Prince with respect to the Israelites Their words are as follow Both these Examples of Ioram and Eglon do make it known to us that the Lord may overthrow any Kings c. notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Kingdoms Now this Inference cannot be drawn from the premises unless Eglon had a good and unexceptionable Right to the Government of Israel For if Eglon's Title was defective in any point it could not be a ruled Case against those Princes who had a better But the Convocation affirm that from these Examples of Ioram and Eglon its evident that God can overthrow any Kings notwithstanding any Claim Right Title c. which reasoning supposes that Eglon had all the Right and Claim Title c. which was requisite and by consequence was a Legal Prince From whence it appears that the Convocation does not mean a King de Facto in opposition to one de Iure for the Examples before them gave them no occasion for such a distinction but only a Prince in actual Administration of the Government without any reflection upon his Title 3. I have proved above that the Babylonian Monarchy was legally established over Iudea The Jews being expresly commanded by God himself to submit to the King of Babylon Now though the Jews were not allow'd out of their own voluntary motion to chuse a Foreign Prince especially when they had one of their own yet without question they might accept of one of God's chusing God doubtless has the liberty to dispense with or repeal his own positive Laws And as the Government of the Babylonians over Israel was unquestionable so likewise was that of the Persians who succeeded to the Right of the former Thus the Convocation affirm That the Kings of Persia continued a Supreme Authority over the Jews by God's appointment And that Nehemiah and Zorobabel were lawful Princes Which they could not have been unless the Kings of Persia were such because they acted by their Deputation 4. As to Alexander the Great the Convocation declares that the Jews were as much his Subjects as they had been before the Subjects of the Kings of Babylon and Persia. And if they were as much his Subjects his Title to command them must be as good as that of the preceding Kings Besides I have already made it appear that the Jews submitted to him by God's particular direction Lastly The Convocation affirms That it was unlawful for Aristobulus the Father or either of his two Sons Alexander or Antigonus having all of them submitted themselves to rebel against the Romans This is a clear Argument that this Reverend Assembly believed the Right of the Crown of Iudea translated by the Submission of the Royal Line and that the Romans by consequence were their legal Governors And to make their Testimonies demonstrative they expresly pronounce that the Romans were the Jews lawful Magistrates And what Countrymen were the Romans Were they not Foreigners The Doctor sure does not think the Convocation took them for native Jews And if not they could not understand Deut. 17.15 in his Sense Farther To argue with the Doctor independently of the Convocation As this command in Deuteronomy was not given till after the Aegyptian Monarchy so the force of it expired under the Roman For after the coming of Shiloh the Scepter was to depart from Iudah Now the command of choosing a King of their own Nation could not extend to a Time in which it was foretold by Sacred Writ that their State should be dissolved and there was no more Kings of Iudah to be expected So that after the Messiah appeared it was Lawful for the Jews to submit to a Foreign Power notwithstanding the Text of Deuteronomy or else they were obliged to live in Hobs's State of Nature For if they might not submit to Foreign Princes they must break up Society and be independent of all Government For Iacob's Prophecy had barred them from having any Governors of their own Which latter supposition all Men will grant to be impracticable and absurd But if the Jews might Lawfully submit to a Foreign Power then those they submitted to were their Lawful Governors Besides at the Death of our Saviour all the Mosaick Law unless the Moral part of it was cancelled So that the Roman Emperors were as much the Natural Princes of the Jews as the Kings of Portugal and Spain are over their Posterity who now live in those Dominions From whence it follows that when St. Paul wrote the 13. to the Rom. upon which the Doctor so much insists He could not suppose the Roman Authority could receive the least blemish from Deut. 17.15 which I desire may be remembred against another Time In short the meaning of this last Text appears to be no more than this That the Jews were not permitted out of Levity to make a voluntary choice of a Foreign Prince But when they were under hard circumstances and injured none but themselves by their submission They were at Liberty to consult their advantage this as to the main is the Opinion of Grotius and has been the Doctor 's too Who seems to wonder the Pharisees could not distinguish upon the Prohibition but took it in too unlimited a sence So that its in vain for the Doctor to reply that if Force dissolves the Obligation of a positive Divine Law a meer human one cannot hold out against it For the command we see does not reach a case of Force but points at circumstances of Liberty and Inclination And what is farther very remarkable It does not follow that because the Israelites might submit to prevent hard usage when they were in their own Power When they were unengaged to any Prince of their own I say it does not follow from hence that they had any Authority to desert their Prince in his Distress and to give away his Right to save themselves harmless These two Cases are extreamly different In the first a Man resignes nothing but what belongs to him and is at his disposal But the other confounds the nature of property makes a Man forfeit without consent or provocation given And puts it in the Subjects power to translate their Allegiance without their Princes allowance and to depose them when they please I shall now proceed with his Book of Allegiance and before I take leave of the Chapter I was examining I shall just observe how inconsistent the Doctors Notion of Settlement is with it self and of what incoherent parts its compounded He tells us when the whole Power of the Nation is in the Hands of the Prince when the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation has submitted to him and those who will not submit can be crushed by Him when all this is done and I suppose not before he concludes the Settlement compleat By which definition he plainly makes Force and Consent Power and Law essential to a
Settlement and by the same Logick he might have compounded it of Fire and Water If Power will govern and is a certain sign of God's Authority to what purpose are the States convened Cannot Providence dispose of Kingdoms without their Leave Or does a Divine Right depend upon humane Forms and Solemnities In short either Power implies a necessary Conveyance of Divine Right or not If not then it s no certain sign of God's Authority and so the Doctor 's Fundamental Principle is out of doors If it does then there is no need of the Submission of the Estates to perfect the Settlement But since the Doctor has call'd them together I desire to know whether they are Legal or Illegal Estates if Illegal they had better have kept at home than meet to break the Laws If they are a Legal Body let this be proved And thus at last we must be brought to debate the Legality of a Revolution which the Doctor tells us is an unnenecessary unfit and impracticable Undertaking However as the Doctor has ordered the matter the Estates can have nothing to do with it And therefore I can't imagine what he brought them in for unless it were for a Varnish It 's likely he thought naked unornamented Violence would make but an untoward Figure and that People would be too much frighted to spell out its Divine Authority For this Reason he has dressed up his Power in the habit of Justice and supplied the defect of Law with Pomp and Pageantry But he seems not well pleased because his definition of Settlement is not allowed him and would gladly hear a good Reason why the general Submission of the People can't settle the Government unless the Prince submit also I hope it 's no bad Reason to say the Submission of the Prince is necessary in this Case because no Man can lose his Right without Forfeiture or Consent Nay Forfeiture itself supposes a conditional Right and implies Consent at a remoter distance The Doctor himself acknowledges That Consent is necessary to transfer a legal Right From whence it follows That where the Princes legal Right is not transferred by his own Submission it still remains in him unless Kings are in a worse condition than other People and lose the common Privilege by being God's Representatives Now one part of the King 's Right is to govern his Subjects and if he has a Right to govern they must of Necessity be under any Obligation to obey him And that must needs be a firm Settlement which all People that make it are bound to unsettle again As for his Distinction between Legal and Divine Right I have shewn the Vanity of it already To conclude this Section If the Doctor is resolved to persist in his new Opinion That all Soveraign or Usurping Powers have God's Authority and that Subjection is due to those who have no legal Right He must look out for some other Supports for that of the Convocation and Church of England will be sure to fail him Now that the Reader may not think him unprovided with Abettors I shall shew by and by from what Quarter he may receive a considerable Assistance SECT III. The Doctor 's Arguments from Scripture and Reason examined HAving done with the Convocation I must go on with the Doctor to Scripture and Reason from both which intermix'd with each other he attempts to prove That all Soveraign Princes that is every one that has Force to crush the dissenting Party Prince Massianello not excepted who are settled in their Thrones are placed there by God and invested with his Authority That is in plain English they must be obeyed as God's Ministers though they have no legal Title and the People know they have none This in so many words he knew would sound harshly and therefore has given the Expression a turn of Advantage To come to his Proofs Which he has reduced into Propositions Among these His first Proposition That all Authority is from God is undeniable Second Proposition That Civil Power and Authority is no otherwise from God than as he gives his Power and Authority to some particular Person or Persons to govern others This is likewise granted him But what use he can make of it I cannot imagine For though no Man can govern by God's Authority unless God gives it him it does not follow from hence that God gives his Authority to Usurpers The Doctor knows God did not give it to Athalia and why other Usurpers should be in a better Condition he has not yet offered any satisfactory Reason Force and Authority though our Author confounds them have always been looked upon as Things vastly different The first is nothing but Violence and Irresistibility The other Authority is a moral Capacity to do an Action and always implies a Right So that they who pretend to God's Authority must make good their Title either by the ordinary Plea of humane Laws or by the extraordinary one of Revelation They must prove they have a Right distinct from their Power otherwise they contradict the Sense of Mankind and destroy the very Being of Morality However the Doctor thinks it plain from St. Paul and St. Peter That all those who exercise Supreme Power are set up by God and receive their Authority from him notwithstanding they have no other Title but the Sword In order to the removing this Mistake I shall endeavour to prove that by the Higher Powers the Apostle meant only Lawful Powers 1. Because we have a Rule in the Scripture to interpret the Apostle in this Sense For the Distinction between Lawful and Usurped Powers is not unknown to Scripture as the Doctor pretends 2. This Interpretation is supported by the Authority of the ancient Doctors of the Church 3. It s agreeable to the Sentiments the Generality of Mankind had of a Usurpation At and before the Apostles Time 1. We are warranted by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to conclude that by the Higher Powers are only meant those who are Lawfully Constituted as appears 1. From the Instance of Athaliah Who though she had Power and Settlement in as ample a manner as can be desired yet she had no Divine Authority nor any Right to the Peoples Obedience as is plain from the History The Doctors Solution of this difficulty from the Entail of the Crown upon Davids Family has been shown insufficient I confess the Doctor has offered something farther lately in defence of his Notion though I think much short of his point However the Learned Authour of the Postscript being particularly engaged in this Case and having managed it with so much Advantage I shall forbear to insist any farther upon it 2. Another Argument from Scripture that by the Higher Powers are meant only Lawful ones May be taken from 1 Pet. 2. v. 14. The next verse to that which the Doctor Quotes for a contrary Opinion In which place the
are under the disposal of Providence 1 Sam. 2.7 Prov. 22.2 Therefore if Possession gives a Divine Right in one case why not in the other This Reasoning may be further improved by the Doctor 's Logick where putting out the Word Kings I argue thus in the Doctor 's Expression All Possession is equally Rightful with respect to God For those are rightful Owners who are put into Possession by God And its impossible there should be a wrong Possessor unless a Man can make himself Master of his Neighbours Fortune whether God will or no. Farther it will not be denied but that the Sabeans who took away Iob's Cattel Iob. 1.15 were Company of Robbers and which is worse they committed their Rapine by the Instigation of the Devil And yet Ver. 21. it 's said what was stollen by them was taken away by the Lord. Which according to the Doctor 's method of Interpretation will go a great way towards the proving their Divine Right He urges Rom. 13.1 That all Power is of God But this Text makes against him as he is pleased to expound it i. e. that it is meant of Power as Power without any respect to Right For his former Interpretation of Legal Power he has solemnly Recanted in his Preface Now if all Power be from God without regard to Law and Human Justice why a Captain of Moss-troopers who is an Usurper in little may not come in for his share of Prerogative I can't imagine For an Usurper and his Adherents are as much combined against Justice as any private Robbers They offer Violence to the Constitution they out-rage all those who oppose their Rapine and muster all their Force and Cunning to keep honest Men out of their own So on the other hand Thieves are generally formed into a Society They have their Articles of Confederacy their Original Contracts and Fundamentals as well as other People And therefore they must not be refused the Privilege of Usurpation upon the Score of being Out-lyers Upon the whole Why inferiour Thieves should be denied Divine Right any more than Usurpers is unimaginable Unless the Bigness of a piece of Injustice is a Circumstance of Advantage And a Man ought to be encouraged by Providence for Robbing in a greater Compass than his Neighbours These with some others of a resembling Nature are I conceive evident Consequences from the Doctor 's Scheme of Government Which besides that they prove the insufficiency of his Principles for nothing but Truth can follow from Truth They shew us at the same time that they are by no means so much for the good of Mankind as he insinuates And that we ought not to be so fond of them as he would make us nor so glad to see them well proved How much Honour he has done the Scriptures and the Convocation-Book by making them the Abettors of such Doctrin as this may easily be guessed I hope therefore it may be no hazardous Undertaking to joyn issue with the Doctor upon this point nor over-difficult to disengage these Authorities from seeming to give any Assistance to his Cause SECT II. Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book no Favourer of the Doctor 's Opinion BEfore I enter upon this Part of the Argument I must observe to the Reader That it has been managed with so much Advantage against the Doctor already that it might have been very well omitted here were it not possible that these Papers may fall into some hands that may not be so fortunate as to meet with other Satisfaction However I shall venture to be shorter upon this Head than otherwise I should have been Where I must 1. Premise That supposing the Convocation was unquestionably on the Doctor 's side he would be far from gaining his Point For Allegiance is a Duty which arises from our Subjection to the Temporal Power and therefore the Laws of each respective Kingdom must be the Rule of our practice in this Case A Synod though it may deliver its Opinion upon such a Point has no Authority to determin against the State The Church as She did not give Princes their Crowns so there is no reason She should pretend to take them away If She will be a Iudge and a Divider in these Matters She claims a greater Privilege than our Saviour owned I hope the Doctor won't say an Ecclesiastical Canon can set aside the Common Law and repeal an Act of Parliament This besides other Inconveniences of which the Doctor might be made sensible would be no other than graffing the Roman Pretences upon a new Stock and translating the Supremacy from St. Peter's to St. Paul's But that this Convocation should maintain such Doctrin as this is unimaginable since the great Design of their Book is to prove the Independency of Princes to vindicate their Rights against Church-Encroachments and to shew that Ecclesiasticks are as much their Subjects as the Laity 2. If we consider the Time in which this Convocation sat we shall find it very improper to fix the Doctor 's Principles upon them without the clearest and most convincing Evidence in their Writings For they met the first of King Iames I. when the Act of Recognition was passed in Parliament where the Bishops of this Convocation were present and gave their Votes for the Bill In which they Recognize and Acknowledge being bounden thereunto by the LAWS of GOD and Man the King 's Right to the Crown by inherent Birth-Right and undoubted Succession And oblige themselves their Heirs and Posterity for ever to submit to or stand by this Right until the last drop of their Bloods be spent And would these Reverend Prelates concur to the making a Law drawn up with such Clearness and Solemnity of Expression and go presently and contradict it in their Synod Was it their way to make the Bishop vote against the Lord and not only clash with the State but with themselves What! Declare themselves bound by the Laws of God and Man to stand by the Succession to the last drop of their Bloods And at the same time lay down Doctrin which will help us to as many Governments in a Year as there are Moons and as has been smartly observed make Captain Tom the most Soveraign and Divine Thing upon Earth Those who can believe the Convocation guilty of such Singularities as these must have a mean Opinion of them and ought to lay very little weight upon their Authority Having premised these Observations I shall proceed to examin the Sense of the Convocation as to the Point in hand And 1. I agree with the Doctor That Usurped Powers when throughly settled have God's Authority and are to be reverenced and obeyed i. e. These Princes who as the Canon speaks got their Authority unjustly and wrung it by Force from the true and lawful Possessor are to be submitted to as God's Ministers when the legal Claim is either surrendred or extinguished For where there is no other Title Possession is sufficient in
