An Essay Upon Government Wherein The Republican Schemes Reviv’d by Mr. Lock, Dr. Blackal, &c. Are Fairly Consider’d and Refuted
[Editor’s note: Original made available by a) Google Books was used to create a readable and largely OCR error-free copy of this 1705 work by Anonymous. ‘[non-Latin alphabet]’ denotes Greek words. Please contact me if you notice any errors.]
An Essay Upon Government Wherein The Republican Schemes Reviv’d by Mr. Lock, Dr. Blackal, &c. Are Fairly Consider’d and Refuted.
An Essay Upon Government
It has of late been wonderful to observe the Atheists, the Deists, Fanaticks, and the Spawn of Jesuits, under the prolifick influence of an abus’d Toleration, crawling forth like Locusts, first to darken, and then to devour the Land. Their continual attempts have been made with a double entendrè, to subvert the State through the ruin of the Church; or, convertibly, the Hierarchy of the Church through the Monarchy of the State. And, to make Root and Branchwork with both, they have now again boldly denied to either any Establishment by the Word of God; and, like Men of Moderation! asserted, that as long as the Essentials of Faith, Worship, and Government are preserv’d, it matters not for any particular Form; but I fear the Form and the Essence are so inseparably united, that he who denies the Authority of the one, does at the same time invalidate the Reasonableness of the other. The Apostle tells the Colossians, c. 2. 5. That he joyed to behold their Order, and the Stedfastness of their Faith in Christ. 1st. their Order, then the Stedfastness of their Faith in Christ; implying, that where right Order is not maintain’d, Stedfastness of Faith cannot long continue; but how there can be right Order without set Form, I want the Logick of those Gentlemen to understand; and if every Form be mutable at the pleasure of an indefinite Supreme Power for the time being, then there can be no such thing as an Establish’d Government either in Church or State, but we are left to an occasional Obedience in both; whereas the Apostle says, that the Church is only compleat in Christ, who is the head of all Principality, and Power, Col. 2. 10. but how can he be the head of Principality in the State, or Episcopal Power in the Church, if both are mutable at the Pleasure of their respective Communities; and if he be, then the Government in both is founded upon his unalterable Authority, which is the design of the following Treatise to prove.
I have indeed named but one, because they stand or fall together; tho’ I hope the Author of the Subjects Duty, (fairly so call’d) who denies a Scriptural foundation for the one, will not deny it for the other: But since he gives up the former, I doubt not but the Faction he defends will hereafter plant the Argument (cui bono) against him as to the latter: So that however precious the Balm may be thought at present, I fear it will be found in the end such as will break his own Head. What Charitable design he had in the Application, God and himself best know, but the absurdity of the means will soon be evident to all; that a Book may be sweet in the Mouth, and very bitter in the Stomach: For (says the Excellent Casuist B. Sanderson) We know not any greater good than the glory of God, we scarce know a better sin; (if any Sin may be accounted little) than an harmless officious lye, yet may not this be done no not for that! Will you speak wickedly for God, and talk deceitfully for him, Job 13. 7. if not for the glory of God, then certainly not for the Justification of any or all the Men in the World; this is attainable another way, by Confession, Deprecation, And Amendment.
If a Priest now a days make a Calf, must he needs, like Aaron, give it out to be Deify’d by the People? But since this is done, how fond soever these may be of so silly an Animal; yet the Tribe of Levi ought to shew their just resentment, and stop the infection of others as well as prevent any Malignity in themselves: They watch for Mens Souls as they that must give account, and tho’ their Zeal cannot warrantably proceed to the slaying of a Brother, yet they who are most Eminently to Adorn, must likewise by all Lawful methods be sure to Defend the Doctrine of God our Saviour in all things; and let him be a Pr—-t, B—– or an Angel of God that shall Preach any other, we are to abhor and confute the Thesis, and at least admonish the Person that by special Repentance he may retract his Crime, take shame to himself, and give Glory to Go who must be true, tho’ every Man be a Liar. The Man that maintain’d the sufficiency of Scripture, I lov’d and admir’d, but since the same now destroys what once he establish’d, I neither Reverence nor Fear him. But considering the pernicious consequence of pleading Errors so Authoritatively recommended, and having first waited abler Pens, I thought my self oblig’d to vindicate Scriptural sufficiency in point of present Order and Government, as well as future Salvation; to assert and defend the Divine Right of my Natural Soveraign Q. A. to shew those mistake or designing Subjects, that found her Authority upon human Commission, the Error of their Ways, and the Evil of their Doings, that they may Repent and humbly beg Pardon both of God and Her for infringing their just Prerogatives; to do Right to the Church of England by protesting in its Name against this and all other Republican Schemes, through inadvertency or design so publickly advanced; to caution all that love the Establish’d Religion against the poisonous influence this System covertly conveys, and to let them see, how void it is of the Healing Quality they so much admit it for.
Upon these Reasons I undertook this Subject, and if the performance were but as good as the intention, I am sure to give no offense to any honest Man; them that are otherwise I would not please, and the Dirt which they fling will, like that at Blenheim, the more illustrate him they design to obscure: But however I may be reviled by any of them, who use that for Argument, I am sure to be satisfied from my self with the answer of a good Conscience, rejoycing in the Truth, which I hope will not appear more weakly defended by me, than oppos’d by others; and if it does, may it provoke a nobler Genius to do it Justice. The method here pitch’d on is entirely new, takes in the whole Body of Republicanism, clears the Texts of Scripture from all Misprision, purposely brings Mr. Pool’s Annotations for Vouchers, gives the full force to the most material Republican Arguments, and how clearly it confutes them, read, consider and speak your Minds.
I shall endeavour to prove three Propositions.
1st. That Monarchy is the particular Form of Government, by God Establish’d in Scripture.
2dly. That the Right of Inheritance is plainly determin’d by the same Authority.
3dly. That the English Constitution is founded upon that Law of God, and therefore Hereditary Monarchy is the unalterable Power here Establish’d. My Son, fear thou the Lord and the King, &c.
I begin with the first of these, and here I shall do two things, viz.
1st. Make good the Position, that Monarchy, &c.
2dly. Confute the most material Objections rais’d against it. And
1st. To make good the Position, that Monarchy is the particular Form of Government, by God Establish’d in Scripture.
1st. If God fix’d private Dominion in any one Man, then Monarchy is the particular Form of Government by him appointed. Adam had Sovereign Dominion, which I prove by the following Arguments.
1st. Because he was made himself alone, Gen 2. 18. Whereas God made other Creatures Male and Female at once; but to constitute the right of Government entirely in the Man, He was form’d single. God in his Wisdom did not think it fit to make two Independents, and liked best of all Governments of Mankind, the Sovereignty of one, and that with that extent, that both Wife and Posterity should submit and subject themselves to him, which priority of Creation St. Paul makes a reason for the Woman’s Subjection, I Tim. 2. 13. Adam was first formed, and then Eve.
2dly. The Woman was made for his occasions, an Help meet for him, which the Apostle gives as another reason for her Subjection, 1. Cor. 11. 9, 10. Neither was the Man created for the Woman, but the Woman for the Man; i.e. to serve and help him: For it is a Rule in Reason, that who, or whatsoever is made for another, is less excellent than that other. And ver. 10. For this cause ought the Woman to have power on her head, i.e. a covering in sign that she is under the power of her Husband. M. Pool in loc.
3dly. God expressly gave Adam Dominion over the works of his Hands, Gen. I. 26. Let us make Man in our Image, after our likeness, and let them have Dominion, &c. But in the Dominion of Man and Woman there is inequality for the Reasons foregoing, I Cor. II. 7, 8, 9, 19. I Tim. 2. 12, 13. Again, Gen. I. 28. God says to Adam and Eve, Be fruitful and multiple, replenish the Earth and subdue it; i.e. say the Greeks, exercise Dominion over it when replenish’d; subduing means such a prevailing and possessing as a Master has over Servants, compare with Jer. 34. 16. 2 Chron. 28. 10. Nehem. 5. 5. by which is to be understood a Right of Dominion over their Children: for it is said, Replenish the Earth, and Subdue it, [non-Latin alphabet], exercise Lordship over your Offspring; and then it follows of another part of Adam’s Dominion, [non-Latin alphabet], Have Dominion; and Ps. 8. 56, &c. this is explained by, Thou gavest him, &c. i.e. Adam.
