GOD by no word binds any People to this or that Form of Government, till they by their own Act bind themselves.

None ought to advance the Greatness of his Soveraign, 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 Governours 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 meer Instruments of his Will, unauthorized persons, in their assaults Robbers.

King Charles the First's Declaration at Newmarket 41, says, that the Law is the measure of his Power.

There is no Absolute Authority where there is no Absolute Sub [...]ection due, and there can be no Absolute Subjection due, where there is no Absolute Authority; no man wants Authority to defend his Life against him, who has no Authority to take it away, but no man whatsoever has any just Authority (that is any Authority at all) to take it away contrary to Law.

He that resists the Usurpations of Men, does not re­sist the Ordinance of God, which alone is forbidden to be resisted; but Acts of Arbitrary and Illegal Violence, are the Usurpations of men, therefore may be resisted.

We are bound not to part with our Lives, but to de­fend them, unless when the Laws of God or our Country require us to lay them down.

Voluntary Slavery is a sin against the Law of Nature, which no man in his right mind can be guilty of.

Self-Defence, never did any mischief in this World, and it is impossible, that one man's righting himself, can do another man wrong, the mischief that happens in that Case, is wholly to be charged upon those that In­vade mens Lives and Liberties, and thereby put them upon a necessity of defending them.

Every man has the right of Self-Preservation as in­tire under Civil Government, as he had in a State of Nature: Under what Go [...]ernment soever I live, I may still kill another man, when I have no other way to preserve my Life from unjust violence by private hands; now the hands of Subordinate Magistrates imployed in acts of illegal violence, are private hands, and armed with no manner of Authority at all; of which this is a most convincing proof, that they may be hanged by Law, for such Acts which no man can or ought to suffer for what he does by Authority; for illegal violence is no part of their Office.

What can be more contrary to Reason and the Go­vernment of the World, yea, to the Goodness and Wis­dome of Almighty God, than that some thousands or millions of people should be so subjected to the power of one man, of the same Infirmatives with themselves, as in case he should command all their Throats to be cut, they are obliged under the pain of no less then Damnation (by a thing called Passive Obedience) to submit their Necks tamely to the blow!

Kings were made to Govern and Protect the People, not to Destroy them; but I never heard that the People were made for Kings.

Ah, but some do object, the Corporation Oath binds us to be Passive, the Design whereof I shall here inquire into, viz. This Oath was made quickly after the Resto­ration of King Charles the Second from an Unnatural Rebellion, and a Popish King was not then thought of, King Charles the Second, being as likely or likelier to live than the late King James, and can it be thought this Oath was made with any other design, than to pre­vent the like Rebellion for the future, that as soon as we were delivered from one unreasonable Tyranny and Op­pression, we should run our selves wilfully into another, (which is in effect, if this Oath is to be taken in the strictest sense) or at least standing to the mercy of the Prince, whether he will be so or no; can any man be so ridiculous as to think, the Legislators designed by this Oath to bind themselves and the Community to be so passive, that if the King endeavoured to cut our Throats, or overthrow the Laws, Rights, and Priviledges of the Subject, and endeavour to bring in Popery and Slavery, we should stand still and let him? Let all the World judge, whether it can with any reason be thought.

If an absolute Monarch should degenerate into so mon­strous unnatural a Tyranny, as apparently to seek the de­struction of the whole Community, then such Community may negatively resist such Subversion, and if constrained to it, positively resist such Endeavours, and defend them selves by force, against any Instruments whatsoever for the effecting thereof. First David did so when pursued by Saul▪ he made Negative Resistance by flight, and doubt­less if Negative would not have served the turn, he in­tended, secondly, to make positive Resistance, else why did he strengthen himself by Forces, but by that Force of Arms to defend himself; if then he might do it for his particular safety, much rather may it be done for the publick, especially in a limited Monarchy.

Resistance ought not to be made against all Illegal Proceedings, but such which are subversive and unsuf­ferable, as when there is an Invasion actually made, or eminently feared by a Foreign Power, or when by an Intestine Faction, the Laws and Frame of Govern­ment are secretly Undermined or openly Assaulted, in both these cases the Being of the Government being in­dangered, the Peoples safety and trust binds them, as well to assist the King in securing, as to secure it by themselves, the King refusing.

A Monarch acting according to his Power, not excee­ding the Authority which God and the Laws have con­ferr'd on him, is no way to be opposed either by all or [Page 2] any of his Subjects, but in Conscience to God's Ordi­nance obeyed. This is granted on all sides.

The Prince is bound to the Laws, on the Authority whereof his Authority depends, and to the Laws he ought to submit.

The end of a King is the general good of his People, which he not performing, he is but the counterfeit of a King.

The Obligation of an Oath, is dissolved by the cessa­tion of the matter of it, or by any remarkable change about the principal cause of the Oath, the Obligation of a Nations Allegiance to their Prince can be nothing else, but his being in Actual Capacity to Command and Protect them; whensoever therefore this Actual Capacity is changed, then the Obligation to Obe­dience must be changed also.

The Reciprocal Obligation there is between the King and the People, binds the one to Protection and just Government, and the other to Tribute and Obe­dience; and those duties of Protection and Obedience appear to be Co-relative; so the Law has appointed re­ciprocal Oaths to be taken for the better enforcing the performance of these respective Duties, that is, the Coronation Oath on the King's part, and the Oath of Allegiance on the Subjects, which is an Agreement or Covenant between King and People: all Agreements are Covenants, 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 ruine 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 Authoritative to others.

The word Loyal comes from the French word La Loy, 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 Countrey.

Passive Obedience is Popery Established by Law when ever 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 Elizabeth assisted the Hollanders against their Lawful Soveraign 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 Priviledges as England can justly Claim.

The late King James's Life has been but one conti­nued and form'd Conspiracy against our Religion, Laws, Rights and Priviledges, and what can be expected from such a Prince (who is a Romanist) and has Violated his Oath before God and Man, and endeavours to Reestablish 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 hundered years after it: the first King (at least the first mentioned in [...]oly Writ) is Nimrod, of the Posterity of Cham, who began his Kingdom in the second Century after the Flood; whose Kingdom was founded by Force and Violence; so that the very foundation of Monarchy seems to be laid from this Person, which makes but little for Jure Divino. 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, [...]d 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 Countrey, swear Allegiance to the Prince thereof

[...]llegiance 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 Political 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 it self, is the Quiet and Prosperity of the Commonwealth.

'Tis an acknowledged Aphorism, that the safety of the People is the Supream Law, and therefore to be preferred before Titles to Succession.

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 Saviour or his Apostles bid Chri­stians enquire into the Right and Title of the Roman Emperours, 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 England, 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 Neck [...] 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 Maje­sties Dominions to be satisfied with these Assertions and Propositions, or to ans [...]er them, and shew sound reason for their Dissent from the present Government, for a wilful Schism in the State is a Sin, and he that Endeavours to sow Dissentions amongst the People, and to draw their Majesties Subjects from their true Al­legiance, is guilty of a double Sin.

And because it may be Objected, in answering these Propositions they must be forc'd to Write against the Government, (I do promise) if they send a short but direct Answer, to Mr. Randal Taylor's, to Print it, with a Reply annext to it.