Interpretation of Rom. 13.1 which I am contending for is supported by the Authority of the Fathers I shall produce some Testimonies from them St. Chrysostom upon the place puts the Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is every Governor chosen and set up by God Almighty To this he Answers in the Apostles Name I affirm no such thing For I am not now Discoursing of every particular Prince but of Government it self The Constitution of Magistracy does indeed proceed from the Divine Wisdom to prevent Confusion and Disorder Therefore the Apostle does not say that there is no Prince of God But that those Powers that be are ordained of God Therefore where the wise Man tells us that it's God who joyns a Woman to a Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He means no more then that God instituted Matrimony Not that every one who lives with a Woman is joyned to her by God For we see many cohabit sinfully and not according to the Laws of Marriage Which is by no means to be attributed to God Almighties doing This Comparison without the rest of this Father's Testimony is sufficient to show that he was far from believing that Power and God's Authority always went together For as a Man and a Woman can't be joyned together by God though they receive each other with never so much Freedom unless the Essentials of Matrimony are premised especially when either of them are preingaged So an Usurper though he may debauch the Subjects with presents of Flattery from their former Obligations yet the whole commerce is no better then civil Adultery and therefore must not pretend to be Authorized from Heaven The next Testimony shall be taken from Theodoret who affirms That the Power of unjust Men as all Usurpers are does not proceed from God's Choice but only the Dispensation of Government in General Now if unjust Powers or Usurpers are not chosen or delegated by God then they can have none of God's Authority For no Man can have God's Authority but he to whom it 's given Bare permission to Govern as the Doctor goes on will not do And yet this is all Theodoret allows to such unqualified Persons Occumenius and Theophylact express themselves to the same purpose with St. Chrysostom Only they add That all kinds of Power whatsoever are Orderly as Theophylact has it Ordained by God Whether it be that of a Father over his Children or a Husband over his Wife c. Now these two Jurisdictions of Father and Husband are on all hands granted to be unexceptionable and founded in the Laws of Nature and Revelation And since these Fathers have made their instance only in Powers confessedly Lawful We have Reason to believe they understood the Apostles Higher Powers in this sense had they given us no other Argument which it's evident they have These Testimonies of the Fathers not to mention others together with the concurrent Sense of our own Divines the Doctor is pleased to call a Common Evasion And tells us he knows not what they mean by Civil Authority unless it be that God intended that Mankind should live under Government And is not this a sufficient meaning No. This does not prove that all Power is from God unless those who exercise this Power which he must mean by Authority receive it from God Right And is the Doctor offended at this Is he angry because they don't contradict themselves which they must have done if they had asserted Successful Violence had a Divine Commission to act by Their maintaining Civil Authority to be of Divine Institution with an Exception to particular Persons proves that all Legal Power is from God and that they took Power not for meer Force as the Doctor does but under the Notion of Right and Authority If the Doctor is resolved to stick so very close to the Letter I am afraid it will carry him to a Construction he will not approve What does he think of the Kingdom of Satan is not that called the Power of Darkness Will the Doctor say these Powers are ordained by God I hope he is not so much straitned for Government as to make the Devil a Magistrate 3. The interpreting the Text in dispute only of Lawful Powers is agreeable to the Sentiments the generality of Mankind had of Usurpation at and before the Apostles time I shall give some Instances out of the most famous Governments in the World by which it will appear that Mankind has always had a very unkind Opinion of Usurpers And notwithstanding their Success they have not thought them so much the Favourites of Providence nor their Calling so Divine as we are lately made to believe To begin Astartus Contemporary with Rehoboam recovered the Kingdom of Tyre after it had been held twelve Years by Usurpers as Sir Walter Ralegh informs us It seems these Tyrians knew nothing of the Divine Right of Possession from whence I conclude it 's no innate Principle The same Author observes that the ten Tribes did never forbear to revenge the death of their Kings when it lay in their Power of which he gives some Instances nor approved the good Success of Treason unless Fear compel'd them So that it 's plain when they did comply it was Interest not Duty which engaged them From whence it follows that they were as much unenlightned as to this Point as the Heathenish Tyrians To continue the Argument the counterfeit Smerdis was in possession of the Empire of Persia for some Months who after he was understood to be an Impostor the Princes of the Blood immediately removed him which practice of theirs is mentioned by Iustin with Commendation And the just odium which Usurpation lay under was probably the Reason why this Usurper's Government is pretermitted and not reckoned by itself in the Chronological Accounts but added to the Reign of Cambyses as the Misrule of Cromwel was to that of King Charles II. From Persia let us travel homewards into Greece and to the most polite part of it Athens where we shall find the Memories of Harmodius and Aritogiton honoured and their Families exempted from paying Taxes for delivering their Country from the Tyranny of Hippias who broke in upon their Government and was expelled by the Athenians after several years Usurpation The learned Bodin gives us the Sense both of the Greeks and Romans in this matter as fully as can be desired 1. He defines a Tyrant or Usurper to be one who unlawfully seizes upon the Government And then adds Such a Person the Laws and Writings of the Antients command to be slain and propound the highest Rewards to those who can dispatch him Neither in such a Case are the Qualities of the Person considered or any distinction made between a kind and a cruel Usurper Let this therefore be laid down as an undoubted truth That whosoever in a Monarchy shall wrest the Government from the Lawful King or shall set himself
this is one of the Crowns Prerogatives The Royal Style is for very good Reasons an incommunicable indivisible Right and cannot be given to another without taking it from the true Owner And if Stealing is Breeding it 's time to have done This puts me in mind of what my Lord Bacon observes concerning the giving wrong Names to Things which he terms Idola Fori which he tells us is one of the principal Causes that Sciences are so often disturbed and the Understandings of Men so much perplexed And doubtless where the Matter relates to Conscience and Morality the dressing up an uncreditable Character in the Habit of Reverence and Dignity is very apt to draw a false Idea upon the Mind and disorder the Practise of the Generality And if the Doctor pleases to look into the Statute Book and Parliament Rolls he will find our own Legislators of the same Mind For there the Three Henrys of Lancaster though they had considerable Advantages above other de Facto Men are called pretensed Kings and their Reigns Usurpations and Henry the Fourth is Styled Earl of Derby The same cautiousness of Expression we shall find in the Case of Richard the Third and Lady Iane Grey who notwithstanding their Possession of the Crown are attainted of High-Treason and mentioned in the Style of Subjects And if we consult the Scripture we shall find the Royal Style never given to Usurpers For though Asa's Mother and Ester are called Queens notwithstanding the first was but Dowager and the other had no more than a Matrimonial Royalty Yet Athaliah with her Six years Mis-rule is never allowed this Title either in holy Writ or by Iosephus I grant Hushai in his Salutation of Absalom was a very mannerly Person and cryed God save the King God save the King And told him moreover That he was a Providential Monarch and chosen by the Lord and all the People of Israel But then we are to observe That Hushai acted the part of a Deserter all this while and spoke the Language of Rebellion But in all other places where the History speaks the Words of the inspired Writer Absalom is never called King though David is mentioned as such when his Fortunes were at the lowest Ebb. If it 's Objected That Absalom was not sufficiently raised for this Title I shall prove afterwards which at present I desire the Reader would take for granted that Absalom had more Advantages than the present Dispute requires That he did not only Administer the regal Power but was likewise Settled upon the Doctor 's Principles and ought to have been entirely obeyed If it 's said That Abimeleck is called King I answer That there was at that time no lawful Prince Dispossessed and Claiming against him And therefore though he unjustly seized the Government yet since there was no rightful Competitor Possession gave him a Title both to the Name and Thing But to support an Usurper in his Majesty the Doctor says He is King indeed while he administers the Regal Power How can that be when it 's supposed in the Dispute That he has neither Legal nor Divine Authority Fourthly We must Pray for an Unsettled Prince that is an Usurper in his own Sense under the Name and Title of King Why so Because the Doctor has lead the the way I wish that is not the main Reason However he gives Two others 1. Because we are bound to pray for all in Authority which is more than an Usurper especially in this Condition can pretend to For to give him legal Right is a contradiction in Terms And as for Divine Authority the Doctor can allow him none of that till he is thoroughly Settled His 2. Reason why we should pray for him as King is because he has Power to do a great deal of Good or a great deal of Harm Now upon this Score we might pray for many more Kings than Iulius Cesar found in Kent There is a certain Person that shall be nameless for whom I hope the Doctor does not pray under the Title of King who has it in his Power to do a great deal of Good and in his Will a great deal of Harm as the Indians are very sensible and order their Devotions accordingly As for his Direction That we must take care to do it in such Terms as not to pray against the Dispossessed Prince it is contradictious and impracticable For First This dividing our Prayers between Two contesting Princes is to split our Duty into halfs and obliges us to Two opposite Allegiances which he condemns For certainly Prayers for the King are one part of the Subjects Duty especially of those of the Doctors Function Secondly His Advice is impracticable For the Proclaming him King to the People is a great injury to the Dispossessed Prince And as the Doctor well observes His very Possession of the Throne and every Act of Authority he does is against the Interest of the King de Iure And therefore such a Prayer cannot be Justified unless we pray to be rid of him Thus I have considered his main Principles The remainder of his Book being most of it consequences from these intermixed with Repetitions and naked Affirmations will go off with less trouble He observes That the taking away the Distinction between Rightful and Usurped Powers gives the most intelligible account of the Original of Government This he attempts by Induction and endeavours to prove that Government take it which way you will is not to be Explained upon a Foundation of legal Right He begins with Paternal or Patriarchal Authority And says That no Man had Authority either to give it away or usurp it I easily agree with the Doctor That no Man had Authority to usurp Paternal Power or any other But why it might not be fairly parted with is not altogether so plain The Doctor knows Emancipation was frequently practised among the Romans and allowed by their Laws This was no other than a Resignation of Fatherly Authority into the hands of the Child Indeed to chain a Man thus inseparably to his Right is in effect to take away the Advantage of it For it bars him the Liberty of disposing of his own and makes him a Slave to that of which he should be Master But suppose a Father can't give away his Authority I hope the Doctor will permit him to leave it behind him when he dyes Now this is sufficient for the Patriarchal Scheme For by this Hypothesis Adam and the other Patriarchs who had Sovereign Dominion from God left their Jurisdiction to go by Descent to their Heirs who were Lords not only of their immediate Brethren but of all the remoter Branches of the younger Families So that here is no need of the Resignation of Paternal Power For the successive Conveyance of Original Authority to the Heirs or reputed Heirs of the first Head is as much as this Hypothesis requires This is the
Mental Evasion or Secret Reservation whatsoever But to swear with this private supplemental Sense That we will bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King provided the Majority of his Subjects will do so too if this is not a plain wresting of the common Sense and Understanding of the Words if this is not a Mental Reservation to purpose I despair of seeing any such in the Iesuits Morals Secondly This Construction of the Oath makes Government very uncertain and precarious The Dr. frequently flourishes with the Body of the Nation I hope he does not think the Nation is all Body By this great Body I suppose he must mean the Majority of the Kingdom Now if a Government lyes at the Discretion of the Multitude it must needs be admirably provided for If a King must go to the Poll for his Sovereignty and and we are obliged to tell Noses to know whether our Allegiance continues or not we are likely to enjoy the Blessings of Peace and Order at a great rate The generality of Mankind formerly don 't use to be over burthened either with Prudence or Conscience and I don't perceive that this Age has much mended the matter Which makes me wonder why the Dr. should give them such an unbounded Privilege to pull down and set up Kings to dispence with Oaths and other Commandments to repeal Laws to transferr Titles and turn the World topsy turvy at their pleasure But which way does the Great Body of the Nation absolve themselves from these Oaths By Law No. They are not the Legislative Power The Parliament it self cannot pretend to this Privilege without the King This Great Body are Subjects like other People when they are separate and dispersed Whence then comes the sudden Alteration Can they rendezvouz themselves into Independency Can a Crowd give a man a Dispensation purely by the Magick of their numbers and the Disorder of their Meeting This makes the Composition work incredibly beyond the vertue of the simple Ingredients Who would live alone if Company can do all these Wonders Well! Possibly the Dr. means This Great Body can't absolve themselves from their Oath lawfully but when they have once done it their Act must stand Can they not do it Lawfully Then certainly not at all For in these cases id tantum possumus quod jure possumus Who ever heard that unlawful Absolving or a Dispensation against Authority and Right signified any thing However this is the Dr's meaning which makes him still more incomprehensible For 3 dly This Construction confirms the highest Breaches of Law and gives Force and Authority to the most irregular Proceedings It does not warrant the Deposing Act it 's true but when it 's over it gives it a Blessing and pronounces it valid The Pope sometimes pretends to depose Princes by a Privilege of Right But this Doctrine scorns to be beholden to a Colour of Justice but does the same thing by a Privilege of Wrong It sets Violence in the place of Law and gives Treason and Authority the same effect And how the difference between Good and Evil can consist with such a Latitude is somewhat difficult to understand But what can the minor part of the Subjects perhaps but a little handful do towards the restoring their King Why they can shew an exemplary Firmness and Resolution which may probably encrease their numbers and awaken the better-meaning part of the People into right Apprehensions of their Duty They can wait God Almighty's leisure retain their Integrity and save their Souls And is all this nothing The Dr. has a farther Reserve and that is An Oath to fight for the King does not oblige us to fight against our Country which is as unnatural as to fight against our King As unnatural then it 's unnatural to fight against our King which is worth the observing To go on and 1. As the Oath of Allegiance does not oblige us to fight against our Country so neither does it to sight against our King If it did it has been well kept Besides I would gladly see a reason why we ought to preferr the Country to the King Did we swear Allegiance to the Country or has it any Authority over us independent of the King If not why should we esteem Multitudes above Justice and side with the Subject against the Soveraign 2 dly We are to remember That the Dr. disputes upon a Supposition of Usurpation and therefore the Assistance of our Country does not belong to his Plea For those who appear for the Rightful Prince for the Laws and Establish'd Government of the Country they and no other are properly speaking the Friends of the Country If the Dr. takes the Country on any other notion he must make it a Wilderness of Disorder or a Den of Thieves And to carry on the Dr's Supposition To fight against Revolters is not to fight against our Country They have no Country to lose but have forfeited the Privileges of their Birth and Industry by their defection And though they may find Favour if they seek in time yet they can challenge none The Dr. was apprehensive that this Post was scarcely tenable and therefore after a little skirmishing retires to the main Fort his pretended Disposal of Providence And after all he grants That Subjects must have Regard to Legal Right And if they pull down a Rightful King and set up a King without Right they greatly sin in it Most certainly And therefore one would think when they have set up a pretended King without Right they ought to pull them down again and not persevere in the Breach of their Duty What the Dr. adds by way of Parenthesis That Subjects ought not to remove or set up Kings without Legal-Right unless the Constitution of the Government should in some cases allow it is somewhat unintelligible 'T is true some people would make us believe though without Reason That the Constitution does acknowledge an Illegal Prince after he is once set up and established But that it should allow the setting him up in any case I suppose was never heard of till now If the Constitution allows of its own Violation and the Laws grow lawless and give Men Authority to break them it 's time to look out for some other Government I can guess what the Dr. would have called such disputing as this is if he had catched an Author at such a disadvantage The Dr. proceeds to another Objection viz. This Doctrine of his makes it impossible for an injured Prince to recover his Right This is a severe Charge How does he purge himself Surprizingly enough He tells you It may be called a Difficulty in Providence if you please but it 's no Difficulty to the Subject unless a passionate Affection for the dispossessed Prince makes it a Difficulty Otherwise it will rub off easily enough For 't is but yielding to Necessity and leaving every thing else to Providence and there is an end of