4thly. In Evidence of Adam’s Dominion God brought every Beast, &c. to Adam to see what he would call them, and whatsoever Adam called every thing that was the Name thereof: And when he had made Woman he brought her to the Man, and Adam said she shall be called Woman. Gen. 2. 19, 22, 23. Therefore he had a Dominion over her, as well as the other inferior Creatures. And this (says Mr. Pool) was done for the Manifestation both of Man’s Dominion over the Creatures, and of the Largeness of his Understanding, it being an Act of Authority to give Names, &c. in loc.
5thly. Eve’s Desires were to be subject to her Husband, Gen. 3. 16. Thy Desire &c, and he shall rule over thee [non-Latin alphabet.] Not but it was her Duty so to submit before the Fall. (So says the Apostle, I Cor 14. 34.) They are commanded to be under Obedience, as also says the Law, (alluding to this very Place.) I Tim. 2. 11, 12. and I Pet. 3. 6. Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him Lord (and she said well, for so he was.) But the Reason of its being a Curse is this, that she should be subjected to the Will of her Husband which she was the only means of corrupting, and so the Cause of its becoming now her Punishment, which was before her Delight.
6thly, Adam, was, must be, and could not but be, a Monarch; because he could not otherwise be a Type of Christ, who is a King both by Birth and Fact. As Christ was born King of the Jews by a miraculous Operation of the Holy Ghost upon the Substance of the Virgin, so was Adam created Lord of the World by the immediate Hand of God, Ps. 8. 5, &c. to be understood of Adam as he was made in God’s Image, and Lord of the World, and is applied to Christ by the Apostle, We see Jesus crowned with Glory and Honour, who was made a little lower than the Angels thro’ the Suffering of Death, that by the Grace of God he might taste Death for all. Heb. 2. 6. Adam was the Figure of him that was to come, Rom. 5. 14. But to Christ all power was given, Matt. 28. 18. Jon. 13. 3. and therefore to Adam, and him in particular, because the whole species of Mankind was never thought to typifie Christ. And I have very good reason to believe that the passage quoted by Mr. Lock, Psal. 115. 16, The Earth has he given to the Children of Men, does not denote the whole Species of Mankind: For in the Original it is the Sons of Adam, which may signifie, [non-Latin alphabet], i.e. the Ruler of every People, and that it must so signifie, is evident from Deut. 32. 8. Act. 17. 26. comp. with Eccles. 17. 17.
It may indeed signifie in a subordinate Sense, as that the Ruler of every People holds his Lands by Right immediate from God, and the People by Right derived from him; for it does no where appear that God determin’d every private Man’s Right, tho’ he did that of every Ruler of Nations, as has been prov’d and therefore Mr. Lock has falsified both the Text and the Interpretation.
2ndly. The Divine Right of Monarchy appears from what God says to Cain, Gen. 4. 7. Unto thee shall be his [Abel’s] desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Here it is express’d in the future tense, [non-Latin alphabet], Thou shalt Rule; which could not be during Adam’s Life, because predicated by a word which signifies supreme Power, and therefore denotes the futurity of his Dominion upon the Death of Adam, their common Lord and Father; or else it would have been set down in the present Tense, or in a word signifying subordinately, [non-Latin alphabet], and the sense of the whole verse is this, if thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted, that is, in due time have the excellency, and if thou dost not well, sin lies at thy door; i.e. if thou go on in thy murderous intention, and execute thy sinful purpose, be sure thy sin, i.e., the punishment of thy sin will find thee out, as it is said Numb. 32. 23. to which agrees that of ver. 14. Every one that finds me shall slay me, which they could not have done, had he been the Superiour Power who is accountable to God alone; as David says upon the Murder of Uriah, Against thee, [O God] thee only, have I finished, Psal. 51. The meaning therefore of, Every one that finds me, &c. is this, viz. he fear’d being brought before Adam’s Tribunal, to which he was accountable for the Death of his Brother (See B. Overall Convoc. Book) and therefore to take off this Fear, God transmuted his Capital Punishment into Banishment, ver. 12.
3dly. Noah had private dominion invested him, as Adam had, for the Covenant is renew’d with him, Gen. 9. I, 2. His Sons are indeed mention’d there; and thus was it in other Covenants, tho’ the Right was not thereby made equal at the present conveyance, but to be successive, as in the Covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the seed is constantly mentioned, but yet the Right was successive and unequal. And Josephus here understands the Covenant made with Noah originally and singly, his words are, I command you (says God) to keep your hands innocent from Murders and all Manslaughter, and to punish those that commit wickedness, in as much as I have made you Lord over all, Jos. Antiq. Lib. I. c. 4. K. or the words of the Covenant may refer to Noah’s Sons, as those, that should by Grant from their Father, in due time [non-Latin alphabet], exercise dominion independent upon each other, tho’ subordinate to their Father, who subdivided the World among his three Sons, for we read ver. 19. Of them was the whole earth over spread, (See B. Overall’s Conv. Book) which was also a constant Tradition among the Heathen, tho’ they changed the names: For they tell us, that [unreadable] i.e. Noah and his three Sons divided the World among themselves; each had a Supremacy over his Lands, by private property granted from his Father, and Authority over his own Family by Paternal Right, which I ground upon Gen. 9. 5. 6. At the hands of every Man’s Brother will I require the life of Man; Who so sheds Man’s Blood, by Man shall his Blood be shed; i.e. by the Magistrate, for no Man had the Power of the Sword but he, Rom. 13. 4. This Precept was directed to Noah as the Supreme Magistrate, to whom one Brother was accountable for the life of the other; or else here had been a Law without an Executive Power or a Subject; Supremacy is hereby intended, or no such penalty can be inflicted, and where ought this Supremacy to be placed but in the Father? (and accordingly Honour thy Father was made the Rule of Obedience to the Civil Magistrate) One brother could not be accountable to the other, because the Question will be, who made him a Ruler and a Judge? consequently no Man ought to shed the Murderers Blood, because the Law of Nature being a lex Talionis, a Law of rendring like for like, the Aggressor is properly accountable to none but the injur’d Person; unless there be a Power commisson’d by God to execute Vengeance, Rom. 13. 4. The Law of Nature as lex Talionis teaches no father than Self is concerned, and nothing can justifie my Murdering a Murderer, but his attempting me also, and therefore Noah was and must be the Person to whom they were so accountable.
4thly. Concerning the division of Nations mention’d Gen. 10. It is said Deut. 39. 8. That it was the most high who (then) divided to the Nations their Inheritance, and separated the Sons of Adam. And Acts. 17. 26. Hath determin’d the bounds of their habitation. And Eccles. 17. 17. That in the division of the Nations of the whole Earth, be set a Ruler over every people, and according the Names of the 70 Rulers [those Sons of Adam] are set down Gen. 10. ver. 32. These are the Families of the Sons of Noah after their Generations, in their Nations, and by these were the Nations divided in the Earth. And it would be easie to shew the particular Founder of each Nation. (as Jos. Has in great measure done, L. I. c. 7.) By this Genealogy, compar’d with the Names of Nations in humane Writers, it appears; how God has made of one Blood, all Nations of men to dwell upon all the face of the Earth, and has determin’d the bounds of their Habitation. And the first account we have of Government is that of Kings, Principio imperium penes Reges fuit, says Justin the Historian: Egyptians, Chaldeans, &c. began their account with Kings, and reckon’d up to this time, and this with what the Scripture here says of the Heads of Families, is as good a demonstration as a thing at this distance is capable of; since God is said to have divided to the Nations their Inheritance, &c. and to have set a Ruler over every People, and the Names of those very Rulers are expressly set down in Scripture: Since it has been proved, and may be irrefragably confirm’d, that all Nations of the World were denominated according to those Rulers, and that the Nations themselves in their Records do acknowledge all this, it is plain that Monarchy was the Government by God himself peculiarly, every where, originally establish’d.
5thly. If God began his Peculium in Monarchy, then Monarchy is by special appointment, and not bare permission; but this appears from Gen. 12. I, 2. Get thee from thy Country, says God, to Abram, and I will make of thee a great Nation, &c. Therefore Abraham was the Head of that Nation which was to proceed from him; and because he was the Type of Christ the Head of his Church. And ver. 5. Abram took Sarah his Wife, and Lot his Brother’s Son, and the Souls that they had gotten in Haran, i.e. either 1st begotten; for tho’ Abram had yet no Children, Lot had, and both their Servants had Children by their fellow Servants born in their House, which might well be numbred among Abram’s and Lot’s Persons, because they had an absolute Dominion over them, or 2dly, instructed in the true Religion, M. Pool ib. Again, Abraham had a Sovereign Power over his Family, or else he could not have put Isaac to Death; for if Isaac submitted to the Sentence upon Moral suasion, Isaac’s Faith was the greater of the two, because he was the Personal Sufferer, and had no positive Command from God himself, and believed without Evidence that Abraham had: But the Text gives the preeminence to Abraham’s Faith, and imputes it to him only for Righteousness; and consequently Abraham must intentionally Sacrifice him by that Despotick Right he had over his Child and Subject. Besides, Abraham must have been accountable to the Magistrate for the Murder of his Son according to the Law; who so sheds Man’s Blood, by Man shall his Blood be shed, and consequently God had commanded a double Sacrifice, which contradicts the Text and the Reason of the thing, viz. The Analogy between the Sign and Thing signify’d, to wit, God the Father freely Offering up his Son for us all, Rom. 8. 32.
