nor any of his Apoſtles, ever aſſerted; tho for the confirmation of that aſſertion, than which nothing can be more falſe, he pretends to rely wholly upon their Authority. The three or four laſt Pages of this Fourth Chapter, are ſtuffed with meer Lies, or things careleſsly and looſely put together, that are little to the purpoſe: And that every one that reads them, will diſcover by what has been ſaid already. For what concerns the Pope, againſt whom you declaim ſo loudly, I am content you ſhould bawl at him, till you are hoarſe. But whereas you endeavour to perſuade the ignorant, That all that called themſelves Chriſtians, yielded an entire obedience to Princes, whether good or bad, till the Papal Power grew to that height, that it was acknowledged ſuperior to that of the Civil Magiſtrate, and till he took upon him to abſolve Subjects from their Allegiance: I have ſufficiently proved by many Examples before and ſince the age that St. Auguſtin lived in, that nothing can be more falſe. Neither does that ſeem to have much more truth in it which you ſay in the laſt place; viz. That Pope Zachary abſolved the French-men from their Oath of Allegiance to their King. For Francis Hottoman, who was both a French-man and a Lawyer, and a very Learned man, in the 13th Chapter of his Francogallia, denies that either Chilperic was depoſed, or the Kingdom tranſlated to Pepin, by the Pope's Authority; and he proves out of very Ancient Chronicles of that Nation, That the whole affair was tranſacted in the great Council of the Kingdom, according to the Original Cenſtitution of that Government: Which being once done, the French Hiſtories, and Pope Zachary himſelf, deny that there was any neceſſity of abſolving his Subjects from their Allegiance. For not only Hottoman, but Guicciard, a very eminent Hiſtorian of that Nation, informs us, That the Ancient Records of the Kingdom of France teſtifie, That the Subjects of that Nation, upon the firſt inſtitution of Kingſhip amongſt them, reſerved a power to themſelves, both of Chuſing their Princes, and of Depoſing them again, if they thought fit: And that the Oath of Allegiance which they took, was upon this expreſs condition; to wit, That the King ſhould likewiſe perform what at his Coronation he ſwore to do. So that if Kings by miſ-governing the people committed to their charge, firſt broke their own Oath to their Subjects, there needs no Pope to diſpenſe with the people's Oaths; the Kings themſelves by their own perfidiouſneſs having abſolved their Subjects: And finally, Pope Zachary himſelf in a Letter of his to the French, which you your ſelf quote, renounces, and aſcribes to the people, that Authority which you ſay he aſſumes to himſelf: For if a Prince be accountable to the People, being beholden to them for his Royalty; if the people, ſince they make Kings, have the ſame Right to depoſe them, as the very words of that Pope are, it is not likely that the French men would by any Oath depart in the leaſt from that Ancient Right, or ever tye up their own hands, ſo as not to have the ſame Right that their Anceſtors always had to depoſe bad Princes, as well as to honour and obey good ones; nor is it likely that they thought themſelves obliged to yield that Obedience to Tyrants, which they ſwore to yield only to good Princes. A people obliged to Obedience by ſuch an Oath, is diſcharged of that obligation, when a Lawful Prince becomes a Tyrant, or gives himſelf over to Sloth and Veluptuouſneſs; the rule of Juſtice, the very Law of Nature diſpenſeth with ſuch a people's Allegiance. So that even by the Pope's own opinion, the people were under no obligation to yield Obedience to Chilperic, and conſequently had no need of a Diſpenſation.