Paragraph a little farther Now the Dr's Reason why a Divine Entail is stronger than a meer Human one is Because the first is founded upon express Revelation the later has nothing more than a providential Settlement of the Crown upon such a Family but Providence is not to be expounded against the express Revelation of God's Will To this I answer That an Human Entail has a great deal more to plead than the Dr's Notion of Providence It has a Legal Right to support it's Title which gives it an equal firmness with a Claim made from Divine Designation For we have plain Texts of Scripture to submit to the Constitution of our respective Countries and to look upon our Lawful Governours as God's Ministers And since a Legal Right is fortified with express Revelation it must have an equal privilege with a Divine Entail and carry it against all Providential Pretences by the Dr's own Argument He goes on and attempts to prove the difference between Divine and Human Laws as to their Force because in the first Case the Authority of God gives an immediate Divine Authority to the Laws made by God in the other Case the Authority of God terminates on the Person and does not immediately affect his Laws To this it may be replied 1. That according to the Dr's description of a Divine Law there are few or none of this Character to be found either in the Old or New Testament for the Mosaick Law was given by the disposition of Angels and the Gospel was delivered by the Apostles 'T is true those Precepts given by our Saviour may be said to proceed from a Supreme and Soveraign Power But then we are to consider that his Humanity was the Organ of their Conveyance So that by our Author 's Reasoning these practical Manifestations of the Will of God are but Human or Angelical Laws at the highest For not being delivered by the Deity Himself the Authority of God must be conveyed at a distance and terminate on the Person of the Minister who represents Him and by consequence cannot immediately affect his Laws Now this Immediate Conveyance is the Dr's distinguishing Privilege which he makes essential to the Character of a Divine Law And therefore I would gladly know why an Entail grounded only upon a Prophetical or Angelical Law may not be over-rul'd by Providential Events as well as an Human Legal Settlement For Angels have no original Immediate Authority any more than Kings and Kings are called Elohim Gods as well as the other and have as ample and I may add a more standing Authority to Govern Mankind than any of the Heavenly Hierarchy Now if Providence understood in the Dr's sence ought to have the same effect upon those Laws which were given by Angels or Prophets as upon others which are meerly Human as by his Argument it must have then Ioash's Entail was cut off by Athaliah's Possession and Iehojada was guilty of Treason for deposing her 2 dly It 's not at all material as to the Dispute in hand Whether the Divine Authority affects the Laws of Princes immediately or mediately As long as we are certain of the thing the manner of its Conveyance is no abatement of the original Vertue The Dr. grants That Princes have God's Authority to make Laws Now God's Authority to make Laws implies a Right to make them And since as the Dr. observes there are no Degrees of Right there can for the same reason be none of Authority and therefore it must be full and perfect where-ever it is If the Divine Commission of an Human Law-giver is certain and unquestionable we need enquire no farther for God's Authority receives no prejudice by being delivered to His Representatives So that provided the truth of the thing is secured the way of its coming to us whether by Removes or not signifies nothing for in this Case the distance of the Conveyance does not in the least weaken the Force of the Operation What the Dr. adds concerning Divine Laws That they have 〈◊〉 Superior Authority to all Human Laws is true but foreign to his purpose for God can null his own Laws as well as those which are purely Human as He has actually done in the Mosaick Dispensation so that the possibility of a Divine Repeal does not make any difference between Human and Divine Laws they being both of them equally liable to such an alteration Besides we are to observe that though God can repeal the Laws made by Himself or his Representatives yet we are by no means to suppose that Events and Providence as the Dr. takes it are any Authentick Declarations of the Divine Will His Instance in the By Laws of a Corporation is likewise unserviceable for these private Laws within the Precincts of the respective Towns have the same Force with the more general Laws of the Kingdom provided their Charter is comprehensive and full and granted by those who have the entire Legislative Power which last Privilege cannot be denied to God Almighty and therefore his Authority must be as strong in the delegation as in its more immediate exercise The Dr. in his Case of Allegiance to which I am now returned endeavours to gain a Text in Hosea from the usual Interpretation and make it consistent with his Principles Here as the Dr. observes God expresly charges Israel with making Kings without him They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes but I knew it not To this the Dr. replies That this was not true as to all the Kings of Israel after their separation from the Tribe of Judah If it was true of some of them it 's sufficient to justifie the objected Exposition against him This Answer therefore being perfectly inoffensive I shall pass to his Second in which he argues That Baasha slew Nadab the Son of Jeroboam and made himself King without God's express nomination And yet God tells him I have exalted thee out of the Dust and made thee Prince over my People Israel Now if there were any difficulty in this Text the Dr. has effectually removed it in his Case of Resistance the Passage is not only well managed but stands unrecanted And thus it is God having threatned to destroy Jeroboam ' s whole Family Baasha fulfills this Prophecy by the trayterous Murther of Nadab who succeeded his Father Jeroboam in the Kingdom and usurped the Government himself and slew all Jeroboam ' s House This Murther and Treason is numbred among the Sins of Baasha for which God afterwards threatned to destroy his House as He had done the House of Jeroboam And yet he having usurped the Throne and got the Power into his hands and no Man having a better Title than his God is said to have exalted him out of the Dust and made him Prince over his people Israel All which plainly shews that where there is no regular Succession i. e. where the Kingdom
is not Hereditary or the Royal Line is extinct to the Kingdom there Possession of Power makes a King From whence it follows that where there is a Regular Succession established and an undoubted Title there meer Possession of Power does not make a King If the Dr. can confute this Reasoning he may remember it is his own But in my opinion it is unanswerable and so I shall leave it and proceed to the 3 d. Which he calls the True Answer to this Text of Hosea by which Character we may understand what he thought of his two former In this Answer he affirms That Israel was originally a Theocracy he must mean after the Revolt of the Ten Tribes as well as Judah and though God at their request allowed them to have Kings yet He reserved the appointment of them to himself and appointed Jeroboam to be their first King Therefore the fault the Prophet taxes them with is their omitting to consult God for his Nomination after Jeroboam 's and Jehu 's Line were cut off for these were the only Kings named by God But by the Dr's Argument the Ten Tribes should have consulted God about a new King immediately after Ieroboam's death because his Line was cut off for the Crown was promised to his Posterity upon condition of his own good Behaviour which Condition was notoriously broken by him I might likewise observe that it 's very unlikely the Prophet Hosea who lived so many Generations after Ieroboam and Nadab his Son should charge the Children of Israel with an Omission at so great a distance of Time which no Mortal then living could possibly beguilty of But to come closer to the Dr. The Theocracy was determined when Baasha made himself King as the Learned Dr. Spencer has proved to satisfaction The Theocracy says he was mightily weakened and in a manner expiring under Saul and David but was quite as it were extinguished under Solomon When the Kingdom was made successive and the Ark fixed in the Temple and the Vrim supposed to be no longer Oracular Then it was plain God had given up the Government and resigned the political Supremacy to the Kings of Israel If the Reader is desirous to see this Argument managed at length he may consult the Author for to avoid tediousness I have cited him but briefly Indeed I need not make much search after Authorities for the Dr. in his Case of Resistance speaks as home as one would desire he there observes That after Saul was chosen King the Government ordinarily descended not by God's immediate choice but by the Right of Succession though now he is pleased to contradict it And having given an account how the Face and Motions of the Government were changed and that the Jewish Monarchs in their Councils in their State and Defence were conformable to their Neighbours He adds Therefore the Government of Israel by Kings was like other Human Government liable to all the defects and miscarriages which other Governments are whereas while the Government was immediately in God's Hands the Administration as He goes on was under a quite different management So that we see the Dr. has given up the Theocracy rather sooner than the Learned Author I quoted before Now if the Theocracy was determined before Israel and Iudah were parted into two Kingdoms we have farther Reasons to believe it had its period after their division especially in the Kingdom of Israel for in that Kingdom there was neither Tabernacle nor Temple nor Ark there was no regular authorized Priesthood no Vrim and Thummim no Symbols of God's Presence excepting the Calves at Dan and Bethel which were unacceptable to Him 'T is true they had Prophets sometimes sent them so had the Ninevites and other neighbouring Nations where they were very far from being under God's immediate Government And therefore though the Theocracy should have continued till this time in the Kingdom of Iudah we have no reason to believe the Ten Tribes in the same condition for they wanted the Signs of the Theocratical Superintendency the Organs of Inspiration and the Ministers by which God was wont to execute his Orders and direct the State Now what does the Dr. bring to confute himself and the Reverend Dean and the Inference I have drawn from them Why nothing but that Ieroboam and Iehu were made Kings by God's immediate Designation But this Remark does not come up to the point for Nebuchadnezzar had several Countries given him by God's express Designation and yet the Babylonian Monarchy was never taken for a Theocracy The Dr's next Essay is to prove That this Doctrin of Allegiance to the present Powers is founded on the same Principle with the Doctrin of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience and therefore both must be true or both false This Argument he knows some men will not like Which is no wonder for I am pretty sure it 's no good one as will appear by examining his Proof He tells us Passive-Obedience is founded on this Principle That God invests Kings with his Authority True God does invest them with his Authority when they are either appointed by his immediate Designation or claim their Soveraignty by the Constitution of the Country for God declares That the Higher Powers are his Ministers and commands us to submit our selves to every Ordinance of Man for his sake and confirms Human Laws with his own Authority So that where the Laws make it Treason to resist the Prince there the Gospel makes it Damnation And upon this Bottom the Doctrin of Non-Resistance stands But it does not follow from hence that Illegal Powers are vested with God's Authority Yes says our Author this Principle equally proves that all Kings who have received a Soveraign Authority from God and are in the actual Administration of it must be obeyed and not resisted But here the Dr. takes the matter in dispute for granted he supposes a King and an Usurper to be Terms equivalent he confounds the Notion of Authority and Force and inferrs a Divine Right from the actual Administration of Power Now I have made it appear that King is the Name of Right not of meer Force that Authority and Power are things vastly different that Usurpers have no Authority from God neither soveraign nor unsoveraign and that their actual Administration of Government is no more an Evidence of a Commission from Heaven than any other Success of private Injustice Therefore unless he can disprove what I have urged upon these Heads there is no danger of his making Passive-Obedience dependent upon his new Scheme To the remainder of this Paragraph I have given an Answer already which needs not be repeated He complains the Old-Church-of England Principles limit the Providence of God in governing Kings and protecting Injured Subjects for it seems God has no way to do this but either to turn the Princes Hearts or to take them out of the World Very well And is not
Conscience From whence it follows That where the Laws speak out there is no need to recur to Events and Providence For where-ever the Constitution is plain it ought to carry it So that the Doctor 's Fundamental Principle of Divine Right or Power upon which his whole Scheme is erected falls to the ground For by his own Concession Providence is but a secundary Rule of Conscience and only to take place where the directions of Law are defective and unintelligible It will not be improper therefore to cite some of the Laws for possibly they are not so intricate and obscure as the Doctor represents them The 24 H 8. c. 12. Begins thus By sundry old and authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed without Labyrinths That this Realm of England is an Empire and hath been so accepted in the World governed by one Supreme Head and King unto whom a Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People been bounden and owen a natural and humble Obedience he being instituted and furnished by the goodness and sufferances of Almighty God with plenary whole and entire Power c. 5 El. c. 1. And be it further Enacted That every Person which shall hereafter be elected or appointed a Knight Citizen or Burgess c. for any Parliament or Parliaments hereafter to be holden shall from henceforth before he shall enter into the said Parliament House or have any Voice there openly receive and pronounce the said Oath the Oath of Supremacy before the Lord Steward for the time being And that he which shall enter into the Parliament House without taking the said Oath shall be deemed no Knight Citizen Burgess c. for that Parliament nor shall have any Voice In 3 Iac. 1. c. 4. there is this remarkable Paragraph And be it Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That if any Person or Persons shall put in practice to absolve persuade or withdraw any of the Subjects of the King's Majesty or of his Heirs or Successors of this Realm of England from their natural Obedience to his Majesty his Heirs or Successors or move them or any of them to promise Obedience to any other Prince State or Potentate That then every such Person their Procurers Counsellors c. be to all Intents judged Traytors And being thereof lawfully Convicted shall have Iudgment suffer and forfeit as in Cases of High Treason The 7 th Iac. 1. c. 6. concerning the Oath of Allegiance Enacts That all and every Knights Citizens Burgesses c. of the Commons House of Parliament at any Parliament or Session of Parliament hereafter to be assembled before he or they shall be permitted to enter the said House shall make take and receive a Corporal Oath of Allegiance upon the Evangelists before the Lord Steward for the time being c. In 14 Car. 2. c. 3. it 's declared That within all his Majesty's Realms and Dominions the sole and supreme Power Government Command and Disposition of the Militia and of all Forces by Sea and Land and of all Forts and Places of Strength is and by the Laws of England ever was the undoubted Right of his Majesty and his Royal Predecessors Kings and Queens of England And that both or either Houses of Parliament cannot nor ought to pretend to the same nor can nor lawfully may raise or levy any War offensive or defensive against his Majesty his Heirs or lawful Successors To these may be added 13 Car. 2. c. 1. 12 Car. 2. c. 31. 25 Ed. 3. c. 2. not to mention any more Now I believe most People will conclude that the meaning of these Statutes is not very hard to come by And that a moderate Share of English and common Sense is sufficient to understand them I shall insert two or three Maxims relating the same Subject The First tells us The King never dyes The second The King can do no wrong The third affirms Nullum in tempus occurrit Regi that is No length of Usurpation can prejudice the King 's Right And least the Doctor should take these for no more than to many quaint Sentences he may please to observe from a very Authentick Authority That Maxims are one of the Grounds of the Law that they need no Proof but are sufficient Authority to themselves that they are Equivalent to a Statute and that all Inferences from them are of the same Force with the Principle from whence they are drawn Having shewn that the Laws with respect to Allegiance and Prerogative are not full of Mystery and Labyrinth as the Doctor would suppose but are plain easy and unperplexed in these great Points indeed were they otherwise it would be no ordinary Misfortune and Reproach to the Government I shall proceed to examine the Doctor 's Scheme which he owns may startle some Men at first because it looks Paradoxically and carrys the Face of Singularity However it 's so much for the ease and safety of Subjects c. that every one has Reason to wish it true How much his Principles are for the ease of Society will be disputed afterwards But allowing them this Advantage his Inference is by no means conclusive nor proper for his Character For if we are to wish every Thing true that makes for our Ease than we ought to wish the Christian Religion false because there is so much Mortification and Self-denial enjoyned by it Which made the Gnosticks from an inward Principle of Self-preservation abjure it in Times of Persecution Soul take thine Ease is so far from being good Divinity that a generous Heathen would scorn such Advice if he found it prejudicial to Justice and Honour But before I enquire more particularly into the Truth of the Doctor 's Scheme I shall briefly represent some of the Consequences which follow from the supposal of its being true By which we may be in some Measure able to guess how much the Doctor has obliged the World by his Discovery 1. If Power as he affirms Pag. 15. is a certain Sign of God's Authority if by what means soever a Prince ascends the Throne he is placed there by God Almighty and the Advantages of Success are always to be interpreted the Gifts of Providence then the best Title may be defeated without either antecedent Injury Consent or an express Revelation from God And if so the Nature of Property is perfectly destroyed and all Dominion is resolved into Occupation and no one has any Right to any Thing any longer than he can keep it This Doctrin condemns a Man to Poverty for being ill used and makes a Prince forfeit for no other Reason but because his Subjects were disloyal If it s said that an unjust Seizure of a private Estate extinguishes no Title but for the Peace of Mankind God has so ordered it that whosoever possesses himself of a Government is immediately the proper Owner That it s not thus ordered I shall prove more large afterwards At present I