Again, Abraham’s Sovereign Power over his Family is evident from Gen. 16. 6. Where he gives Sarah power over Hagar, who being his Wife, was consequently free by the Law, Deut. 21. 14. And therefore Sarah could have no Penal Authority over her, but as delegated by Abraham, not as an Husband; because his Power over his Wife, is not delegable to another; but as a Prince he could do so because her own Person and the Fruit of her Body were not her own, but Abraham’s Right in possession; and from hence arises the fitness of the Angels admonition, v. 9. Return to thy Mistress and submit thy self under her Hand, which is according to God’s express Command, Eccles. 10. 4. If the Spirit of a Ruler rise up against thee leave not thy place. For yielding pacifies great Offences.
Again, the Children of Heth acknowledge Abraham a mighty Prince of God, Gr. Trans. a King of God. And Josephus makes Agar’s fault consist in aspiring to Principality over Sarah, and supposing that her Son should succeed in the Kingdom. Jos. L. I. c. 11. m. by which he acknowledges Abraham to have bin a King.
6th. Ishmael and Isaac were both Sovereign Princes. Gen. 17. 20, &c. When Abraham pray’d for Ishmael, God says, as for Ishmael I have heard thee, behold I have Blessed him, and will make him Fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly, twelve Princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great Nation: But my Covenant will I establish with Isaac: By which it is plain that both were Princes, tho’ Isaac was the Prince of the Peculium.
7thly. That Monarchy was of God’s appointment, we have an Instance out of the Peculium, Melchisedeck was King of Salem, and Priest of the most High God, Gen. 14. 18. Which he would not have been, had not Monarchy been by God’s own appointment, which is signify’d by his name Melchisedeck, i.e. my King of Righteousness: And that it was so, is farther evidence by his being made a Type of Christ for that very reason, because he was both Priest and King, from whence our Law defines Rex, to be Persona mixta cum sacerdote.
8thly. Ishmaels Sons were twelve Princes according to their Nations, Gen. 25. 15. as God had promis’d, Gen. 17. 20. Now God cannot be suppos’d to promise that as a blessing which himself did not approve and appoint.
9thly. Esau and Jacob were both Kings, Gen. 25. 23. Of the twins, the first came out red, and they called his name Esau, ver. 25. From him the red Sea received its name, being so called as Heathen Writers tell us, from one who Reigned in those parts, and was call’d Erthras or Erythrus which signifies Red, the same with Edom or Esau. And Jacob was Prince over his Brethren by Gods special Election and Isaac’s Donation. And to shew that it was Gods special Election, we need but consult, Gen.27. where Isaac says he has not power to reverse the blessing, (I have Blessed him yea and he shall Blessed, &c.) which he might have done as other Kings may and do reassume any exorbitant Grants, into which they have bin deceive’d, and it is plain from the Context, Isaac would have done so, had he not perceiv’d the matter was by Gods Order and Appointment, and therefore he could not but confirm it, lest he should be found a fighter against God.
10thly. That Jacobs Sons were all Princes over their Families is evident from Ps. 105, 15. Where God calls them and their Fathers such, saying, touch not mine Anointed, i.e. My Kings, and do my Prophets no Harm; and we find Judah particularly exercising his Sovereign Power in passing Sentence of Death upon Thamar, and revoking it afterwards.
The Children of Israel had their Princes in Egypt, and Moses their Sovereign brought them out of it; and so Moses tells Korah, Datham and Abiram, that their Rebellion was against God, because they said Moses made himself a King, Num. 16. and God himself Expressly and Emphatically calls him my Servant Moses who was to be in the place of God, Exod.4. 16. And he had the Power of Life and Death as we read many thousands Slain at his Command, Num. 25. 5. and Exod. 22, 27, 28.
Again, when Aaron and Miriam equal themselves with Moses, God tells them, my Servant Moses is not so, i.e. as you are, be is faithful in all my House, i.e. I have set him over all my People and you too, wherefore then were you not afraid to speak against my Servant Moses. Num. 12. 7, 8. Who was to be to you instead of God, Exod. 4. 16. to blaspheme God and the King was death by the Law, and accordingly Miriam had instantly died, and Aaron too had not Moses Prayed for them ver. II.
Again, Moses upon his departure prays to God to set a Man over the Congregation, &c. that they be not as Sheep which have no Shepherd, the usual term for King in the Holy Scripture, i.e. suffer all the Miseries and Inconveniences of Anarchy, Num. 27. 16, 27. And yet at the same time there were seventy Rulers over them: And God said to Moses take Joshua, &c. and thou shalt put some of thine Honour, Glory, and Majesty upon him, that all the Congregation, &c. may be Obedient, v. 18. 20. If this be not Monarchy of God’s own appointment, I know not what is, and accordingly we find Joshua exercising his Royal Authority, Jos. I. 10. and the People recognize him as their Sovereign as they had done Moses, and own themselves oblig’d to Obedience upon Penalty of death, v. 16. ad finem.
Again, the Lord rais’d up Judges, i.e. Supream Magistrates, whose Office it was under God, and by his special direction to Govern Israel by God’s Laws, to protect them from their Enemies to preserve and purge Religion, Mat. Pool in Judg. 2. 16. And this Office of Judge was for life, v. 18. Gideon’s authority is described in the name of his Son Abimelech, i.e. My Father the King. Judg. 8. 31. His refusing the Kingdom no objection, because they had no Commission of leave from God to set up such a Kingdom, and consequently they had rejected God’s authority by doing it.
The Judges are all said to have reigned in Israel. M. Pool, in Judges 10. 8. and Cap. 11. 12. We find Jephthah in a Royal manner, sending his Ambassadors to the King of Ammon, saying, what hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my Land, i.e. that Land which my God has given me, signifying himself by God appointed Head over Israel; and accordingly upon Samuel’s deposition God expressly says, They have no rejected Thee, but have rejected Me, that I should not Reign over them, I Sam. 8. 7. i.e. Me the Principal by rejecting Thee my Vicegerent, and so Samuel himself understandeth, when he says, Cap. 10. 10. Ye have rejected your God, &c. and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a King over us, which words they spake only to Samuel. And it is plain from Deut. 17. 14. Their Sin consisted not simply in desiring a King, but in desiring one amiss, in an impetuous manner, at an unreasonable time, without asking leave from God, out of dislike of God’s present Choice, and an usual itch after change, Pool in I Sam. 8. 7.
It consisted indeed in dislike of God’s Government, which he exercised over them in a peculiar Manner, as appears from Deut. 32. 8, 9. When the most High divided to the Nations their Inheritance, when he Separated the Sons of Adam, he set the Bounds of the People, according to the number of the Children of Israel. For the Lords portion is his People: Jacob is the lot of his Inheritance. God himself was pleased to be their King in a peculiar manner, but they took distaste at Theocracy, and desired their Government like that of other Kingdoms might be Hereditary, thereby putting greater confidence in the arm of Flesh, than in God their Saviour who, had done so great things for them; and God says to Samuel, They have not rejected Thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not Reign over them, as I hither to have done in a more eminent manner than I do over others.
