THE Doctrine of Passive Obedience AND JURE DIVINO disproved, And Obedience to the present Government, proved from Scripture, Law, and Reason. Written for the satisfaction of those who are dissatisfied at the present Government: By a Layman of the Church of England.  
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 Sovereign, with the Public Detriment.  
The end of Magistracy, is the good of the whole body, head and members conjunctly; but if we speak divisim, than the good of the Society is the ultimat end, and next to that, as conducent to that, the Governors' Greatness and Prerogative.  
The Measure of our Government, is acknowledged to be by Law, and therefore the King cannot confer Authority to any beyond Law; so that those Agents deriving no Authority from him, are mere Instruments of his Will, unauthorised persons, in their assaults Robbers.  
King Charles the First's Declaration at Newmarket 41. says, that the Law is the Measure of his Power.  
There is no Absolute Authority, where there is no Absolute Subjection 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 way conrary 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 men's Lives and Liberties, and thereby put them upon a necessity of defending them.  
Every man has the right of Self-preservation as entire under Civil Government, as he had in a state of Nature: Under what Government 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 Subordinat Magistrates employed 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 aught 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 Wisdom of Almighty God, than that some thousands or millions of people should be so subjected to the power of one man, of the same Infirmities with themselves, as in case he should command all their Throats to be cut, they are obliged under the pain of no less than 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 2d, 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 ourselves 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 Privileges 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 monstruous unnatural a Tyranny, as apparently to seek the destruction of the whole Community, than such Community may negatively resist such Subversion, and if constrained to it, positively resist such Endeavours, and defend themselves 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 it 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 public, especially in a limited Monarchy.  
Resistance ought not to be made against all Illegal Proceed, 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 endangered; the People's 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 conferred on him, is no way to be opposed, either by all or 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, than 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 Correlative; 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 ruin and destruction of his People, by breaking his Oath or Contract, and destroying the very Foundation of Government, ●nd in Lieu thereof bringing in Popery and Slavery (as the ●ate 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 Act 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 and Illegal Person, and a Betrayer of the known Laws of his Country.  
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 Sovereign the King of Spain, and when she assisted the Protestants of France at a vast Charge, in the Reigns of Charles the Ninth, and Henry the Third, and in King Charles the First's Reign, the Expedition of Rochel was carried on by King and Parliament, and Cordially agreed to by the Fathers of our Church, and yet the Protestants of France could never pretend to any such Privileges as England can justly Claim.  
The late King James' Life has been but one continued, and form Conspiracy against our Religion, Laws, Rights and Privileges, and what can be expected from such a Prince (who is Romanist) and has Violated his Oath before God and Man, and endeavours to Re-establish himself with the Sword, by the Assistance of one of the greatest Tyrants that ever the World produced.  
It cannot be proved, that Monarchy was Originally instituted by God Almighty, or that we are Commanded to obey Kings, Exclusively to all other Government.  
I ask where was there such a thing as a King for the first Sixteen hundred years, and up-wards, which is to the Deluge, or for several hundred years after it: the first King (at least the first mentioned in Holy Writ) is Nimrod, of the Posterity of Cham, who began his 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, it is not Rational to believe, that God would have Commanded all the World to have been Governed by Kings, or at least the Christian World, and have given them a particular Law to Govern by?  
If Monarchy be Jure Divino, than all other Governments is Sinful.  
Allegiance is due to him from whom we receive Protection; this is allowed by all the World, else why do men, after having Sworn Allegiance to their Native Prince, and going into another Country, swear Allegiance to the Prince thereof.  
Allegiance is due to a King in Possession, (who is called a King De facto,) and Treason may be committed against him, as well as against a King by regular descent; and yet by the Law, Treason cannot be committed against the Rightful Heir, (who is called a King de Jure) who is out of Possession of the Crown, and all Judicial and 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 ●●●d of the Regal Authority, and of the Law itself, is the Quiet ●●d Prosperity of the Commonwealth.  
It's an acknowledged Aphorism, that the safety of the People 〈◊〉 the Supreme Law, and therefore to be preferred before Titles ●o Succession.  
The Succession of the Crown of England is not by Divine Right, but by Political Instituion, and all the Prerogatives ●nd Authorities of the Crown belong to the Successor de Facto, ●nd 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, to confirm this Maxim of our Law; for neither our Saviour of his Apostles bid Christians inquire into the Right and the Title of the Roman Emperors, but obey them, under what Government it was their Lot to fall, for few of them could pretend a Legal Title to the Crown.  
I Challenge all the Passive Obedience and Jure Divino Men in 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 Necks upon the Block, and stand to the mercy of the French and Irish Dragoons to cut their Throats.  
I Conjure all the dissatisfied Persons in their Majesty's Dominions to be satisfied with these Assertions and Propositions, or to answer them, and show sound reason for their Dissent from the present Government, for a wilful Schism in the State is a Sin, and he that Endavours to sow Dissension amongst the People, and to draw their Majesty's Subjects from the ir●… t● Allegiance, is guilty of a double Sin.  
And because it may be Objected, in answering these Propositions they must be forced to Write against the Government (I do promise) if they send a short, but direct Answer, to M●… Randal tailor's, to Print it, with a Reply annexed to it.   

Lincensed,  
May 7.1689. J. Fraser.   

London, Printed by Randal Taylor, near Stationers-Hall an● Reprinted at Edinburgh, Anno Dom. 168●.