only desire to know Whether God loves Peace more than Justice Whether he delights to see Men Brethren in Iniquity and combine for the support of Violence Besides Is it for the Peace of Mankind that great Thieves should be rewarded and little Ones punished That a Man that steals a Horse must suffer as a Felon but he that steals a Kingdom and flies at nobler Quarry must be worshipped and obeyed though the right Owner is still claiming contesting and in view What is this but to encourage universal Violence to animate ill Men to more towring Flights of Ambition and to make them enlarge their Projects of Wickedness A Man need little skill in Inferences to see what an admirable Expedient this is likely to prove for the Quiet of the World The Doctor was sensible of this Inconvenience and endeavours to avoid it by saying That ambitious Spirits without a great dose of Enthusiasm can't make this Construction of his Doctrin For unless they can flatter themselves that God has ordained them to be Kings their Attempts according to his Principle will be checked And why should they not believe God has ordained them to be Kings if they find apparent Symptoms of Weakness and Decay in a Government If they perceive the Inclinations of the People for them If they can form a strong Party and have a probable Prospect of Success A moderate share of Enthusiasm with some Principles would be apt to make ambitions Men to interpret such Accidents and Advantages to be broad Intimations of the Favour of Heaven That God was designing some great Revolution and calling them to Crowns and Scepters And as for Enthusiasm it s no wonder to find the World overdosed with that especially at a time when Men pretend to understand Prophesies almost as well as those who wrote them when they can expound St. Iohn's Visions upon Piedmont and Savoy and point out the Time and Geography of a Mystery 2. This Doctrine supposes there is no such Thing as Usurpation after Possession which is not only contrary to the Language of our Laws 1 E. 4. c. 1 c. but to the common Sense of Mankind it being generally agreed by those who have any Notion of common Justice and Morality That what is unlawful to take away its unlawful to keep Which must be allowed to be true unless Violence and ill Usage are valuable Consideration for the conveying of Property Whereas by these Principles let a Man come into his Power never so unjustly Let there be never so fair a Claim continued against him yet if bare Possession gives him a Divine Right it 's as much his Property as if he had the clearest and most uncontested Title in the World The Doctor endeavors to get clear of this consequence by coining a distinction between Legal and Divine Right But this will do no execution upon the difficulty For if Possession always conveys a Divine Right all legal Claim must immediately determine I suppose the Doctor will not deny that God can repeal a Human Constitution Now when God transfers any Property from one Person to another it 's certain he must null the first Title For to explain this Matter Providence either conveys the Right with the Thing or it does not If not then the Right remains where it was and the Thing is wrongfully transferred which I believe no one will be so hardy as to affirm If Providence does transfer the Right with the Thing then the Legal Claim must be extinguished otherwise this Absurdity will follow viz. There will be a Human and Divine Law contradictory to each other in Force at the same time And since Human Laws when duly circumstantiated are confirmed by Heaven God's Authority must be engaged on both Sides and by consequence opposed to it self 3. This Principle destroys the Nature of Repentance by which it's generally understood that every one is bound to restore that which he has unjustly taken away But if we pursue the Doctor 's Reasoning to its just Consequences this Doctrin will not hold For if Possession though never so unjustly gained has always God's Authority to confirm it one would think there should be no obligation to Restitution For why should a Man restore that which he is vested in by a Divine Right And yet I doubt not but the Doctor will grant that Injustice cannot be forgiven without Repentance nor Repentance practised without Restitution so that by this Gentleman's Scheme a Man is both allowed and forbidden the same Thing and has a Divine Right to keep that for which he will be damned if he does not restore it which certainly is something more than ordinary 4. The Doctor 's Principle puts it in the Subjects Power to depose their Prince when they please I don't say it makes it Lawful for them to undertake it that would be to misrepresent him but when it 's once done his Notion of Power and Settlement confirms their Injustice and ratifies their Treason and by consequence makes a standing Army necessary 5. It cantonizes Kingdoms and removes the Boundaries of Dominion For if Power be a certain Sign of God's Authority then we ought to submit to every one who challengeth the Name of a King though for never so small a Precinct if he has but force to back his Pretensions And by consequence every Parish may set up for an Independent Government and we may be obliged to swear Allegiance to a Constable 'T is to no purpose to say That the Kingdom has not agreed to such a Division For the Limits of Kingdoms are founded upon nothing but Legal Right and Human Constitutions and therefore they ought not to oppose God's Authority which is always visible in Power Seas and Rivers and Mountains the usual Barrieres of Empire and Jurisdiction ought not to hinder Divine Right from taking place nor shut Providence out of the World 6. This Doctrin gives Thieves and Robbers a good Title to whatever they can steal and plunder The Doctor was sensible of this Inconvenience and endeavours to remove it but without success He offers to shew a disparity between common Thieves and Usurpers That the Scripture tells us Kingdoms are disposed by God and that all Power is of God but no Man pretends that Thieves have God's Authority 'T is not pretended but if the Principles hold it will be very difficult to disprove it For if Power is a certain Sign of God's Authority it follows That he who is strong enough to take a Purse must have a Divine Right to keep it If Providence orders and disposes all Events and there be no Evil in the City which the Lord has not barely permitted but done then why this Divinity should not hold upon Salisbury Plain or Newmarket Heath as well as upon any other occasion will be no easy Question to resolve The Scriptures which he alledges that Kingdoms are disposed by God do not come up to his point For we are likewise told That private Estates
is true as it happens in some other Revolutions they did not all submit to a Man and I conceive the Doctor will not insist upon the Necessity of this Condition But those who stood out Antiochus was well able to crush and did it to a very severe purpose As for the Time of his Government it held no less than three Years which the Doctor must own is long enough in all Conscience to justify a Compliance These Arguments for Submission are as strong as the Doctor 's Principles can require And yet we see the Convocation dislike Antiochus his Settlement and allows of Mattathias his Resistance So that nothing is more plain than that these Reverend Divines did not believe that the Concurrence of the Majority of a debauched Nation A full and uncontrolable Possession of Power lengthened out to three Years of Government were Advantages sufficient to infer a Divine Authority and to change a bad Title into a good one I know the Doctor urges That Antiochus his Governmert was not owned by any publick National Submission which is both more than the Convocation says or the Doctor can prove For if by a National Submission he means a Recognition of his Title in a publick Meeting of Persons of Condition he might probably receive such an Acknowledgment It 's not unlikely that Iason and Menelaus who were so forward in making their Court being Persons of the first Quality might engage the Nobility to render their new Allegiance in a solemn and publick Manner However the Business of Form is not Material 'T is certain from Iosephus that the generality of the Jews complied and when a Nation submits one would think there was a National Submission Indeed why should they not submit Here was most certainly Power in a very large and irresistable Proportion which is a thing we are told will Govern and therefore God always seconds it with his Authority I hope the Doctor does not believe Antiochus could make himself King of Iudea whether God would or no And if not How could these Jews have the Liberty to stand out against Providence and oppose a Divine Right 3. To give a farther Instance that the Convocation did not agree with the Doctor in his Notion of Power and Settlement We are told That if any Man shall affirm that the Jews might have withstood any of their Kings who claimed by Succession without Sin and opposing themselves against God or that the Kingdom of Iudah by God's Ordinance going by Succession when one King was dead his Heir was not in Right their King however by some Athaliah he might be hindered from enjoying it or that the People were not bound to obey him as their Lawful King He does greatly Err. Now for an Assembly to affirm That where a Succession is established the People cannot withstand it without opposing themselves against God that a Person who is Heir Apparent is immediately upon the Death of his Predecessor their Lawful King and ought to be obeyed as such notwithstanding the Usurpation of some Athaliah I say for them to affirm all this and at the same time to make Force a certain Sign of Divine Authority and that we ought to obey it from what point soever it rises To put it in the Subjects power to break all the Links of Succession and to give away an Hereditary Prince's Right by a National Submission or Treason as often as they please these are such rank such staring Contradictions that they are beneath the Inadvertencies of common Sense much more the Judgment of that Venerable Assembly If the Doctor replies that the Canon is to be restrained to a Succession which was settled by God's Ordinance or express Appointment and consequently to be understood only with Relation to the Kings of Iudea which had their Grown entailed by a particular Revelations To this I answer 1. That to take the Canon in this Sense is to make it insignificant and foreign to their Design Whereas it is evident their Book the first especially was written to assert the Right of Princes and to state and fix the Duty of Subjects But if the Examples they alledge and the Doctrine they maintain are not to be drawn down to application and practice what are we the better for them If their Precedents and Conclusions hold only for the Kings of Iudah to what purpose are they brought If we are unconcerned in them why are they couched into Canons and Principles and reported with that particularity and exactness We are not now to expect any express Orders from Heaven for the regulating Successions and therefore if the Convocation is to be understood only of Entayles by Revelation they might have spared their Pains for we are not likely to be the wiser for their Determination as they might easily perceive 2. I answer That Succession founded upon Humane Right is of equal Force with that which is supported by Revelation and requires as strong an Authority to defeat it 'T is true God in reward to David's Piety enntayled the Crown upon his Posterity by special Designation And no doubt it was no small Satisfaction to Him to be assured that his Family should reign as long as it continued and not be set aside by God's express Order to make room for another Line as that of Saul's was for himself But if by by the Fundamentals of the State the Crown was before Hereditary I cannot conceive what additional Strength could accrue to the Title from an Entayl by Revelation Eventually stronger I grant it might make it by refreshing the Peoples Minds and conveying an awfull Impression by the Solemnity of the Declaration but their Obligation to preserve the Descent was the same before For all Humane Provisions stand upon a Divine Bottom for which Reason the Apostle commands us to submit to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake The Laws of a Kingdom when the Authority is competent and the Matter just are as much as to the Ground of the Obligation the Laws of God as those he gave upon Mount Sinai And Kings are his Representatives as well as Angels by whose Disposition that Law was given Therefore those who pretend a Divine Repeal ought to bring Miracles and Revelation in one case as well as in the other These are such obvious Truths that the Convocation could not possibly overlook them and therefore could not lay any of that stress upon a Scripture Entayl upon which the Doctor insists But must suppose Compliance with Athaliah would have been as unaccountable in any other Country not governed by Revelation as it was in Iudea provided her Title was illegal To urge this Argument a little farther upon the Doctor If that which he phraseth Providence and Settlement is sufficient to null the Constitution thô never so clear and unquestionable then a great part of the Ceremonial Law was abrogated under Antiochus Epiphanes and the Iews were bound in Conscience to eat Swines Flesh and forbear
Circumcision because they were so commanded by the King who had the actual Government of their Country and sufficient power to crush them upon their Refusal From whence it follows That those Men of Resolution who were tortured for their Noncompliance and whom the Apostle is supposed so highly to commend threw away their Lives when they ought to have kept them and were Self-Murtherers instead of Martyrs He can't say these Precepts they were commanded to transgress carried any moral Obligation in them He must therefore recur to his Distinction between Humane and Divine Laws but this Expedient will not do his Business for I have proved that both of them as to their Authority are equally Divine Now as to the Matter in dispute it 's granted that God as universal Lord may alter the Seat of Property and Dominion and transfer one Man's Right to another but we ought not to conclude he has done it except we can prove our new Claim by the Course of Humane Justice or express Revelation Having shewn from the Principles of the Convocation that they cannot understand Providence and Thorough Settlement as the Doctor does without the plainest Inconsistency with themselves I shall proceed to give a distinct Answer to the Passages cited by him 1. To prove that Princes who have no Legal Right may have God's Authority He tells us the Convocation teach That the Lord in advancing Kings c. is not bound to those Laws he prescribeth others and therefore commanded Iehu a Subject to be anointed King From whence the Doctor infers That what God did by Prophets in Israel by express Nomination he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms without any regard to Succession or Legal Titles This he affirms as the Doctrine of the Convocation and attempts to prove it from their saying That the Lord both may and is able to overthrow any Kings notwithstanding any Claim or Interest which they can challenge In answer to this we may observe First That upon Iehu's being anointed by the Prophet he is called the lawful King of Israel and Ioram his Master is said to be his Subject Now if Ioram was Iehu's Subject it was Treason for him to attempt the Recovery of his Kingdom and consequently he could have no Legal Right after Dispossession For if Iehu was Lawful King then Ioram the dispossessed Prince had no Right to recover unless two opposite and contesting Claims can have a Legal Right to the same Thing which certainly is a Contradiction in Law From hence one if not both of these Conclusions must necessary follow 1. Either that his Distinction of Legal and Divine Right which he coined to answer an Objection is Chimerical and then the Difficulty he propos'd remains unanswered Or 2. If there was any singular Advantage in Iehu's Case because he was anointed by God's immediate Designation then it follows that Revelation about the Disposal of Crowns is a much safer Warrant then that which the Doctor calls Providence and that we can't argue with the same Authority from the one as from the other though the Doctor is pleased to affirm the contrary viz What God did by Prophets in Israel c. he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms Where by Providence we must understand the Doctor means Success Now that the Convocation does not suppose Revelation and Success equivalent to justify Alterations in Government but makes a wide Difference between them will appear from the Consideration of the Place before us They teach us in the instance of Iehu That God in advancing Kings is not bound to those Laws which he prescribes others Which is a plain Intimation that where Governours are not changed by God's express Order Allegiance ought to be paid according to the Direction of each respective Constitution For those Laws of Subjection which God is here said to prescribe others can be no other than the Laws which establish the Rights of the Crown in each particular Country which Laws according to the reasoning of this Passage are to be inviolably observed where God does not expresly interpose to the contrary And therefore in their Canon upon this Place they determine That if any Man shall affirm that any Prophets Priests or other Persons having no direct and express Command from God might Lawfully imitate the said Fact of Elizeus who caused Iehu to be anointed in anointing Successors to Kings which had otherwise no just Interest Title c. to their Kingdoms or that it is Lawful for any Captain or Subject high or low whatsoever to bear Arms against their Sovereign c. by the Example of Iehu except it might first plainly appear that there are now Prophets sent extraordinarily from God with sufficient and special Authority in that behalf he doth greatly Err. And since the Convocation condemns the removing of Princes without particular Orders from Heaven It 's plain they could not believe that every effectual Revolution had God's Approbation For if they did believe that God does that by his Providence now which he did formerly by his Prophets i. e. If they did believe his Will is to be interpreted by Events and that he approves and acts in all Revolutions which are successful Why do they pronounce all Practices of this Nature Unlawful except they are warranted by express and immediate Authority from Heaven Certainly they could not declare that Unlawful which they believed to be God Almighty's doing What is the Reason they tell us No Man must imitate the Example of Iehu thô like him he should be chosen by the Captains of the Army and have Power and the Consent of the People to dethrone the Lawful Prince If they thought Revelation and Success Principles of equal Certainty If it was their Opinion that Providence was always on the prevailing side and that Kings had no Right to govern any longer than the major part of their Subjects were willing to obey them The Doctor 's Instance to prove that Providence or Success is a certain Manifestation of the Divine Approbation is clearly against him For thô the Lord may and is able to overthrow Kings notwithstanding any Claim Title c. Yet it 's evident by this Example and the Canon made upon it that the Convocation did not think this was ever done without God's particular Commission For it 's positively affirmed by this Reverend Synod that Ehud and Othoniel the Deliverers mentioned in this place Were raised up by God Almighty with a full Assurance of their lawful Callings and made Judges immediately by Him without which Prerogatives it had been altogether unlawful for them to have done as they did Because that God foresaw what Mischief private Men as all Subjects are in respect of their Prince might do under the Colour of these Examples Now if it 's unlawful for any Person to step out of his private Sphere and to act counter to the Laws of Subjection and common Justice without