Saul was a King of God’s own appointment, according to Deut. 17. 14, 15. When thou shalt say, I will set a King over me, like as all the Nations that are round about me: Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall chuse. And when Saul was chose, Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom the Lord has chosen; and all the people shouted, and said, God Save the King. Then Samuel told the people the manner of the Kingdom, and wrote it in a Book and laid it up before the Lord, I Sam. 10. 24, 25. compare with Deut. 17. 18, 19. Which Book the King was to read, thereby to know his own Power, and how to use it. And I Sam 8. 11. is shewn, not only what a King might do, but what the People ought to suffer, which is plain from ver. 18. David was of God’s special Providing, I Sam. 16. I. one of that Tribe to which the Kingdom was by him before allotted, and from which the Scepter was not to depart. Gen. 49. 10. and yet David’s Kingdom did not commence till the Death of Saul and Jonathan, according to Psal. 82. 6, 7. I have said, ye are Gods; and all of you are the Children of the most high: But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the Princes, by which it is evident that nothing but Death could alienate the Crown; which David confessed, when advised to slay Saul, who persecuted him so unjustly. I Sam. 26. 9, 10. Thus was Monarchy the constant Government among God’s peculiar People; and it may be proved that there was no other sort of Government in the World but this, and that this was appointed by God himself. All along in Scripture we find the Supreme Power lodg’d in a single Person, as well without as within the Pale of the Church, God tells Pharaoh that he had raised him up to his Sovereign Authority, Exod. 9. 16. and a former Pharaoh said to Joseph, I am Pharaoh, Gen. 41. 44. i.e. I have the supreme Power, and therefore can and will oblige all my people to observe and obey thee, only in the Throne will I be greater than thou. ver. 40. God sent and anointed Hazael King over Syria, I Kings 19. 15. compare with 2 Kings 8. 12. God gave Power and Dominion to Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 3. 37. and he is called God’s Servant, and was to be obey’d by God’s special Command, Jer. 27. per tot. Holy David in his general Admonition to all Kings or single Rulers both of Israel and all other Nations of the World, Psal. 82. 6. calls them all Indefinitely Gods, and Children of the most High; i.e. as they ruled in his stead, his Name, his Authority, by his appointment representing his Person, bearing his Image, Majesty, and Power, as Children bear the Name and Image of their Parents. And so Solomon speaking in the Name of God, or Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, says Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings Reign: By me, the Donor, Author, Efficient, constituent of Kings and Sovereignty. N. B. The Original is [non-Latin alphabet] in Me, so that the meaning is, Kings are first in God and Christ, and so come forth from him, as that they are in him. B. Andrews Parallels it with that in the Gospel, My Father in me, and I in him: Christ in them as his Deputies, they in Christ as their Principal and Authorizer; he by their Persons, they by his Authority. Thus by God’s Appointment was Moses in the place of God, Exod. 4. 16. and here it is said that Kings Reign, Kings indefinitely, all Kings: From the first Account of Government to the last in Scripture, we find a single Person invested with the Supream Power, and God Recognizing that Power as Personating Himself, and therefore Monarchy, and that only, was by God’s Appointment, either by impress or express notices universally establish’d: ‘Tis affirm’d that God divided the Nations according to the number of their Heads, and as the Government was upon that division, so we find both in Scripture and other Histories it continu’d afterwards, and therefore we must conclude That, and That only, the Form of Government by God constituted in the World. I will not swell this Treatise with numerous instances, which might be added out of Scripture, but shall confirm all that I have said upon this Head, with those decisive Texts of St. Paul and St. Peter, which make Regal Supremacy the positive Ordinance of God alone, in spight of all the misprisions of those that would wyre draw ‘em to their own evil purposes. The Apostle St. Paul says, Rom. 13. I. Let every Soul be Subject to the higher Powers, i.e. to the Prince and his Subordinate Magistrates, which must certainly be here meant, because what follows places the Right of the Sword (which is really the Sovereign Power) in a single Person, for he beareth not the Sword in vain, for he is the Minister of God, &c. He bears it by the Ordinance of God, not by the Donation of the People; he bears it as the Minister of God, from whom he receiv’d it; and not as Minister of the People, who had no right to give it, because they never had it themselves; for no Man has right over his own Life; and therefore he cannot give it to another: But he (i.e. the Prince) is the Minister of God, a revenger [in his Name and by his Authority] to execute his wrath upon him that does evil; wherefore (because of that Divine Commission) ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath but also for Conscience Sake.
And to put this matter beyond all dispute, St. Peter 1. Ep. 2. 13. bids us be Subject to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord’s Sake, whether it be to the King as Supreme. Gr. [non-Latin alphabet], i.e. to ever Ordinance of God among Men, because [non-Latin alphabet], creare, to create incommunicably belongs to God (as [non-Latin alphabet], Gal. 6. 16. The new Creature, Regeneration, which is a being born not of the Will of Man but of God, John I. 13. for tho’ Man may, must, and does consent to Regeneration, yet it is wrought through the single efficiency of the Divine Operation: And because there is not Power but of God, Rom. 13. 4. and the King is the Supreme Ordinance of God, therefore all Power among Men, as St. Peter tells us, is Subordinate to, and delegated by him.
This being a general Epistle extending to all Christians, it follows that by the Authority of this, Obedience is every where due to the King, as the Supreme Ordinance of God: It is plain then that Monarchy, or the Supreme Power in a single Person, (by whatsoever Name call’d) whether Judge, Ruler, or King, is that Form of Government by God Establish’d in the World: And I challenge any Man to prove the Supreme Power Originally placed among any People, either within or without the Pale of the Church, otherwise than in a single Person, whatsoever Concessions that Person for his own ease or other Motives may have been pleas’d to make. And therefore Solomon speaks in the name of Wisdom, .e. Christ and his Religion, and commands Obedience to the King, not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience Sake; as to the special, indubitable, stated appointment of God himself, My Son, fear thou the Lord and the King; i.e. the King as God’s particular Constitution, and meddle not with them that are given to change, viz. the Lord and his Establishment, Jer. 2. II. Isa. 24. 5. Ezek. 5. 6. I proceed now
2ndly. To answer the objections by some Men thought very demonstrative of the contrary, to what has been here laid down. And
1st. Against Adam’s Divine Right to Dominion by priority of Creation, Mr. Lock objects, That he could not be a Governour before there was Subject. A. An Objection which brings its own confutation along with it. ‘Tis false in Arithmetick to say, that two necessarily go to the Constitution of one; ‘tis false in Logick and Philosophy to say, there cannot be a Power without the proper act of that Power; ‘tis false in Divinity to say, Adam did not Sin as a common Father, because he sinned before he had an Offspring Rom. 5. 12, &c. Socini Haram olet. He might as well have question’d the Moon’s dominion over the Night, because she was made in the Day: Does he not in effect call his Father Adam Blockhead for naming his Wife Evah, because she was the Mother of all living, when there was no one but them two as yet alive. Undutiful Son!
2ndly. Mr. Lock Objects against the Divine Grant, Gen. I. 28. because no Grant conveys right to what the words of it do not express; but there is no express mention of Adam’s posterity, and therefore he had no Dominion granted him over them. A. It is contain’d in the words of the Grant, Be fruitful, and multiple, and replenish, and (then) subdue; i.e. exercise Dominion. Again that Learned Gentleman Objects against the particularity of Adam’s Right contain’d in the Grant, because it is expressed plurally. A. Both Adam and Eve had a right to Dominion, but not an equal right; Adam’s was Principal, Eve’s Subordinate: This plural Number cannot be meant of the Species of Mankind, because that would be one of Mr. Lock’s pretended absurdities; it would be to give, when there was no receiver, nor do the express words mention any such levelling: But what if after all this be Enallage numeri, a Figure very frequent in H. Writ: I wonder so great a Rabbi knew nothing of the matter, for so David explains it, Psal. 8. Thou gavest him, i.e. Adam, and Antitypically Christ Jesus, and so Mr. Ainsworth has it. Besides, our Dominion could not have been forfeited by Adam’s Transgression, had he not a Sovereignty over his Posterity.
3dly. He Objects God’s saying to Adam fallen, in the sweat of thy Face shalt thou eat thy Bread, &c. Gen.3. 19. as inconsistent with his Monarchy. A. It is not ways inconsistent with his Dominion, for it signifies no more than this; the Earth shall not now sustain thee without thy Labour, it shall not as formerly produce of its own accord: Or in respect of his Dominion, it may set forth the great Fatigue of Government, that the Life of Princes by reason of the Corrupt Humours of their Subjects, is no more exempt from Care and business than that of the meanest Subject, or Mr. Lock’s day Labourer.
4thly, Obj. That the words, Thy desire shall be to thine Husband, &c. Gen. 3. 16. were not spoken to Adam, therefore no grant of Dominion. Ans. They were not the Original grant of Dominion to Adam that was Gen. I. 28. but being spoken to the Woman in presence of the Man, they were a greater Enforcement and Confirmation of Adam’s Dominion over Her in particular, as well as all the rest, and tho’ Mr. Lock says it was not a time for God to be granting Privileges, yet by the leave of that Gentleman, as free with his Maker as he is with his Vicegerent, we suppose God reinforcing Adam’s Authority over her, for the Punishment of her growing Pride and Corruption, and a better Scripturist than Mr. Lock, tho’ as little for Monarchy so understands it, a Man too. Ingenuous to disown the Truth, Pool in loc.
5thly. Lock Objects, ex supposito, from a Supposition, (let him look to the Logick of that sort of Argumentation against a positive Truth) that if either of our Queens, Mary or Elizabeth, had married any of their Subjects, she had not been by the Text, Gen. 3. 16. put into a political Subjection to him, or that he thereby should have had a Monarchical Rule over her, A. Very Right, and for this Reason, because the Political is above the Conjugal Rule, and he being born a Subject to the Political Rule, which is the Ordinance of God, can never be made a King by and Compact of Man: She receiv’d that Right from God, and She cannot alienate what he has appropriated, yet the Children begat by him, who had no Right, of her, who had a Natural Right, are Naturally Heirs to the Crown.
2ndly. Mr. Lock Objects against the Paternal Right from begetting. 1st. That every one who gives another any thing has not always thereby a Right to take it away again. A. He gives up the cause, for he owns he has sometimes a Right to take away again, what he has given: And when he cannot do it, it is when that Father himself is under a Political Father, to whom under God he must be accountable for the Death of a Subject. 2ndly. Obj. That the Father does not give Life to the Son, but God in whom we Live, Move, and have our Being, and then runs a fulsome Scene of Antiphilosophical Unscriptural Stuff, to prove contrary to his former Concession. A. He confounds Conservation with Creation, this was Immediate, that is Mediate, the Creation of the kind was the work of God, without the meditation of any other Cause, Conservation of the Species is the Work of God, through the Mediation of the Instrumental Cause, for God created every thing with a Power of producing after its kind; and the same God who Made, Upholds all things by the word of his Power, enabling the Instrument to produce the proper Effect: And accordingly to distinguish God’s making, from Adam’s begetting, it is said, God created Man (Adam) in his own Image; in the Image of God created he him, Gen. I. 27. And Adam begat a Son in his own likeness after his Image, Chap. 5. 3 i.e. not like one of God’s making but a Weak, Sinful, Mortal Man, like what he had made himself by his fall; but, according to Mr. Lock, Adam poor old Man of 130 Years, could not see what he had begot before it was Born, nor could mend the crazy piece of Work after, and yet Adam had a strong desire to continue his Race implanted in him by God, but not one Father of a 1000 designs any such thing: Does he speak of his own Knowledge, how many Onans was he acquainted with? Or is there any Text of the Bible to Ground it on? Impertinent and Vain!
3dly, Obj. That the Woman has at least equal shares in Generating, and therefore should have joint Dominion over the Child. Ans. The Woman was for the Man, and consequently her Off-spring, according to the known Rule Omne majus continet in Se minus.
4thly, Objected by Lock against Abraham’s Dominion, because Lot was not Subject to it. Ans. Lot was of another Line, and therefore Independent of Abraham, whom God chose to begin the Peculium in, and Abraham brought him out with him, that he might not in his Youth be corrupted with the Idolatries of his Country, and for that reason amongst others, God called Abraham from his Fathers House, where he would have been naturally a Subject.
5thly, Lock Objects the Patriarchs wandring up and down, and therefore they had neither Dominion nor Property, Ans. God calls them Kings at that very time they wandred from one Nation to another, and by his special Providence took care that they should not be molested: Touch not mine Anointed, and do my Prophets no harm. And it is plain from Scripture and other Authors, that the Hebrews had their own Laws and Polity, distinct from those of any Nation where they Sojourned, and it appears abundantly from Scripture, that the People among whom they came perceived by many infallible tokens, that God was with them; and therefore they freely permitted them to live among them.
6thly, It is Objected against the divine Right of Judges, that they were by Compact, and the Instance is made in Jephthah, whom (and upon Articles intervening) the People made Head and Captain over them, Judges II. II. Therefore as one was so, every Judge might be by Compact, Ans. This Covenant did not contribute any thing to make him Judge: And God himself to shew it did not, vindicates the Authorizing him, as Judge, no less to himself than when extraordinarily he Authorized Gideon and Samuel, I Sam. 12. 11. And the Lord sent Jerubbaal, and Bedan, and Jephtha, and Samuel, &c. an argument Unanswerable, which justifies two Conclusions; One, that single Authority and Power is from God; the other, that whatsoever Act intervenes, if it were a Covenant, it contributes nothing to Authority, cannot weaken it, cannot repeal it, because the Judges were for Life, as appears; and any Act of the People is no more than a Recognition of the Power being from God.
8thly, Obj. By Mr. Lock against the Sovereign Power of Judges or Kings, because nothing is mentioned of Judges, but what they did as Generals, and the current Office of King, (says he) was to go in and out before the People, I Sam. 8. 20. The Children of Israel desired a King like all the Nations to judge them, and to go out before them, and to fight their Battles. And God granting their desire, says to Samuel, I will send there a Man, and thou shalt Anoint him Captain over, &c. Chap. 9. 16. Ans. This Argumentation is ridiculous, for it proceeds thus, because the Judge or King only, had the Power to make War or Peace, therefore had had no farther Power; this is to argue from one Branch of Sovereignty against all the rest. Besides the Scripture affirms the Right, the sole Right, of inflicting capital Punishments to belong to the Judges and Kings, as we find specified in Moses, Joshua, &c. and readily submitted to by all the People, who also acknowledged it a Crime worthy of Death, not to do whatsoever they laid unto them. And it was Death by the Law to blaspheme God and the King, and it was extraordinarily Punish’d by God himself, witness Korah, Datham, and Abram.
9thly, Obj. Against Kingly Power by Divine Right, because all Men are Born free. A. No Man is born free from Government, but with his Natural being, comes into the World subject to some, every one is Born subject to his Father, of whom he has his Existence in Nature, and if his Father be subject to another, he is born Subject to his Father’s Superiour, (as is abundantly evident from God’s positive Law concerning the Children of Servants Manumitted) which does not at all intrench upon his Natural Freedom, which is plain from Gen.41. 44. I am Pharaoh, i.e. I have the Sovereign Power over all, and therefore have Authority to make thee Viceroy; and yet we find that same People who were born Pharaoh’s Subjects, enjoying their private Properties, till they bartered them away for Bread, Gen. 47. 19. Buy us and our Land for Bread, and we and our Land will be Servants to Pharoah. i.e. Pharoah shall be the sole Proprietor, and we are content to have it in Tenure from him. And ver. 25. We will be the Pharoah’s Servants. So that the private Property of Mankind, is very consistent with Monarchical Government.
This Comprehends and fully Answers that other Republican Maxim, Privatus libertatem suam abdicare potest, ergo et multitudo, Every private Person may make away his own Natural Freedom, therefore a Multitude may do so, and from this Compact arises all Monarchical Power; but we have prov’d Men born under Government, tho’ they may alienate their private Property, and to put this out of all doubt, I will affirm and prove, that none ever was Born exempt from Subjection to lawful Government. Christ as Man was, not exempted from this, Luke II. 51. [non-Latin alphabet], He was subject unto them, i.e. To Joseph his putative Father, and Marry his true Mother, the word in the Original is the same which the Apostle uses, Rom. 13. I. Commanding Obedience and Subjection to Higher Powers. And our Lord according to his own Rule paid Tribute to Caesar to whom it was due, and afterwards tells Pilate, He could have no Power over him unless it were given him of God, therefore he that delivered Christ up had the greater Sin, by which Christ acknowledges Pilate (i.e. Caesar’s) Supream Temporal Authority, that he had no appeal from thence but to God, who would severely account with him, that betray’d his Innocent Master, to the Sovereign Power vested in one, that might exert it contrary to the Patent by which he held it, and Christ proves his Kingdom not to be of this World, from his Servants not Fighting for him, that he might not be delivered up – Arguing from their Natural Duty, to the Natural Lord and King, had he been Temporally so. To shut up all in few Words, give me leave to tell these Objects, what they are willingly Ignorant of, the three Specifick Notions of Servitus Service or Subjection, which are not meer Entia Rationis, Ideal, or Chimerical, but real differences founded on the Nature of things, and the express Word of God. The first is, when a Man contrary to Native or Natural Liberty is made a Slave to a Lord or Master, this is called Servitus [non-Latin alphabet], service in possession, when one Man has power to Command, Use, Dispose another Man’s person, as his other proper Goods at pleasure, for this cause the Scripture calls a Servant his Masters Money, Ex. 21. 21.
The 2d. is when a Man’s person is confin’d or committed, that he depriv’d of living at liberty as he lists, as Criminals or Debtors; this kind of servitude is call’d [non-Latin alphabet], when the liberty of going where we will, or doing what is lawful at pleasure is taken away. Thus our Saviour tells Peter, John 21. 18. When thou wast young, thou girdest thy self, and walkedst whether thou wouldst; but when thou shalt be old, another shall gird thee and carry thee wither thou wouldest not.