it as he pleases And thence it follows that when he has given it away by express Grant the former Possessor has no longer any Right and if not any no Legal one Farther If a Legal Right should continue after God has expresly given it away this absurdity will follow That God cannot repeal a Humane Law and consequently has a lesser Authority than Men. I have already proved that Revelation and Success are quite different Principles and that we have no manner of reason to infer God's Approbation from the latter as from the former and therefore the Doctor can take no Advantage from this way of Reasoning To return to the Kings of Babylon whose Title may easily be made out from the Scripture For first Iehoiakim submitted to Nebuchadnezzar and became his Servant and was afterwards deposed by him for his Revolt After him Nebuchadnezzar being Sovereign Paramount sets up Iehoiachin Son to Iehoiakim who was afterwards carried away Captive and his Uncle Zedekiah made King by the Babylonian Monarch Thus we see the Kings of Iudah who only had the Right to govern that Nation became Vassals to the King of Babylon held their Crowns of him and were contented to reign durante Beneplacito And though Nebuchadnezzar might possibly oblige them by unjust Force to these Conditions yet after they had submitted their Act was valid and obliged to Performance This is sufficient to make Nebuchadnezzar a Legal Monarch But this is not all For Moab Ammon Tyre Sidon c. are expresly given to him by God himself and all those Princes together with Iehoiakim and Zedekiah are commanded to come under the Protection and to own the Authority of the King of Babylon And destruction is denounc'd against those who refused to comply That Nation and Kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon and that will not put their Neck under the Yoke of the King of Babylon that Nation will I punish saith the Lord with the Sword and with the Famine and with the Pestilence till I have consumed them by his hand Thus we see the Kings of Babylon reigned Dei Gratia with a Witness They had their Charter for Government signed and sealed in Heaven and delivered to Notice and publick View by Authentick and Unquestionable Hands This certainly is enough in all reason to make Nebuchadnezzar a Rightful Prince If the Doctor has any Thing of this Nature to justifie the present Revolution the Cause is his own Therefore if he knows of any Prophets he would do well to produce them Let them but shew their Credentials and prove their Mission and we have done But if he has none of this Evidence the places cited by the Convocation that God takes away Kings and sets up Kings are foreign to his purpose 'T is true when God speaks from Heaven all Humane Laws ought to give place and be silent But then we must consider that Revelation and the Doctor 's Notion of Providence are widely different the the one is an infallible Direction the other will lead us into all the Labyrinths of Confusion and Injustice And make us Abettors of all those unaccountable Practises which ungodly Power has the Permission to act If any Man will be of this Opinion he ought not to make the Convocation his Voucher Do they not say then that God removes and sets up Kings Not just in the Doctor 's Words They affirm That God has ever used the Ministry of Civil Magistrates in other Countries as well as in Iudea c. And may not all this be done without giving his Authority to Usurpers 'T is true they instance in Nebuchadnezzar But this Prince had both the Submission of the Kings of Iudah and the immediate Appointment of God either of which were sufficient to make his Title unquestionable And since his Authority was thus fortified it 's no wonder that the Convocation pronounces that the Iews were bound to obey him So that in their Sense God is said to take away Kings and set up Kings either 1. By express Nomination This way if there was no other the Babylonian and Persian Monarchies may be defended The former has been spoke to already And of the latter it was foretold by Isaiah long before the Birth of Cyrus That he should be a Conqueror that God had holden his right Hand or strengthened him to subdue Nations And that he should restore the Iews to their own Country which could not be done without the Destruction of the Babylonian Empire 2. God is said to take away and set up Kings when he suffers one King to conquer another and the right Heir is either destroyed or submits And since we are not to expect new Revelations we are to conclude God removes Kings no other way but this Which is no Limiting the Providence of God in governing Kings and protecting injured Subjects as the Doctor supposes For God can when he sees it convenient either turn their Hearts or take them out of the World or incline them to Resign These are all easy and intelligible Expedients and don 't bring any of those Difficulties of Providence upon us as the Doctor has entangled himself with This keeps the ancient Boundaries of Right and Wrong unremoved and settles the Duty of a Subject upon a Legal Basis. Indeed where Revelation fails what is so reasonable a Direction to steer by as the Constitution which is confirmed by the Laws of Nature and the Authority of God Is not this a much more accountable Method than to resign up our Consciences to Violence and impetuous Accidents and to make Treason our Oracle Now setting aside the Scripture-right the Babylonian and Persian Monarchs had to their Empire it 's easy to conceive that these victorious Monarchs either destroyed those Kings they dispossessed or made them submit their Claim as Edgar Atheline did to William the Conqueror That this practice of dispatching them was usual to settle the new Conquests and prevent Competitors is very probable Upon this account it was that Nebuchadnezzar slew Zedekiah's Sons and all the Nobles of Iudah And at the fall of the Babylonian Empire Belshazzar was slain as we may learn from Daniel and Xenophon And how kindly the Romans used their Royal Captives may be guessed without other Examples by the Treatment of Perseus and his Family Now where the right Owner of the Government is destroyed though never so wickedly the Usurper becomes a Lawful Prince For Possession is a good Right where there is no better These Observations are sufficient to justify Submission to the four Monarchies without having recourse to the Doctor 's new Scheme I am now to attend the Doctor to Alexander the Great whom he gives a hard Character and thinks any Prince who gets the Throne may pretend as much Right as he Whether the Ground of Alexander's War was defensible or not is not material to the pointâ— However he insists very much upon the Justice
of his Cause and tells his Soldiers they were ingaged in a Holy War and that his Design was to revenge the Injuries done to Religion by Darius and Xerxes Kings of Persia who made a barbarous Descent upon Greece and violated all Laws Humane and Divine And in his Letter to Darius he sets forth by way of Declaration how the Grecian Colonies in Ionia and about the Hellespont had been oppressed and harassed by his Predecessors How Greece was over-run with Fire and Sword And besides other terrible Articles of Accusation he tells him That his Father Philip was assassinated by some Persian's Instigation And at last appeals to the Gods with a great deal of Assurance Now I don't find Darius ever offered to purge himself and therefore the Charge might be all true for ought appears to the contrary And if so I hope the Doctor will be kinder to Alexander's Title and not Censure such a Religious Expedition especially where Liberty and Property were so much concerned And if this won't do there are several other considerable Circumstances after Darius his Death to alledge in behalf of Alexander's Legal Right 1. We don't find Darius his Son who was taken with his Mother at the Battel of Issus outlived his Childhood and therefore it may be taken for granted he never put in his Claim 2. Alexander married Statyra Darius his Eldest Daughter which made him at the lowest a Matrimonial King And no doubt this Lady would not contest the Administration of Affairs with him at that time And for fear the Doctor should find out a Salick Law in Persia it may be observed in the Third place That Oxatres Darius's Brother submitted to Alexander and rid in his Guards And now for ought I see his Title is clear on all sides But the Doctor attempts to prove from the Authority of the Convocation that the Iews were bound to submit to Alexander when he summoned Iaddus the High Priest and the rest of them to surrender though it cannot be denied that Darius was then living In Answer to this I shall prove First That this Assertion is a manifest Misconstruction of the Convocation Secondly That considering the Condition Darius was then in such a Submission as the Doctor contends for must be unlawful by his own Principles First The Doctor misrepresents the Convocation 'T is true the Convocation asserts The Iews were the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was settled among them But then they plainly suppose that Alexander's Authority was not settled while Darius lived For 1. They inform us That Iaddus sent Alexander word that he could not lawfully violate his Oath of Allegiance to Darius whil'st that Prince lived Now in reporting this Answer of Iaddus they don't add the least mark of Censure or Disapprobation Whereas it 's their Custom throughout their whole Book when they relate any unwarrantable Passages of History to shew their dislike and to condemn the Fact This Method as it was necessary to declare their Opinion and make their Narrative instructive So there never was a more important occasion to pursue it than in the place before us For if they were of the Doctor 's mind they must have thought Iaddus was wonderfully to blame for giving Alexander such a categorical peremptory Denial And therefore they ought to have censured and exposed such a dangerous Mistake for fear of the malignity of the Precedent Not submit to Alexander while Darius lived What a mortal Obstinacy was this No less in the Doctor 's Divinity than a direct standing out against Providence and opposing a Divine Right And would the Convocation who are wont to take notice of lesser Failings suffer an Error of such a pernicious Consequence to pass without the least stroke of Correction This if the Doctor 's Sentiments and theirs had been the same would have been an unpardonable Omission A Negligence that common Honesty and Discretion could never have been guilty of But to shew they were of a different Opinion we find Iaddus's Behaviour justified by the Authority of their Canon where we have these remarkable Words If any shall affirm that Iaddus having sworn Allegiance to King Darius might lawfully have born Arms himself against Darius or have solicited others whether Aliens or Jews thereunto he doth greatly Err. They tell us in the foregoing Chapter out of which this Canon is drawn that Alexander desired Iaddus to assist him in his Wars against the Persians and in the Canon which is nothing but the Historical Part formed into Doctrines and practical Truths They assert that it 's a great Error to say that Iaddus might have born Arms against Darius i. e. that it was unlawful for Iaddus to have assisted Alexander and by consequence that his refusing this Prince was a commendable Instance of Loyalty And yet after all this Evidence the Doctor is pleased to say That the Convocation in their Canon takes no Notice that Jaddus could not submit to any other Prince while Darius lived No Notice Do they not say it was unlawful for Iaddus to have born Arms or to have solicited any others to a Revolt Which is as plain a Justification of his Incompliance with Alexander's Demands and as full an evidence that Success does not transfer Allegiance as is possible And is all this nothing But the words whil'st Darius lived are not transcribed from the History into the Canon it 's granted However this Omission upon which the Doctor founds himself is not at all material For 1. The Sense of the Canon concerning the unlawfulness of Iaddus's taking Arms against Darius is indefinitely expressed and by the Rules of reasoning ought to be understood without any limitation of time unless the subject matter requires it which it 's far from doing to the Doctor 's purpose in the Case before us For the Canons being but an Abridgment of the History of the Chapters drawn into practical Propositions They ought to be taken in the same Sense and understood in the same comprehensive Latitude with the History unless there is a plain Exception to the contrary For unless the Chapters and Canons are to be understood alike to what purpose is the History premised in the one and repeated in the other Since the Chapters are the Body from whence the Canons are extracted they ought to regulate their Meaning and explain their Ambiguities if there should happen to be any Besides it 's the Custom of Conclusions of this Nature to be contracted into a lesser Compass than the Principles from which they are inferred All unnecessary lengths of Expression being industriously avoided upon such occasions What wonder is it then to find the Canons less wordy than the Historical Chapters 2. Unless the Canon holds out the full meaning of the Chapter the Sense must be uncertain and uninstructive They tell us it was unlawful for Iaddus to have taken up Arms against Darius But how long was this Allegiance to last Why according
a brief touch of the History may not be unacceptable to the Reader We are to observe then that about the year 65 before the Incarnation the two Royal Brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus hapned to dispute the Sovereignty of Iudea In which Contest Hyrcanus though the eldest was by Misfortune and Duress compelled to resign And the Articles between his Brother and him for the more Solemn Ratification were agreed to in the Temple However this Resignation being forced made Hyrcanus uneasie who for remedy applies himself first to Aretas King of Arabia and afterwards to Pompey the Great Who glad of the Invitation marches his Army into the Country takes Ierusalem and makes Iudea a part of the Roman Empire Hyrcanus is contented to receive the High Priesthood from his Patron Pompey and Aristobulus is sent Prisoner in Chains to Rome with his Children After several Varieties of Fortune he was enlarged by Caesar and had the Command of two Legions under him And the next News of him is that he was poysoned by some of Pompey's Faction and his eldest Son Alexander beheaded by Scipio The younger Antigonus recovers Ierusalem by the help of the Parthians cuts off his Uncle Hyrcanus's Ears to unqualifie him for the Priesthood and afterwards submits to Sosius and Herod who commanded for the Romans and is Beheaded by Mark Antony Upon this Herod who was some time since made King of Iudea by the Romans goes on with his Project to dispatch the Royal Line And to colour his Design the better he invites Hyrcanus who was in Parthia to his Court and gets him into his power Then he makes Aristobulus Son to Alexander abovementioned and Brother to Mariamne High Priest and soon after procures him to be drowned in a Canal And to make sure work he proceeds to the Murther of Mariamne his Queen and Hyrcanus her Mother's Father And thus we see how the Romans came by their Title to Iudea which though they might introduce by Stratagem and Force yet it soon improved into an unquestionable Authority For first they had the Submission and afterwards the Extinction of the Royal Family either of which were sufficient to support their Claim and make them a Lawful Magistracy By this time I suppose it 's sufficiently apparent that this Convocation is far from teaching That Princes who have no Legal Right to their Thrones are either placed there by God or vested with his Authority But before I conclude this Argument I must consider what the Doctor has lately advanced to fortify his Opinion that the Moabites Aramites and Aegyptians could not have a Legal Right to govern Israel For by the Constitution of the Iewish Common-wealth They could not give the Power of the Government to a stranger The four Monarchies likewise were erected with the most manifest Usurpation In Answer to this Objection I shall endeavour to prove that these Governments were all free from the Charge of Usurpation both from the sence of the Convocation and likewise by Arguments independent of their Authority 1. In Answer to the Text of Deuteronomy 17 15. Upon which the Doctor relies We may take notice That every Breach of a Constitution does not make a Governor an illegal Prince Solomon Multiplied Wives and Horses contrary to the express Command in this Chapter and several others of the Israelitish Kings were guilty of greater Errors Yet these miscarriages did not in the least disoblige their Title or make them cease to be Legal Princes 2. We may observe there were some Things the Jews were forbiden to do Which when they were once done their Act was valid and firm and they were bound to maintain it For Example the Jews were expresly prohibited intermarrying with the Seven Nations of which the Hittites are first named However we read that Bethsheba a Jewess Daughter to Eliam the Son of Achitophel was Married to Uriah the Hittite But notwithstanding this Obstacle the Marriage was undoubtedly lawful as appears from Nathan's application of the Parable and the aggravation of David's Sin To give another instance The Gibeonites were a remnant of the Amorites which the Isralites were Commanded to destroy but after they had received them into their protection they became their natural Subjects whom they were bound to preserve By parity of reason though the Jews were forbidden to Elect a stranger for their King Yet when they had once made choice of him provided they were not preingaged to another he becomes their Lawful Prince and ought to be acknowledged as such 3. Either these Foreign Governors the Doctor excepts against were Lawful Princes or Usurpers the latter they were not For as to their Authority they neither Usurped upon the Right of the People or the Crown for either the People submitted that is consented to be Governed by them when their was no King in Israel Or else they had a Resignation from the Royal Line Now if the Doctor knows any mean between Usurpers and Legal Kings he would do well to acquaint the World with it for it will be a perfect Discovery Having premised this I shall proceed to a more particular Consideration of the Doctors Defence and examine his Monarchies accordingly as they fall in order of Time To begin with the Aegyptian Kings And there I need not repeat what I have urged already to prove that they had a Natural and Legal Right to govern Israel It s sufficient to observe that the Doctor 's main Objection does not affect them For the Israelites were under their Government before the Delivery of the Mosaical Law by which they were enjoyned not to choose a Foreign Prince So that Deuteronomy 17.15 cannot be alledged against the Legality of Pharaoh's Title because this Text was wrote long after the Children of Israel came out of Aegypt This the Convocation must needs know and therefore could not reckon Pharaoh an illegal Prince with respect to the Israelites 2. The Kings of the Aramites and Moabites are called Tyrants by the Convocation not with respect to their Title but their Government God gave them Judges to save them from the Tyrants that oppressed them For that they were no Usurpers in continuance whatever they might be at first appears 1. From the Comparison the Convocation makes between Ehud and Iehu Ioram and Eglon. They expresly tell us That the case of Iehu was like unto this of Ehud Now to make the case Parallel the Kings that were removed must have the same Title to their Government And since the Doctor must allow that Ioram was a Lawful Prince of the Israelites it follows that Eglon was so too For the Convocation mentions them without any manner of Distinction and requires the same extraordinary Commission from Heaven to enterprize any thing against either of them 2. By their general conclusion which they make immediately after the recital of these cases it plainly appears They believed Eglon to be a Lawful