The third is a Servitude [non-Latin alphabet], consisting in Subordination. In the first Sense every Man is born free: in the second, some only by misdemeanor, either real or suppos’d are depriv’d of the Liberties of free Subjects. In the third sense no Man is born free, but Subject to his Father, and his Father’s Father, his Father’s Sovereign, as M. Pool calls Pharaoh the Egyptians King and common Father, in Gen. 41. 55. So that all are born tied to their Duty of Allegiance; and seeing Christ fulfill’d all Righteousness, so that he subjected and submitted himself to his Parents and to Caesar too; we must deny our selves to be Christians, if we deny that we are born under the tye of Allegiance: But if the Power be in the People, we are not Born under the tye of Allegiance, because that Power was not conferr’d upon them by God (which no Republican has ever prov’d) and till they do what they never can, no Man is subject to any jurisdiction (according to Lock) till by his own personal act and deed, he has devolv’d his Natural Right upon the Community, and then the greatest part of every Nation are Independents to that Government; and because Mankind is a flux Body no National Law can be a day, an hour in force, over the thousandth part of the People, and consequently there is, there can be no such a thing as Government in the World, without recourse to single Power, delegated from God to act by and for him, by his Authority and for his Glory, and that is both King and People’s welfare, both here and hereafter.
And unless this be so, unless Monarchy be the particular form of Government by God Establish’d with what face can any Man pretend to advise every one that hears him, as Solomon does every Son of his whether Natural or Political, My Son fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change, i.e. from fearing either God or the King. Having thus fully and as clearly (as I possibly could) discussed the first Head, as the main Basis and Foundation of what follows, I shall be more brief in the illustration of the next Proposition, which was to prove
2ndly. That the Right of inheritance is plainly determin’d by the same [Divine] Authority. And here
1st. The Right of Primogeniture was by God Establish’d, in the Original Grant to Adam, Gen. I. 26. God said, Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness. Now God the Father, being Fons deitatis, the Fountain of the Deity, has all Power originally in and of himself; the Son as the first begotten of him, is Heir of all things, and has his Essence and Power communicated from his Father, and that both by Birth and Fact: And so our Saviour prays, Father glorifie thy Son; glorifie me with the same glory that I had with thee before the World; i.e. give to my humane Nature the Mediatory Kingdom due to my Obedience, as I had the Eternal Kingdom from thy Eternal Generation of me, John 17. 5. There is a difference between Christ’s Eternal and Mediatory Kingdom; they are distinguish’d by David, Psal. 110. The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy foot-stool. He was Lord before placed at God’s Right Hand, by Right of Primogeniture: He was placed at God’s Right Hand by special appointment of the Father, whom the Father has appointed Heir of all things, Heb. I. 2. As God his Throne is for ever and ever, Heb. I. 8. As mediator he is to reign till he has put all enemies under his feet, then is be to give up the Kingdom to God even the Father, that God may be all in all, I Cor. 15. 25. &c. And the Apostle says, The Heir, till the time appointed of his Father, differs nothing from a Servant, tho’ he be Lord of all, Gal. 4. I, 2. And accordingly Christ tell his Disciples, that first it behoved Christ to suffer, and then to enter into his glory. From all which the Argument is plain, that if Man was made in God’s Image, one lineament whereof is Dominion, then Dominion, is originally in the Father, and Derivatively in the first Born, so is it in the Exemplar, therefore in the Copy by the same Right. So David introduces God speaking of Christ, I will make him my first born higher than the Kings of the Earth, Psal. 89. 27. For (says Mr. Ainsworth in loc) the first Born had three Prerogatives, a double portion of goods, Deut. 21. 17. The Government or Chiefty 2 Chron. 21. 3. and the Priest-hood, Num. 8. 14. And the Apostle says, Christ was the first Born of every Creature, and the first Born of the Dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence, Col. 2. 15. 18. And therefore he is Prince of the Kings of the Earth, Rev. I. 5. The Chaldee adds, the first Born of the Kings of the House of Judah; and if one has it by God’s appointment, so has the other.
2ndly. God expressly promises Cain the Dominion over his Brother, Gen. 4. 7. If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted, (Heb. Have the excellency) and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt Rule over him, [non-Latin alphabet], i.e. as a Prince over his Subject. The sense of the whole is this: As for Abel, to whose Faith and Piety I have given this publick and honourable Testimony [of my acceptance] which thy naughty Heart makes an occasion of Envy and Malice, and intention of Murder; that thou mayest not by mistake be led to the perpretation of so horrid a Crime: know, that this favour of mine concerns only His spiritual Privilege: But it makes no change in civil Rights, nor does it transfer the Dominion from thee, whose it is by Birth, unto him; nor doth he so understand it: For notwithstanding this, unto thee shall be desire, subject, i.e. he shall and will nevertheless yield to thee as his Superiour, and thou according to thy own Hearts desire shalt Rule over him. Pool in loc. if this needs farther confirmation, look above.
3dly. Chedorlaomer was King of Elam by right of Inheritance, from Elam Son of Sem. Pool in Gen. 14. 4.
4thly. God invests Abraham and his first Born after him with the Right to the Kingdom of Canaan. All the Land which thou seest will I give to thee and to thy Seed for ever, i.e. to the coming of the Messiah, the first Born of the Kings of the House of Judah, Gen.13. 15. He says not Seeds as of many, but Seed as of one, i.e. Isaac the first Born by the Free-woman, who was by promise, and in whom his Seed was to be called: and tho’ God was pleas’d to transfer the Birth-right from Ishmael, yet he gave him a Kingdom, and a long Race of Hereditary Princes in compensation, so was it in the Translation of the Birth-right, from Esau to Jacob, they were both Rulers: Such care did God take of Hereditary Right, that where the Elder was not personally qualified for the Government of the Peculium, God exchanged it for another Civil Power, and therefore Lock’s Objections falls to the Ground.
5thly. When Jacob comes to make his Will, he gives a reason why the first Born has a Right to succeed in the Paternal Power, viz. by way of natural Excellence, being the first of his Father’s strength; Reuben, thou art my first born, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power, Gen. 49. 3. i.e. As first Born thou hadst the right of Precedency before all thy Brethren in point of Dignity, Power, and Privilege, the double Portion, the Priesthood, the Dominion over thy Brethren were thine, but thou hast forfeited it by thy Sin. So was it with Simeon and Levi, therefore it devolv’d upon Judah as next in Blood: Judah thou art he whom thy Brethren shall praise: Thy Father’s Children (i.e. all thy Brethren and my Posterity, he says not Mother’s Children, for his Sons had divers Mothers) shall bow down before thee, ver. 18. i.e. shall own thee as their Superior and Lord, upon whom, by God’s Direction, I have devolved this part of the Right of the first Born: By these and the following words we plainly see, that these Blessings and Predictions were not distributed according to Jacob’s Affections and Inclinations, (for then Judah should never have been advanced above his worthily beloved Joseph) but by the immediate direction of God’s Spirit. Pool in loc. And now what becomes of Mr. Lock’s Objection concerning the brith-right’s being Joseph’s mentioned I Chron. 5. 12. An excellent Specimen of a Commentator truly! He has shewn here how fit he was clear Christ’s Hereditary right to the Government, who plainly denies that the Birth-right was Judah’s, for he asserts p. 113. that the Birthright was nothing else but a double Portion, but it is above prov’d that, that was but one Prerogative of the Birth-right, that the Priesthood and Supremacy were the two other; and we have the postle asserting that our Lord sprang out of Judah, Heb. 7. 4. and that both his Priesthood and Principality were his Birth-right. Heb. I. per tot. compare with, Is. I. and 110. What genuine Annotations we are like to have upon the New Testament, we may plainly see by his Exposition of the Old, both which ought to Correspond, Explain and Confirm one another. What a Blessing the World had to be deliver’d from Ignorance and Superstition, by the Learning of Socinus; and this Gentleman! One so well vers’d in Genealogy that he says, Sem was Noah’s eldest Son; contrary to the Scripture account of his Age and Relation, to Japheth, Pool on Gen. 10. 21.
6thly. Hereditary Right to Government always took place among the Jews, where God did not expressly alienate it: This was a positive Law, Deut. 21. 15. by which the first born was not to be put by, out of Affection to a younger Son of a more beloved Wife, and accordingly we read, 2 Chron. 21. 3. That the good King Jehosaphat, gave great Gifts to all his Sons, but the Kingdom to Jehoram, because he was the first Born. Tho’ otherwise he would not have done it, having very probably discover’d the perverse and wicked Inclinations of this Prince, and how much he was sway’d by his Idolatrous Wife, and what the Church might suffer by his Reign; and yet he durst not draw up a Bill of Exclusion against him; no, Divine Right was of his side, and to Divine Providence must the event be left.
7thly. Adonijah in his Discourse to Bathsheba, lays his claim to the Crown by right of Primogeniture, as a plain case, where God himself does not expressly Alienate that Right. Thou knowest, said he, that the Kingdom was mine (viz. by Birthright as well as Fact,) how-beit the Kingdom is turned about and is become my Brother’s, for it was his from the Lord. I King. 2. 15. And that it was no plot of Nathan, Zadock and Bathsheba; tho’ some Men are pleas’d to name it Priest-craft, it was by God given to Solomon before he was Born, He being by God’s special Appointment named Jedidiah. 2. Sam. 12. 15. 1 Chron. 22. 9. &c. 28. 5.
8thly, Solomon who advises his Son to fear God and the King, and not to meddle with them that are given to Change, owns the Natural Right of the first Born, in the case of Adonijah, for whom Bathsheba ask’d Abishag the Shunamiteto Wife, I King. 2. 22. And King Solomon said, &c. Why dost thou ask Abishag for Adonijah? Ask for him the Kingdom also, for her is mine Elder Brother. i.e. the Kingdom was his by Nature, Birthright, the Law of Nations, and the municipal Law of this Kingdom; but that God was pleased to make an exception to that general Rule.
I will mention but one Material Objection, that I can find against this Right of Inheritance, and it is the Revolt of the 10 Tribes from the House of Judah, and among them the frequent preterition of the first Born, and this in several places of Scripture, confessedly from God himself, I need not make the Quotations because I allow the Objection. But to this I answer. That the Revolt of the 10 Tribes was only a permissive Act of God’s Providence in Judgment upon Solomon, and Rehoboam’s Wickedness, which was not only agreeable to God’s Covenant with David, Ps. 89. 30. If his Children forsake my laws, &c. ver. 32. Then well I visit their Offences with the Rod, and their Iniquity with stripes, nevertheless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him: And this was Solomon threatned with, I King. II. II. Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my Covenant, &c. I will surely rend the Kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy Servant. And so God tells Jeroboam, ver. 35. I will take the Kingdom out of his Sons hand, and will give it to thee, even 10 Tribes, ver. 36. And to his Son will I give one Tribe, that David my Servant may always have a light before me. (So that the Hereditary Line of David was not to be cut off utterly,) and ver. 37. God says, Thou shalt Reign according to all that thy Soul desires. By which God secretly Taxes him for his Ambitious and Rebellious Mind, and God tells him Moreover, that if he would Hearken to all that he commanded him he would be with him, and build him a sure House as he built for David, and would give Israel to him, and that he would for this [rebellion against their God] afflict the seed of David, but not for ever. ver. 38. 39. By which his evidence, that tho’ God serv’d his Providential ends upon Jeroboam’s revolt, yet he look’d upon it, as a great Sin in him, and the 10 Tribes, and punish’d both him and them with utter excision, sometime after, as David prophetically speaks, Ps. 109. 13. He fought against me without a cause, let their Posterity be cut off, and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. And so his Family all were destroyed by Ahijah a Rebel like himself, and the kingdom of Israel incessantly plagued with Civil dissentions, till Salmanazar came and carried the 10 Tribes away Captive (as the Jews give the reason) because their Fathers had said, what Portion have we in David? Neither have we any Inheritance in the Son of Jesse, I King. 12. 16. Thus they broke out into actual Rebellion against him whom God had made their lawful Sovereign (and Jeroboam owns him so calling him their Lord I King.12. 27.) wherein tho’ they fulfilled Gods counsel yet they violated his Authority and Command, M. Pool in loc. And therefore this is so far from being an Objection against the divine Right of Inheritance, that whosoever reads the whole Story of the Kingdom of Israel, will find it an irrefragable Argument for it, by reason of the Vengeance inflicted upon the Violaters of it, and tho’ Kingdoms are at God’s absolute Disposal, that that was by him accounted Usurpation, is evident from Abijah’s claiming the Kingdom of Israel by right of Inheritance from David, and Appealing to God by War, obtain’d a signal Victory over Jeroboam, and it is said expressly that God smote Jeroboam, and all Israel before Abijab and Judah. 2 Chron. 13. 15. and it is called Jeroboam’s Rebellion, ver. 6. Hath Rebelled against his Lord. And there are gathered to him vain Men, the Children of Belial. i.e. such as have cast off the Yoke of Obedience, which they ow’d both to God and their King. M. Pool in loc. In the words of Solomon, Men that fear neither God nor the King, Men given to Change. And by this time I suppose the Objection is fully answered, and there lies no other against the Hereditary Succession, that I know of, which may not be Resolved by what has here been said. And I hope we have very good Reason to affirm, that the Right of Inheritance, or Hereditary Monarchy was Establish’d by God himself, what ever exceptions God, for reasons of his own, might sometimes please to make to his own Rules; nor can his doing so any ways justifie Mens pretences for doing the like, when they prove not a Special Commission from God for it. To the Law and to the Testimony, says Isaiah, and if they speak not according to this Rule, (which evidently confirms the divine Right of Single and Hereditary Dominion) it is because they have no Light in them, what ever Illuminations they may pretend; and I am sure Heat without Light was the proper place of Him that Betray’d the Heir, [his Lord] by whom he might have been saved, but that he fought Destruction in the errour of his ways, ran greedily in the way of Balaam for Reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah. My son fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them that are given Change, (i.e. their God, his Judgments and Ordinances) for their Calamity rises suddainly, and who knows the Ruin of them both? i.e. of them that fear not God, of them that fear not the King. But to return and conclude this Head, in a word or two.
And here I suppose, if I can prove that this was the General Rule of Government by God Establish’d, out of the Church, then it will irrefragably follow, that this a standing Law at all times, and in all places Obligatory; and to this purpose I gave an instance of one in Abraham’s time, who possessed his Kingdom by right of Inheritance descending to him from Elam, who was the Eldest Son of Sem: ‘Twould be endless to cite all the Exemplifications of this, contain’d in Holy Writ, and to compare them with the best Account we have from the Heathen Records: I shall therefore name but two, the one undeniably to prove the Fact, and the other positively to assert the Right, and I chuse them both near David’s time. They are of two different Kingdoms, Ammon and Moab; the First was Nabash David’s Friend and Ally, of whom it is said Nabash Died and and Hanun his Son reigned in his stead, and the Children of Ammon said until Hanun their Lord, 2. Sam. 10. 13. The other was the King of Moab, who when he saw that the Battel was too sore for him—-then took he his eldest Son, that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a Burnt-offering upon the Wall. 2 King. 3. 26, 27. Which is agreeable to the Sacred and Prophane account which we have of those Nations, that they frequently Sacrificed their Children to their Gods, the Scripture calls them Devils, Ps. 106. 37. And the intent of this particular instance of Barbarity was partly to obtain Favour of their God Saturn, according to the manner of the Phoenicians and others, in grievous publick Calamities: As Porphyrius, Plutarch, &c. and partly to oblige the Israelites to raise the Siege out of Horror and Compassion; or as despairing to Conquer [at least without great loss of Men] him, who seem’d resolv’d to defend himself and the City to the utmost extremity, and it succeeded accordingly, says the Text. And there was great indignation against Israel. Hebr. great Repentance upon Israel, and they departed from him, and have returned to their own Land. I might have mentioned Hadad and Benhadad, &c. But I suppose I have fairly made good my Second Prop. (that Hereditary Monarchy was by divine Appoitnment) by exemplifying its Right and Fact, among the Jews and other People of the World, the Foundation of which could be no other than the impress Law of Nature, and express Revelations, both which are but divers Manners of the same Supream Lawgiver, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, that Created and Upholds all things by the Word of his Power, ordinating that which ought not to be broken. Hence I proceed to shew, 3dly and
Lastly, That the English Government is found upon the same Divine Authority, and therefore Monarchy, Hereditary Monarchy is unalterably here establish’d.