Apostle Commands us to submit to the King as Supream and unto Governors as unto them who are sent by him Now if we are bound to submit to Subordinate Governors by virtue of their Delegation because they are sent by the King or Supream Power It follows that when they are not sent by him but Challenge our submission upon the score of independent Right they are not to be obeyed Suppose then the Emperor's Procurator of Iudea had set up for himself in the Apostles Time and brought over the Sanedrim and the Majority of the Jews to his Party and possessed himself of the Civil and Military Power of that Nation were the Jews bound to submit to the Procurator or not By the Doctor 's rule undoubtedly they were For here is nothing less than his Through Settlement and by consequence Providence and Divine Authority to oblige them to acquiesce But on the contrary St. Peter's Doctrine teaches us to look upon this Procurator as a Treasonable Usurper and to have nothing to do with his Settlement For we cannot suppose him acting in his Masters Name when he Rebels against him unless we can imagine the Emperor would grant a Commission to fight and destroy himself If therefore the reason of our submission to inferior Magistrates is founded in their Subordination in their being sent by the Supream as is evident by the Apostles Argument Then certainly we are not to obey them how successful soever they may be when they act upon their own pretended Authority and against him that sent them I can't foresee what the Doctor can reply excepting that Iudea was but a small part of the Roman Empire and therefore a general Revolt in that Country alone could not plead God's Authority from their Success nor oblige the Noncomplying Subject to Obedience To this I answer That if we are to obey the Higher Powers i. e. those who can crush us without respect to the Legality of their Title If Soveraign Force and Soveraign Authority are the same then we ought to obey them as far as their Power reaches For so far their Divine Authority must extend If the Revolt be general and the Power undisputed the Largeness of Dominion is not at all material For as has been observed the Boundaries of Empire are of an inferior Consideration They depend only upon Pacts and Humane Laws and ought not to stand in competition against Providence and hinder the exercise of a Divine Right God without question can change the Limits as well as the Governors of a Kingdom and ought not to be confined in this respect no more than in the other And since Settlement and Success is a certain Sign of Divine Authority we ought according to the Doctor to submit to every Subdivision of Power though never so illegally Cantonized as long as they keep distinct and unsubordinate to each other 3. That the Distinction between Lawful and Usurped Powers is not unknown to Scripture will be manifest from the consideration of Hebr. 13.17 There the inspired Author commands the Hebrews to obey those who have the Rule over them and submit themselves I grant the place is to be understood of Church-Governors but it 's as plain by universal Practice that this Submission is to be paid to none but Lawful Spiritual Powers For if any Bishop should offer to govern another's Diocese and Usurp his See such intrusions have been always condemned by the Church and the People obliged to adhere to their first Bishop And since this Scripture concerning Ecclesiastical Rulers has been always understood of those who are Lawfully and Canonically set up though these words are not expressly in the Text why the Higher Powers should not be restrained to Magistrates Legally Constituted is somewhat hard to imagine What reason have we to suppose God should Confirm an intrusion upon the State and disallow in the Church Why should he give his Authority to Temporal Usurpers and deny it to Spiritual Are not Bishops de Facto as good as Kings of that Denomination To put the Case more home and to draw it into a narrower Compass Let us suppose according to St. Cyprian's Principle every See independent of each other and that a lawful Bishop is deposed by his People and another chosen and consecrated by the Presbytery who are the Spiritual Estates and nothing of the usual Solemnity omitted Now I desire to know whether the New Man is a Bishop and has a Divine Right to govern the Diocese If the Doctor says Yes he contradicts the Universal Church and destroys the Episcopal Authority If he says No I would gladly hear his Reason The Person we are speaking of is generally submitted to and called Bishop and wears the Episcopal Habit and had all the Ceremonies performed at his Consecration and is disown'd by none but a few obstinate People and what would you have more If you say the Clergy were under Tyes of Canonical Obedience to their former Bishop that neither They nor the Laity have any Power to depose their Bishop or to ordain a new One that such Proceedings are contrary to the Fundamental Laws of Church-Government and subversive of its Monarchical Constitution This is all Truth I grant but am afraid it will disoblige the Doctor 's Argument For under Favor are not the States bound by natural and sworn Allegiance to their King What Right have the Members to depose the Head and Inferiors to displace their Supreme And what Law is there to chuse a Prince in an Hereditary Kingdom By what Authority do they these things And who gave them this Authority I put these Questions to the Doctor because I hope he will be so kind as to take them for no more than Enquiries Farther By the Doctor 's Assistance it may be urged That in the first Ages of Christianity Bishops were nominated by the Holy Ghost as Kings were in Israel and Elections apparently governed by Miracles and Inspiration as we may learn from Clemens Romanus And as it hapned afterwards in the Case of Fabian Bishop of Rome But now since Miracles are ceased God does that in the Church by his Providence which he did at first by express Nomination Therefore though one Layman should consecrate another his Episcopal Character ought to be acknowledged against the Canonical Bishop provided the great Body of the Diocese has submitted to him and the whole Administration of Ecclesiastical Government is in his hands and every thing is done in his Name and those who won't submit can be crushed by him And if any one objects against this Bishop de Facto I hope the Doctor 's parallel Reasons will satisfie him For first Here is as good a spiritual Settlement according to our Author's interpretation of that word as a Man would wish To go on No Man can make himself a Bishop any more than a King whether God will or no. God is then said to set up a Bishop when by his Providence he advances
before dispersed in several Offices of State were annexed to the Imperial Dignity The Emperors used to be Consuls Tribunes of the People High-Priests Censors and out of the Iurisdiction of the City they are called Proconsuls and are Legibus Soluti i. e. above the Punishment of the Laws Now if the Senate and People who had the Right to dispose of the Roman Government resigned themselves and their Authority into the Emperor's hands what should hinder the Title of these Princes from being unquestionable Nothing can be plainer than that as Bodin affirms The People may give away all their Right to govern if they please And adds agreeably to the foregoing Testimonies that the Lex Regia was understood in this Sense This is so evident that the Doctor himself is forced to confess it though in lame imperfect Language The Emperors he grants did gain some kind of Consent from the Senate And if their Consent was once gained it 's to no purpose to Object the indirect Methods of obtaining it for allowing it was extorted by Fear or Flattery or other Arts this is not sufficient to null the translated Authority That when once resigned is past recall It being than too late to plead that a Man was wheedled or frighted out of his Consent This the Doctor very well understood and therefore tells us that the Romans themselves were great Usurpers and therefore I suppose had no Right to translate But this Objection I have already answered in the Dispute concerning the Convocation-Book And since the then present Powers were Legal Powers the Apostles Direction was very significant to Christians of other Ages from which they ought by parity of Reason to conclude it was their Duty to submit to none but Lawful Governors What he urges from Scripture of the Jews being bound to submit to the four Monarchys has been considered in the foregoing Section As for his saying they were Manifest Usurpations and yet set up by the Council and Decree of God and foretold by a Prophetick Spirit This comes short of the Case unless he has any Prophesies to produce in behalf of the Revolution Besides his Argument proves too much which is a sign it 's of kin to the Emperor's Titles stark nought For our Blessed Saviour's Passion was decreed by the Counsel of God and foretold by Prophecy and yet I conceive the Doctor is not so hardy as to affirm the Iews and Romans had a Divine Right to crucify him But we have no Example in Scripture that any People were ever blamed for submiting to the present Powers whatever the Usurpations were To this it may be Answered 1. There are a great many Actions in the History of the Scriptures unquestionably unlawful which notwithstanding are mentioned without any Censure upon them Thus neither Noah nor Lot are blamed for their Intemperance nor Rebeckah for teaching Iacob to gain his Father's Blessing by Deceit And to come nearer the point Absalom is not directly blamed for Rebelling against David and will the Doctor conclude from hence that lie did well in it The Reason why the Scripture does not condemn every irregular practice is because it supposes Men endowed with Principles of Natural Religion and Morality which teach them to distinguish between Good and Evil and that they are to take their Measures of Virtue and Vice from the Rules of Reason and Revelation not from Precedent and Example 2. We may Observe that in the Usurpation's upon the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes it was the Custom of the Usurpers to destroy the Family of their Predecessor And when there is no Competition from a Legal Claim Possession is a good Title And therefore it 's no wonder the Israelites were not blamed for submitting to the present Powers for in that Case they were Legally Established And as for the House of David it was never set aside by Usurpation till the Time of Athaliah Now after Iehoiada had discovered that their Legal Soveraign Ioash was living I desire to know of the Doctor whether the Iews were bound to submit to Athaliahs Government or not If he says yes He not only condemns Iehoiada for Deposing Athaliah but makes the Divine Entail upon Davids Family upon which he lays so much stress signify nothing If he says no he gives up the Argument For then we have undoubted Principles of Scripture which condemn a Submission to Usurpation which are much safer Rules than Examples for Conscience to rely upon The Doctor proceeds to prove that Obedience is due to Usurpers when they are seized of the Administration of the Government from our Saviours Answer to the Pharisees and Herodians concerning Tribute Mony Render to Caesar the Things which are Caesar's Before I give a distinct Reply to this Objection it will not be improper to consider the occasion of the Text Now we are to observe that the Pharisees and Herodians enquired of the Lawfulness of paying Tribute to Caesar not out of a desire of Instruction from our Saviour but to entrap him They proposed an ensnaring Question concerning Tribute a plain Catagorical Answer to which they knew must of necessity provoke either the Roman or the Pharisees Party against him This our Blessed Saviour calls an Hypocritical tempting of him And since the Time of his Passion was not yet come we may conclude he intended to avoid the danger of the Question not by declining it but by giving an Answer of an Obscure and uncertain Sense Upon which no Charge could be grounded because of its Ambiguity This the Proposers well understood They knew they could not fix any determinate meaning upon our Saviour's Words which made them Marvel at the prudence of his Answer and leave him Whereas had he plainly resolved the Question either way they had gained their intended advantage upon him And since there was a designed obscurity in our Savior's Answer as being most proper to secure himself and to discourage the Malice of those who came to entangle him it 's unreasonable to draw any Conclusions about Government from thence especially such which not only contradict other plain places of Scripture but are repugnant to the Notions of common Justice and the sense of Mankind Having premised this I Answer 1. That the Doctor by this Argument of Tribute should have come in to the Revolution when the new Money was first Coyned as he has been told already 2. Caesar as I have proved was the Lawful Prince of Iudea and the right Owners of the Soveraignty as well as the Jewish Nation had submitted to him And since he was not only possessed of the Government but of the Title to Govern the Right of Coinage belonged to him and when this Prerogative of Royalty was produced by the Pharisees it 's no wonder to find his Right to Tribute inferred from thence The Doctor urges That our Saviour's Argument relies wholly on the Possession of Power And if this be a good Reason it 's good in
no longer than the Children are pleased to obey him And have they a Right to his House as soon as they can turn him out Is a Wife bound to entertain an Husband de Facto Now if the Priviledge of Fathers and Husbands holds in Case of Dispossession why not that of Kings Why should Publick Authority upon which the common Security depends have a less firm Establishment than that of single Families If private Disobedience can't challenge a Divine Right to govern upon Success why should a National Rebellion pretend to it He goes on to acquaint us That to give Authority to a Man does not signify to permit him to take it And that no Man can have God's Authority but he to whom it 's given By which it 's plain he means that no Person can be vested with God's Authority barely by his permissive Will but that Consent and Approbation is always implied But this Proposition is not only Foreign to his Point because Usurpers have no Authority from God either one way or other but is likewise untrue and dangerous For suppose an Eldest Son Murthers his Father privately in this Case it must be granted he has God's Authority to possess his Estate and to govern the Family For he who has a Legal Claim has by consequence a Divine one all Humane Laws being ultimately resolved into the Divine Warrant and Appointment But then I conceive the Doctor wont say this unnatural Murtherer has God's Authority in the Family any other ways than by bare Permission God indeed suffered him to Murther his Father as he suffers all other Wickedness And because the Murther was secretly committed the Villany turns to Advantage and the Party becomes Master of his Father's Fortune But to say that he had God's consenting Authority in this Matter would sound very harshly and amounts to no less than God's Approbation of Parricide For he who absolutely approves the End without any regard to the Lawfulness of the Means must consent to the Means though never so Unlawful And to apply this Remark An Usurper when the Royal Line is either Extinct or Surrenders comes by God's Authority the same way with the forementioned Murtherer The next rub the Doctor casts in the way is that unless we take our Governors as they rise without minding their Titles we shall not be able to distinguish those God permits only from those he appoints Now this Difficulty is easily removed For the Constitution of each particular Country will inform us who governs by Permission and who by Appointment from God Almighty The Laws of Succession c. were made for this purpose and to prevent Usurpation So that there is no need of the Doctor 's Expedient to teach us to distinguish between God's King and those who would be so of their own making We need not be at a loss whom we must obey out of Conscience and whom we must not obey for we have the Direction of Law ready to inform us The same Direction which there is in private Cases to know the right Owner from an Intruder He comes on with the Repetition of his former extraordinary Doctrine That by what means soever a Prince ascends the Throne he is placed there by God as truly as if he had been nominated by him and anointed by a Prophet So that Cromwel was as much God's Vicegerent as David and if so our Laws are very much to blame for attainting him of Treason and exposing him to Ignominy after his Death However the Doctor is sure God never suffers a Prince to ascend the Throne but when he sees fit to make him King No! Does God suffer nothing but what he sees fit to be done Does he not suffer all the Wickedness which is committed for no Man can do an ill Thing whether God will or no And will the Doctor take the freedom to say that God sees it fit and convenient that men should be Unjust and Lewd and Atheistical that they should disturb the World and damn themselves Such Practises as these certainly can never gain the Approbation of the Divine Wisdom nor seem agreable to his Goodness His fourth Proposition gives us another admirable Piece of Politicks viz. All Kings are equally rightful with respect to God Why so Because it 's impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God would or no. Nay then farewell all Property For by the help of this Logick I will prove there can be no such Thing as Cheating Stealing and Oppression in Nature The Argument lyes thus All Possession is rightful with respect to God for it 's impossible there should be a wrong Possessor unless a Man could make himself Master of his Neighbour's Goods whether God will or no. This is comfortable Doctrine for the Gentlemen of the High-way and were it admitted would serve to plead off their Indictment But if this Plea should fail which is not likely the Doctor can reinforce them with another For he has told us That all Events which are for the Good on Evil of private Persons are ordered by Providence Now is not the taking a Purse or stealing a Man's Cloaths an Event Doubtless it is and sometimes very much for the Evil of him who looses them Such Events as these have been very frequent since the Doctor 's Book came out But why he that stole these Goods should be bound to make Restitution except in point of Generosity is past my Skill to understand For if God orders a Man a Sum of Money it 's certainly Lawful for him to keep it His fifth Proposition affirms That God is not bound by Humane Laws True But if Men are it 's sufficient for our purpose For we are not disputing about God's Prerogative but the Duty of Subjects However may not God make whom he pleases King without regard to Legal Rights No doubt he may But then we are to observe that every Thing which is done is not of God's doing And the apparent Injustice of an Action is a very bad Argument to prove the Righteous God had a hand in it 'T is true God is the chief Proprietor of all Things but it does not follow from hence that whatever a Man can catch is his own If the Doctor has no supernatural Credentials to produce he must be contented to let the common Laws of Justice take place Unless he has a mind to cut the Sinews of all Property and in a great Measure to destroy the Nature of Right and Wrong His sixth Proposition says We have but one King at a Time which is a good Hearing were it not misapplied in his Seventh where he affirms That King is the Name of Power not of meer Right Which Assertion is not only contrary to the common Notion or Justice but to the Language of our own Laws In which the Lancastrian Princes who though for Kings de Facto had several peculiar Advantages such as a Formal Resignation