The English Constitution is founded upon the Divine Law, or else our Municipal cannot oblige the Conscience, and then all Government must be precarious, I was going to say Occasional, viz. The Vicegerent may be treated like the Principal; when ever Men can again separate the Person from the Power, and be as void of the fear of Wrath, as they were of Conscience; and if the Author of the Subject’s Duty can give no better account of the obligation, I doubt his Passive Obedience wont stand many encounters: Whatever Power he and his Community may have to make Indentures and Leases, I am sure it is less than his, who is the only Conveyancer able to give and grant Crowns; and his Act, whenever it may be prov’d, is both Deed and Right too, and needs neither Counsellor nor Attorney to make it a good Title. But some are of Opinion, His were not the most Learned in the Law that either advis’d or petition’d him: But to the Law, because he challenges; and by the little reading I have had of it, it destroys his whole Hypothesis. For if we inquire into the Titles of all Estates, we shall find a Monarch the Head of our Constitution, for all Lands are held by Original Grant from the Crown, and where there is no Heir apparent, revolve thither. Magna Charta, the grand Establishment of our English Liberty, (by which it appears a Man may be subordinate and yet free) concludes, that no Concession therein made shall infringe the King’s Prerogative, by which I understand a just and equal Extent of Power in some special Cases not provided for by particular Laws. King of England, our Records tell us, is as Melchizedeck was, who therein typified Christ Jesus, Persona nixta cum Sacerdote, though not Officially, yet Judicially King and Priest; i.e. Head of Church and State, over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil, Supreme: And that this is so not only in Fact but of Right, our first Christian King, Lucius, was by the Pope recogniz’d, Dei Vicarius, God’s Vicar. And for that very Reason, there lies no Appeal from the House of Lords, which is the King’s chief Council by himself conven’d, wherein he always used to be, and is always supposed to be, not only virtually, but actually present, and has a casting, at least a negative Voice upon all their Determinations; and there are Causes which that House has no Cognizance of, because the Crown has otherwise appropriated them, as the Tryals of Elections and Privileges of the House of Commons, which are not determinable by any Body but their own; and both Houses are conven’d and dissolv’d by the sole Power of the Crown. And what are the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, which I think every Peer as well as Commoner is oblig’d to take at their Entrance into their respective Houses, but a solemn Recognition of the King’s Divine Right, that next under God he is Supreme Governor, and in his Name and by his Authority requires all due Fealty and Obedience according to that of Solomon, Eccles. 8. 2. I counsel thee to keep the King’s Commandment, and that in regard of the Oath of God. And what is it that an English Monarch at the Head of a Free Parliament cannot do? And if there be any thing he cannot do by single Authority, we owe it to the Wisdom of our Laws, and the Grace of our Prince, that the Power is so well circumstantiated. Nor is it any Solaecism to assert a Limited Supreme Power, since that Limitation is only from his own Authoritative Consent, which he having given to a Government by such and such Laws, he cannot in Wisdom, Justice or Equity rescind his own Act and Deed; though if he should, he would be accountable only to God himself, in whose Place he is to the People, Ps. 51. 4. Bibl. Transl. compare with Ex. 4. 16. Moses, upon Jethro’s Advice, took Seventy Elders into the Administration, yet he was nevertheless as much Sovereign after, as he was before that prudential Admission: So English Kings admit a certain Number into the Legislature, but reserve the Fiat entirely to themselves. The Median and Persian Kings were obliged to govern according to the standing Laws of the Empire, and yet were as absolute Monarchs in Extrajudicials, i.e. where the Law did not positively determine, as is possible to imagine. God himself has bounded himself by his own Laws, for he deals with us by Covenant, whereby we know our Duty, are enabled to perform it, and may expect our Reward: He has engaged that he will never oppress us by his Sovereign Power; but, like the King of Kings and only Ruler of Princes, the Prerogative he most delights in is uncontrollable Mercy: and one of the natural Excellencies of temporal Monarchy is, the Equity of its Administration; in which, among other Particulars, it most resembles Theocracy, and so approves it self of all others the most Perfect, that it mitigates the literal Rigour of the Law, allows room for Repentance, and so gives Mercy a triumphant rejoicing over strict Justice. And this the English Constitution makes good in every Branch of it, it secure the Monarch’s Sovereignty, and ascertains the Subjects Liberty.
The King is the Head of the Three Estates, Lord Spiritual, Lords Temporal and Commons assembled in Parliament; he is independent over them, they all dependent on him, as is evident from all the Parliamentary Writs and Acts, and is fully declared to be the unalterable Constitution of England, by a Statute as yet unrepeal’d, 12 Car. 2. the Words are to this Effect: “That according to the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom, neither Lords, nor Commons, nor both together, nor the People either Collectively or Representatively, have Power coercive, &c.” And this is agreeable to Holy Scripture, which says, that as the Natural, so the Political and Spiritual Body consists in the joint-subordination of every Member to the Head, and thereby the whole increases to the edifying of it self in Love, Eph. 4. 16. So that the Safety of the People cannot possibly be maintained but by all due Obedience to their King. That there is a mutual Duty between Prince and Subject can be deny’d by no one that will stand to St. Paul’s Precepts, Children obey your Parents—them that have rule over you in the Lord, —-for they are Ministers watching over you for good, on the one side: And, Parents provoke not your Children lest they be discourag’d, on the other. But Mr. Lock’s Position, That the Paternal Right to Filial Duty depends upon the Discharge of Paternal Duty, is no way inferrible: This is to make the Superior accountable to the Inferior Relative; whereas St. Peter bids Children obey their Parents be they good and gentle, or froward; who (as we find it elsewhere) themselves have a Father in Heaven, to whom alone they are to answer. And our Liturgy, which is an Act of Parliament, stiles God the only Ruler of Princes, the Queen his Minister, having his Authority. &c. and the Collect made out of the Epistle for the Third Sunday after Easter, declares it an Error from the Light of Christian Truth, and the way of Righteousness, not to acknowledge and submit to the King as the Supreme Ordinance of God: And that this Collect is an Extract of that Epistle is denied by none who is at all acquainted with the Doctrinal Method which the Church of England us’d in compiling her Liturgy. Monarchy by Divine Right then is certainly the Doctrine She teaches (witness Bishop Overal’s Convocation-Book, and that Treatise by the Bishop of Armagh, and the famous Decree of Oxford, which always stood up both for the Orthodox Faith and Government in Church and State) and as her Liturgy is establish’d by several Acts of Parliament, it is past all Contradiction thereby asserted agreeable to the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom and consequently Monarchy by Divine Right is the English Constitution. As to the Hereditary Succession in that Government, beside the many express Laws that declare that Right, in all Disputes that ever yet arose about the Crown of England, Hereditary Right alone was always insisted on; as is evident from the Declarations, Manifesto’s and Remonstrances publish’d by both Parties, York and Lancaster, till the Union. And whatever Interruptions may have happen’d from the corrupt Humours and exorbitant Passions of Mankind, Fact can never be Argument Against Right, till common Vogue can justify Conscience, and multitude of Voices carry it against God, make him repeal his Laws, reverse his Threatnings, and leave it to his giddy Creatures to chuse how and by whom they will be govern’d. Queen Elizabeth, of Blessed Memory, declared the Right of Succession to be in King James the First, as next in Blood. Upon the Happy Restoration of King Charles the Second was it declared and confirmed by King and Parliament, as the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom, “That neither Lords nor Commons, nor both together, nor the People Collectively, or Representatively had any Power coercive, &c. Stat.12 Car. 2. And by the Act of Uniformity, 14 Car. 2. Subseribers were upon Oath to declare, “That it is not Lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King, and that they did abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person:” And (to March 25. 1682.) ‘That the Solemn League and Covenant was in it self an unlawful Oath, imposed upon the Subjects of his Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom. But to deny (as a late Author has done) any particular Form of Government establish’d in Scripture, is to tax it with Deficiency as to the Order and good Government of Mankind; because it leaves it fluctuating and uncertain as the different Humours, Factions and Interests alternately prevail over and suppress each other: And should there be Two Competitors, or Corrival Parties, how shall the Subject know which has the Right, unless the longest Sword be the decisive Argument? And to introduce the Notion of an Indefinite Supreme Power for the Time being, is to justify the Solemn League and Covenant, and the Reign of Oliver, whose benecking Ministers pleaded Obedience to the Supreme Power for the Time being for what they did, which his certainly was, if no particular Form of Government be by Divine Right; but this their Plea was justlfy over-rul’d in Westminster-Hall, as contrary to the Laws of God and this Kingdom.
And here it may be question’d Whether Dr. Blackal’s late fort of Pulpiteering tends not to heighten the Differences amongst us? For as it is better to let the Humours of the Body Natural lie Dormant, which if stirr’d by too course and improper Physick may endanger the Constitution: So is it more adviceable to let the Civil Differences wear off in Silence, than Seek to eradicate them by Popular Arguments, which can never be framed satisfactory to all parties. Nature in time will do the Work in both; whereas Quacking is alike destructive to each Temperament.