in this place concerning his Providential Kings has been sufficiently taken notice of already Thus I have done with his Propositions which thô I think some of them a great deal too plain yet I cannot perceive they carry any Evidence with them to the Author's Advantage His Doctrine That different Degrees of Settlement require different Degrees of Submission is such a Masterly Stroke in Politicks that I think in this Paragraph he may be said to have out-done himself Such a Posture of Affairs seems to require at least to justifie such a qualified Submission But 1. This is a needless Distinction For such a limitted Compliance cannot be justified unless it 's required i. e. unless 't is a Duty to comply The Reason is because no Subject is independent of the Constitution He is not at liberty to qualifie his Allegiance at his Discretion and to choose to submit to what Governour he pleases Such a Latitude would make Subjection an Arbitrary Relation which the People might throw off at their pleasure For if their private unauthorized Will is sufficient to translate part of their Allegiance the whole must by the same Reason lye at the Mercy of their Inclinations Thus much is granted by the Doctor himself For though at present he seems to make these Degrees of Submission no more than politick Provisions and a little Ceremony to an approaching Revolution yet when he comes to state the Business he calls them Duties and carves out several Branches of Allegiance such as Praying Paying Taxes c. under the notion of an Obligation which is a sufficient Argument they are required to be done 2. His proportioning Submission to the Degrees of Settlement seems in plain English no less than a License for Men to turn as the Tide does to shake off all sense of Honour and Justice when they are likely to prove expensive and to make an Idol of Interest As if a Man should say thus Look ye Gentlemen things are so kindly ordered and so fair an Allowance is given that when you find a Government going down you may draw in your Loyalty and sink your Allegiance But pray take care you do it by Degrees for if you are too quick the King may recover and you may live to repent it So on the other hand when you see Rebellion in a thriving Condition and to have gotten the better of the Laws you must be sure to comply with the Success as fast as it rises and follow it step by step as it gets ground By this means you will not fail to keep pace with Providence To sleep in a whole Skin and enjoy the secure Possession of your Estates And if the new Interest gains farther and encreases into a full and plenary i. e. into a twice full Possession and looks vertically upon you at least as you fancy and if you are out you must look to that If it will not give you leave to stand between Two Governments any longer but presses you to a final Declaration under considerable Forfeitures than you must come in with a full Tide of Duty and fall to Swearing as fast as you can If the Reader can make any other Sense of this Passage I shall be glad of it But for my part I think it Paraphrased naturally enough I shall now briefly touch upon the Dutyes and the reasons of them which the Doctor says we ought to pay such a Prince whom we cannot think the Providence of God has settled in the Throne i. e. whom we must believe an unlawful Prince And here the Doctor is very Liberal For First We must Promise Swear or give any other Security upon demand to live quietly and peaceably under his Government But why his Government When the Doctor supposes he has no Title either from Law or Providence What reason has an Usurper who has neither Humane nor Divine Authority to make himself a Iudge and a Ruler over Men And if by the supposition the Government does not belong to him and he has no Authority over the Subjects Upon what account are they bound to enter into Engagements and to give him Security to establish his Violence Can the Doctor deny that Subjects are bound to assist their Prince in all just Quarrels If he cannot By what Law are they at Liberty to swear a Neutrality to the Usurper and to make themselves as useless to their Prince as if they were Dead If they may renounce their Active Obedience Why not their Passive too Why may they not attack their lawful Sovereign in the Feild draw their Sword against acknowledged Justice and fire upon God Almighty But what if the Usurper won't let the Subjects have the Priviledge of their Countrey without these Conditions Why then I desire to know whether they are not bound to follow their King into Banishment or if that Liberty is denyed to suffer whatever shall be put upon them A Second Branch of Duty to an Usurper who by his name has a Right to nothing is Paying of Taxes For it seems These are due for the Administration of Government i. e. for medling with that which he has nothing to do with for seizing upon the Revenues and Power and Jurisdiction which the Doctor grants belongs to another This is great Liberality in the Doctor However it appears by what I have already proved that he might have spared citing Rom. 13.6 to this purpose But it seems it 's his way to bring in the Apostles as he does his Kings right or wrong There is another Reason behind viz. Because we owe the secure Possession of our Estates to the Protection of the Government let the Government the Usurpation be what it will we ought to pay for it That is though Lucifer were at the head of it we ought to give him Provender and bring our Money in the Sacks Mouth we ought to give a Man Money to secure our Estates though we know he intends to levy Men with it against the Decalogue and buy Powder and Ball to shoot our Parents The Primitive Christians chose rather to lose their Lives than be at any Expence towards the Furnishing out the Heathen Worship And if Parricide and Regicide be not as bad as the worst Idolatry I have no more to say If People may take this Liberty to secure an Estate I think they need not be very scrupulous how they get it Thirdly We must give the Title of King to an Usurper when we live in the Countrey where he is Crowned Because this is a piece of good Manners It 's somewhat strange that the Doctor who in so many Passages of his Book has used a certain Prince at such an uncourtly rate should be thus full of Ceremony though after all I much question whether it 's any part of Manners to give the King's Title to an Usurper when we believe him to be such An Usurper who has no Right to the Crown can have none to the Title of King for
upon any Persons to obey him The Laws of Nature enjoyn us Obedience to our Kings But they don't tell us That every powerful Pretender ought to be acknowledged as such But refer us to the Constitution for Satisfaction For Authority and Iurisdiction is as much a Property as Land and therefore the Measure of it ought only to be taken from the Laws of each respective Countrey which brings me to the Doctor 's Application of legal Allegiance which he affirms is Sworn only to a King in Possession And by his reasoning he lets us plainly understand that this Allegiance is due no longer than the Possession continues To this I conceive the Doctor 's Arguments will afford a sufficient ground for a Reply For he explains Legal Allegiance by Maintenance or Defence and says it signifies no more than to maintain and defend the King in the Possession of the Throne as having a legal Right to it If it signifies thus much its sufficient For if we are sworn to maintain and defend the King in the Possession of the Throne because he has a Legal Right to it we ought to defend him as long as this Legal Right continues For as long as the Grounds of Allegiance remain in full Force the Consequent Duties ought to be performed Now the Doctor grants a Prince's Legal Right remains after his Dispossession and that he may insist upon his Claim when he finds his opportunity He argues farther That we can legally take this Oath only to a King in Possession because it must be Administred by his Authority To this I Answer First That from hence it follows that whenever a lawful Prince has been possessed of the Government those who Swore to him during his Possession are bound to perform the Contents of their Oath for then by the Doctor 's Argument it was lawfully Administred Secondly To put the Matter beyond Dispute we are to observe That the King's Authority continues after Dispossession This waving other Authorities I shall prove from the Two other famous Cases of the Post nati above mentioned reported by Sir Francis Moore and Sir Edward Coke in both which we have the Resolution and Concurrence of all the Judges In the First among other Things it 's affirmed as unquestionable Law That Allegiance follows the Natural Person of the King not the Politick For Instance Si le Roy soit expulse per Force auter Usurpe uncore le Allegiance nest toll comment que le Ley soit toll That is If the King is by Force driven out of his Kingdom and another Usurps notwithstanding this the Allegiance of the Subject does not cease though the Law does Secondly Allegiance extends as far as Defence which is sometimes beyond the circuit of the Laws For every King may command every People to defend any of his Kingdoms this being a Thing incident to the Allegiance of all his Subjects without respect to the extent of the Laws of that Nation where they were born whereby it manifestly appears that Allegiance follows the Natural Person of the King From this Resolution of the Reverend Judges these Inferences necessarily follow 1. Since Allegiance follows the natural Person of the King it must be due to him as long as his natural Person is in being i. e. as long as he lives So that Possession or Dispossession does not alter the Case 'T is true they make a change in the King's Fortune but the Allegiance of the Subject remains the same 2. When the Prince is ejected by force the Laws are said to cease or expire From whence it follows that the Usurper has no Authority to execute Justice or administer any part of the Government which overthrows all the Pretences for a K. de Facto 3. Allegiance extends as far as Defence and does not as the Judges observe depend upon the Formalities of Law but is founded in natural Subjection And as a King may command his Subjects of one Kingdom to defend him elsewhere though they are obliged by no express Provisions to travel with or transport their Allegiance into another Country so by Parity of Reason all Subjects in vertue of their general Allegiance are bound to defend their Prince in their own Country thô there should be no particular Laws assigned to bring them upon Duty which is more than the Doctor will allow 4. If Allegiance reaches as far as Defence then without question it ought to be paid to the King when dispossessed for then it is he has the greatest need of his Subjects Assistance 5. If Allegiance follows the natural Person of the King and is due to him out of Possession then it cannot be due to an Usurper in Possession For this would oblige us to two opposite Allegiances which as the Doctor observes is absurd and impossible 6. If Allegiance follows the King's natural Person his Royal Authority must do so too For an Obligation to obey always supposes a Right to command and if the Sovereign Authority always attends upon the Person of the King then a Commission granted by a King out of Possession must be a valid Commission And thus the Doctor 's great Question which he was not Lawyer enough to decide is answered against him Calvin's Case is full to the same purpose which because I have already mentioned I shall cite the less of it now In this solemn and deliberate Determination it 's resolved by the Reverend Judges First That Allegiance and Faith are due to a King by the Law of Nature They must mean a Rightful King For the Law of Nature does not encourage Injustice and Usurpation Secondly they affirm That the Law of Nature is part of the Law of England and cite Bracton Fortescue c. for this point And Thirdly That the Law of Nature is immutable From whence I infer That if Allegiance is due to a Rightful King by the Law of Nature if this Law is incorporated into our English Constitution and of an immutable Obligation from hence it necessarily follows That as long as we have a Rightful Prince our Allegiance is part of his Right and ought to be exerted for his Service Secondly they observe That in the Reign of Edw. 2. the Spencers Father and Son to cover the Treason hatched in their Hearts invented this damnable and damned Opinion That Homage and the Oath of Ligeance was more by reason of the King's Crown that is his Politick Capacity than by reason of the Person of the King Upon which Opinion they inferred execrable and detestable Consequents 1. That the King might be removed for Maleadministration 2. That he might be reformed per Aspertee 3. That his Lieges were bound to govern in aid of him and in default of him Now if it is such an impious and unreasonable Assertion to maintain that Homage and Ligeance is tyed to the King 's Politick Capacity Then it must follow his Natural Person which makes the Resolution of this Case the same
Irregularities committed by the Subjects towards each other which remains uncensured and unrectified by the Courts of Justice and therefore why should not Providence interpose by way of Supplement and determine private Property by Events as well as the Dominions of Princes Subjects by their Immoralities and Mismanagement deserve oftentimes to be chastized and dispossessed of their Fortunes Why therefore should there not be a Court of Events set up to assert the Soveraignty of Providence and to supply the defects of Human Justice in one Case as well as in the other But Providence has no Effect upon such Personal Rights Is it because they are Personal Then it can have no Effect upon the Crown for that surely belongs to the King's Person The Dr. cannot deny that God is supreme Lord of private Estates as well as of Kingdoms and that He disposes them according to his pleasure And since He orders all Events which are for the Good or Evil of private Persons it follows by inevitable consequence that whatever any man can catch is God Almighty's Gift and then surely there is no reason to question the Title God in erecting Courts of Judicature did not intend to make the Subjects any more than the Prince independent of his own Jurisdiction or to exclude Himself from any part of the Government of the World And therefore if all publick Changes and Revolutions of Kingdoms are certain Signs of God's Approbation and fortified with his Authority we ought to conclude the same with respect to inferiour Concerns If the Successes of Violence always draws Allegiance after them and translates the Authority from the Rightful Prince to the Usurper I see no reason why they should not have the same consequence upon private Property for that Cause which can produce a greater Effect may no doubt produce a less of the same kind If Providential Events can unsettle the Crowns of Princes 't is strange they should not have an equal Jurisdiction over things of an inferiour value If this Principle is sufficient to overturn the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom and to transferr the Prerogatives and Royalties of Government I wonder how any petty private Rights can stand before it Have private Rights a firmer Establishment than the publick And is the Property of Crowns more precarious and slenderly guarded than that of a Cottage If Events can give an Island or a Continent to every Victorious Usurper why should a more modest Robber who makes himself Master of a small Sum of Money be denied the same Privilege of his Industry or Courage This is great Partiality and by the Dr's Reasoning a Confining Providence with a witness and fettering it with Courts of Human Justice So that God can't dispose of the Property of the Subject unless the Judges and Jury are pleased to consent to it The truth is the Dr. has made the Condition of Princes very lamentable As for Subjects when they are injured by Theft or Intrusion their Property remains entire and they have the Remedy of Law to relieve them But Princes must not pretend to these Securities when they are once disseized though never so unaccountably their Authority is out of doors and they must sit down by their Misfortune without Redress They are to Govern only durante bene placito no longer than the Sence and Conscience of the People will give them leave two Qualities which seldom fall to the share of the majority And which is an harder Consideration than all the rest it 's their Honourable Relation to God Almighty which puts them into these circumstances of disadvantage Had they not had a Commission from Him their Right had been fenced as well as those of other Men but their being His Ministers to Rule the World has cut them off from the common Privilege This must needs be a mortifying Consideration to Princes and make their Charge a very dangerous Undertaking Who that could live any other way would wear a Crown at this rate Who would change the Title of Private Property and throw himself out of the protection of the Law for such a glittering Uncertainty Who would quit a certain and solid Interest and expose himself to all the Humours and Accidents the Wickedness and Extravagance of Human Nature is capable of producing 'T is certainly much more eligible to have the Security of stated Justice than to stand to the Courtesie of Events and lye at the Mercy of Ambition and the Madness of People But Such Disputes which are too big for a Legal Decision for the decision of which God has erected no Vniversal Tribunal upon Earth He has reserved to his own Iudgment What sort of Dispute does the Dr. mean and between whom does it lye Is it between the Lawful Prince and the Usurper If so the very Names of the Parties are sufficient to end the Controversie For certainly there is no need of disputing whether Right is Right or Wrong is Wrong The Dr. I fear to perplex the Argument seems to perplex the Title and disputes as if it was equally doubtful on both sides and then I confess Events i. e. Possession might determine it But this cannot be supposed without altering the state of the Question For the Dr. has put the Case at the worst and reasoned upon the Supposition of Vsurpation and owns That his Principles oblige him to do so And would our Author have a Vniversal Tribunal erected to overthrow Universal Justice to dispossess and exterminate Lawful Princes and determine the Cause in Favour of Violence Well! Possibly the Dr. means this Dispute is between God and the Lawful Prince 'T is for the Correction of Princes and the Transferring of Kingdoms Touching the transferring of Kingdoms there are several ways as I have already observed of maintaining the Divine Soveraignty in this point without making any Difficulties in Providence and sapping the Foundations of Common Right And as for the Correcting of Princes God does not stand in need of Injustice and Rebellion for this purpose He can execute this Discipline without the necessary Wickedness of the Subject He can afflict Princes in their Families and in their Persons He may likewise suffer them to be over-run by Violence without giving any Approbation or Authority to the Oppression As he suffers the Devil to do a great deal of Mischief though He neither gives him a Commission nor ratifies his Acts. Besides there will be an Vniversal Tribunal erected at the last day where Princes must appear as well as meaner persons and where mighty Men if they have done amiss will be mightily tormented Thus we see Kingdoms may be transferred Princes punished and God's Prerogative asserted without returning to the Doctrine of Events These Expedients are plain and lye easie upon the Understanding and answer all the Difficulties objected by the Dr. without running us upon greater Thus Kings who are only less than God are left to his Sentence and Correction Whereas the Dr's Scheme puts them in the Power
of the People and gives a Rebellion when it 's grown General a Privilege to cancel the Regal Authority and to absolve the People from their Allegiance Now for Subjects to sit Judges upon their Prince and Inferiours upon their Undisputed Supream is the greatest Affront both to Decency and Duty imaginable The Dr's Remark That the final Determination of Providence in settling Princes i. e. Usurpers draws the Allegiance of the Subject after it is worth considering For what sort of Determinations are these They are against Law and Human Right When do they commence and what Signs have we to distinguish them by Why when Wickedness is in its Exaltation and Rebellion is grown Invincible then it is that Providence determines the point for Usurpation and gives it a Divine Authority then God it seems discharges the People from their former Engagements and gives them leave either to Chuse or Submit to a new Power The Dr. thought to clench the business by the word Final but as ill Luck would have it it has spoiled all For the Dr. in his Case of Allegiance has observed That the Usurpers being placed in the Throne at present and the Lawful Prince removed does not prove that it is God's Will it should alwaies be so And upon this Argument he founds the Ejected Prince his Legal Right Now if this Determination is of an uncertain continuance it cannot be termed Final for Providence may reverse it in a short time for ought we know to the contrary Farther Either this Determination is final or not if it is then God cannot restore the Rightful Prince nor dispossess the Intruder And is not this to confine Him to Events i. e. to Human Actions and to hinder him from the free disposal of Kingdoms If this Determination is not final then it signifies nothing for by Implication from the Dr's Argument it draws no Allegiance after it Besides the Reader may please to take notice that I have proved above That Events are no Declarations of the Will of God nor any good Grounds for Practice especially when they are neither agreeable to the Rules of Justice nor warranted by express Revelation The Dr's next Argument for a Disparity between Usurpers and Robbers runs thus Kings must be throughly settled in their Government before it becomes unlawful for Subjects to dispossess them Therefore to make the Case parallel he who seizes another Man's Estate must be throughly settled in it before it becomes Vnlawful to dispossess him But that no private man can be who is under the Government of Laws and has not the Possession of his Estate given him by Law Under favour I conceive the Case is exactly parallel For instance If a Man picks my Pocket and runs away with the Money it must by the Dr's Principles be his own for the Event is clearly on his side He has Possession as well as an Usurper and the same Countenance of Law for keeping it He has moreover the Consent of the Great Body of Pick-pockets who all submit to his Success and acknowledg the Justice of his Title and Who can now deny his being throughly settled in the Money If the Dr. replies he may be punished and obliged to refund provided he can be seized I answer So doubtless may an Usurper be served if the Lawful Prince can catch him But then it follows that so long as he remains undiscover'd he is I can't say a Legal but a Providential Proprietor and therefore not bound to Restitution However to give the Dr. entire satisfaction I shall not insist upon his Concealment but bring him into open view which may be done without disturbing his Settlement for it often happent that Thieves with a Guard of their own Perswasion retire into Boggs and Mountains where though the true Owners know their Retreat there is no coming at them Now as long as they remain in these impregnable Circumstances together with the Advantages I just now mentioned I can't see the least Colour of Reason from the Dr's Principles why they should not have a Divine Right to all their Booty Lastly The Dr. to prove these two Cases unparallel apprehends a great difference between a Legal Right to the Crown and the Legal Rights of Subjects to their Estates In settling Estates there is nothing more required but a meer Human Right But to make a Legal King besides an Human Right to the Crown he must have God's Authority for a meer Human Right cannot make a King This the Dr. urges to obviate an Objection That it is as wicked and unjust for Subjects whatever their Circumstances are to own any other Prince but the Lâ—gal Heir as it would be for Tenants to pay their Rent to any but their true Legal Lord. But his Answer is by no means satisfactory For 1. I have proved That an Usurper has neither Human nor Divine Right and therefore I desire the Dr. would not bring him in for his Share of Privilege among Legal Landlords and Legal Kings till those Arguments are answered for certainly he that has no Right or Authority ought not to have the same Treatment and Duties paid those with those that have 2 ly If a private Landlord who it seems has no more than a meer Human Right to his Estate does not forfeit his Title by being unjustly disseized Why should a Prince be in a worse condition who Claims under greater Advantages and has the Laws of man and the Authority of God to secure him If a single Legal Right is able to hold out against Force and Intrusion one would think it should improve by being doubled and not grow weaker by having Divine Authority superadded to it Now the Dr. grants That every Legal Prince is fortified with Divine Authority and therefore if Violence cannot extinguish a private Right it must be if possible less prepared to do any execution upon a Crown 3 ly To take away the difference the Dr. apprehended between private and publick Property I answer That if he means by meer Human Right an Authority from Men only as Men without any higher original then there is more required for the settling an Estate than a meer Human Right For Men abstracting from the Commission they receive from God and the Subordination He has placed in the World are all equal and have no Authority to make Laws and and bind Property they have no superiority of Nature over each other they have no Prerogative from Creation from Preservation from Omniscience and Omnipotence they have neither Heaven nor Hell at their Command and therefore have no reason to claim a Jurisdiction over their Fellow-Creatures in their own Right If their Laws had not their Sanction from a Superiour Authority it would be no Sin to break them for every one might take his Measures as Humour or Interest should direct them Therefore to keep the World in order God has confirmed Human Laws with his own Authority and threatned to punish the Violations of
them with no less than Damnation From whence it follows That whoever has an Human Right to an Estate has likewise a Divine Authority to secure it for we are commanded to obey the Ordinances of Man by God himself and Property is of his appointment So that as long as the Human Right to an Estate continues the owner enjoys it by God Almighty's Order and Appointment unless he declares expresly to the contrary which doubtless carry his Authority along with them 'T is true private Proprietors have not a Divine Authority for the same great purpose with Princes they have it not to Govern and make Laws to represent the Majesty and Soveraignty of God but they have it to fix the Bounds of Meum and Tuum no less than Princes have to assure their Government Farther If Kings as the Dr. grants are made by a Divine Authority their publick Acts particularly their Laws must have the same privilege For those Acts which are but Executions of the Royal Office and for which the Office it self was intended must have the same Authority with the Office and if the Laws of Kings have a Divine Authority the Estates which are settled by those Laws must partake of the same Advantage and have more than a meer Human Right for their Security Thus I have considered what the Dr. has urged for a Disparity between Usurpers and private Robbers and unless he has something farther to say in his defence the Consequence I have drawn upon this Head must stand in full force against him The next Objection which the Dr. endeavours to remove is the Instance concerning Ioash and Athaliah which he says was a peculiar Case because God had entailed the Kingdom of Judah on the Posterity of David I have made it appear above that there is no difference between an Human and a Divine Entail as to the Strength and Firmness of the Settlement because they are both founded upon God's Authority But since the Dr. has endeavoured to reinforce his Answer in his Vindication I shall briefly consider what he has there alledged First The Dr. grants that Princes have their Authority of Government and consequently of making Laws from God But yet we are to think Divine Political Laws much more sacred and universally obligatory than meer Human Laws 'T is confessed That Divine Laws are to be preferred to Human upon several accounts but this difference does not in the least affect the Obligation of the Subject and therefore is nothing to the Dr's purpose However it may not be improper to point out the Circumstances of Advantage By the way we may remember That we are not now disputing about Moral Laws but only those which are positive and political Now the preference which Divine Laws of this nature ought to have above those which are meerly Human depends upon these following Reasons 1. Because of the Solemnity of their Publication they are deliver'd in a more majestick manner proclaimed by miraculous and extraordinary appearances of Nature These Advantages of Promulgation exhibit the Authority of God as it were visibly to the Senses of the People and make a more reverential and lasting Impression upon their Minds than any Human Grandeur and Magnificence can do 2. Divine Laws oblige the Conscience by a direct and immediate Authority for God is that one Law-giver who has an original and independent Authority over us As for the Ordinances of Men they do not bind in vertue of their own Right but only upon the account of a delegated Power because God has commanded us to submit to them for his sake because they are made by those who are his Ministers and act in his Name 3. Divine Laws are preferrable in regard of the Excellence of their Matter they are the Results of Infinite Wisdom and Goodness and exactly proportioned to the Circumstances and Convenience of those for whom they are made There is nothing of Over-sight Passion or private Design in them to which Imperfections Human Laws are liable Upon these three accounts the Laws which are of God's own making ought to be more highly esteemed than those published by Human Governours But then these Advantages have no relation to the Sanction nor hinder the Obligation to obey from being the same in both for where the reason of Obedience is the same the Duty must be so too Now Human Laws being confirmed by God's Authority which is the Ground of our Obedience as much as those which are called Divine our Consciences must be equally engaged to both 'T is true the Divine Authority is somewhat more remotely conveyed in Human Laws than in the other but this distance does not make the Obligation less obligatory nor give the Subject any Liberty to dispute for as the Orders of a Prince are to be obeyed tho' delivered by inferiour Magistrates so God expects our Submission and Complyance as much when he commands by his Representatives as when He does it more immediately by himself And therefore what the Dr. observes concerning Divine Political Laws that they are more universally obligatory than any meer Human Laws is not always true and when it is so it does not proceed from the Kind of the Law but the Privilege of the Legislator I say it is not alwaies true for the Mosaick Ceremonies were Divine Laws but these Laws were in force only in Palestine and among the Nation of the Jews and therefore the Obligation to obey them could not reach so great an extent by far as an Edict of the Babylonian or Persian Monarchs whose Empire was much larger 'T is true a Divine Political Law may be more universally obligatory than a meer Human one because God is universal Lord and has a Right to govern all Mankind which it 's likely no one Prince will ever have But this Disparity if it should happen does not proceed from the unequal Authority of the Laws but from the different Jurisdiction of the Law-Makers The one it 's granted may Command farther but the other within its proper Precints is equally valid The Dr. affirms That the Dispute between Divine and Human Laws and a Divine and Human Entail of the Crown are of a very different nature But here he makes a distinction without a difference for are not all Entails grounded upon Law Divine upon Divine and Human upon Human Laws Therefore in disputing the Entails above mentioned we must debate the Nature of Human and Divine Laws because these are the Basis upon which the respective Settlements are supposed to stand From whence it will follow that if the Authority of Divine and Human Laws is the same the Entails depending upon either of them must have an equal firmness This Consequence it 's likely the Dr. foresaw which made him run out into a Mystical Discourse about Providence which Principle I have already undertaken and proved That Providence as the Dr. understands it is no Rule of Practice However I shall consider the Remainder of this
their Reformation a sufficient Redress of the Peoples Grievances Or are they not punished if they are damned for oppressing their Subjects Besides there are other Expedients as I have shewn by which Providence may correct Princes and relieve the Subject and if there were not those Remedies I have just now mentioned are much more intelligible than what the Dr. prescribes for what can be a greater Reflection upon an All-wise and Almighty Being than to make him stand in need of the Sins of his Creatures As if the Course of Providence must be stopped unless it were releived by Perfidiousness and Rebellion As if God could not govern the World without setting it on fire nor work any deliverance without involving whole Nations in Guilt and Blood and Ruin If this is not confining Providence with a Witness I am much mistaken And tho' the Dr. seems to lament the Subject's Misfortune because the Old Principles deny them the Liberty to own an Illegal Prince though he would be never so kind to them yet I conceive he will have no reason upon second Thoughts to be dejected at this Consideration For People are sometimes very liberal in disposing that which does not belong to them and bribe high at least in Promises to gain their designs But if every one might engage with those who would be kind to them without any regard to Virtue and Honour private Families would be very much disorder'd and the Dr. might possibly be a Sufferer by this Latitude himself And why must that Usage be put upon Princes which if it was offer'd a private Person would be thought a great Injury Since the Duties of Subjection are bound upon the Conscience as strictly as any domestick Relation we ought doubtless to take our Lot for better for worse and not be governed by our Inclinations in these matters However it seems hard that we must refuse our Deliverance and not allow God to deliver us unless he do it by Law But waving the familiarity of this last Sentence I answer That we have no reason to believe any Deliverance comes from God unless it 's managed in a regular defensible way To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this it is because there is no Light in them He whose Character it is to still the Madness of the People we may be sure will never authorize and encourage it The righteous God of Peace always speaks in the still Voice of Law and Justice and is never to be found in popular Commotions nor in the Tempests of Rebellion But if this Argument fails he has another which is more considerable at hand viz. The necessity of Government to preserve Human Societies for Human Societies must not dissolve into a Mobb or Mr. Hobbs's State of Nature because the Legal Prince has lost his Throne and can no longer govern The preservation of Human Societies does of necessity force us to own the Authority even of Vsurped Powers I believe it will be hard to perswade any considering men That that which in such Cases in Revolutions is necessary to preserve a Nation is a Sin For the end of Government is the preservation of Human Societies and the great Law of all In answer to this Argument I shall endeavour to prove these Three things upon the Dr. I. That he over values the Preservation of Societies which ought not to be maintained by irregular and unjust Actions II. There is no reason to apprehend the Strictness of the Old Principle should dissolve a Country into a Mob III. If this Event should sometimes happen it would turn to the general Advantage of Society 1. Society ought not to be upheld by Acts of Injustice Since God does not allow private Persons to preserve themselves by injuring their Neighbours why should we imagine He grants this Liberty to Great Bodies of People Unless the universality of an Evil Practice can change its nature and correct its Malignity Does God hate Injustice in private Persons and permit it at the same time to whole Communities It 's somewhat strange a Multitude should not be bound to the Common Laws of Justice and Humanity and that Sinners should grow Saints meerly by crowding together And if this Supposition is absurd then certainly Justice and Moral Honesty are to be preferr'd before the Concerns of Society Now to deny any person his Right much more to break the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom is certainly Injustice and therefore the number of Adherents can't alter the Quality of the Action though they may aggravate the Crime 'T is true Self-preservation is a good thing but as some People order the matter we shall have little left worth the preserving When we talk of preserving our selves we should comprehend the whole Interest of Human Nature especially the nobler part of it and not confine our Notion to the Satisfactions of Epicures and Atheists We should take care to preserve our Integrity as well as our Wealth our Reputation as well as our Ease and our Souls as well as our Bodies Which cannot be done unless the Measures we go by are regular and defensible To illustrate this general Discourse by an Instance Let us suppose a whole Country or Nation reduced to such streights that they have no other way to save their Lives but by turning Turks or Heathens What is to be done in this Case Have they the Liberty to comply or must they submit to the Penalty If they may comply the Evangelists were mistaken and the Martyrs Self-Murtherers If they may not it follows that some things may be necessary to the Preservation of a Society which are notwithstanding utterly unlawful And that the general danger of refusing to comply with an Imposition does not make the Complyance warrantable Tully though a Heathen could say That there some things so lewd and flagitious that a wise and virtuous man would not be guilty of them tho' his Country lay at stake And elsewhere he tells us That to take away that which belongs to another and to enrich our selves at the disadvantage of our Neighbour is a greater Contradiction to Nature and by consequence ought to be more avoided than Death than Poverty or Pain and in short than all the Accidents which can happen to Life or Fortune Again The Law of Nations which stands both upon an Human and Divine Authority does not suffer us to make our selves Rich or Powerful with the Spoils of others The same Author cites several noble Precedents as he calls them where the Publick was concerned in which Honour and Honesty were valued above the Considerations of Security and Power Amongst other Instances he gives one concerning Themistocles who told the Athenians at a publick meeting That he had something to propose very much to the Advantage of the State which was not convenient to mention in that place and therefore desired they would assign him a proper person to whom he might communicate
Cromwel if as the Dr. affirms neither the Laws of Religion nor of the Land declare it unlawful to submit to an Usurpation And therefore I think the Great Body of the Nobility Gentry and Clergy have reason to take it ill from the Dr. for making their Forefathers a Company of Mad-men who notwithstanding they had all imaginable Authority and Obligation from Human and Divine Laws to acquiesce and consult their own Safety yet out of a Romantick Notion of Loyalty chose rather to hazard their Souls and Bodies and Estates than submit to the Determinations of God Almighty who is always supposed to set up a Governour when by His Providence He puts the Soveraign Power into his Hands 2. By the Dr's Principles it was not only Lawful to submit to Cromwel's Usurpation but the People were directly obliged to it For 1. It 's well known that the Common-wealth of Cromwel were absolute Masters of the Three Kingdoms and entirely possessed of the Government Now the Dr. has solemnly told us That since Power will Govern God so orders it by his Providence as never to intrust Soveraign Power in any Man's Hands to whom he does not give the Soveraign Authority This Usurpation therefore having Soveraign Power in an high and irresistible degree could not be disowned without rejecting God's Authority which certainly no man can have any Privilege to dispute 2. The Dr. expresly averrs That the Preservation of Human Societies does of necessity force us to own the Authority even of Vsurped Powers And if we are under a necessity of owning their Authority one would think we could not have the liberty to refuse them 3. The Dr. observes That our Saviour's Argument for paying Tribute relies wholly on the possession of Power without any mention of Consent and inferrs from thence That if this be a good Reason it 's good in all other cases that we must submit to all Princes who are possessed of the Soveraign Power and are in full Administration of Government And can the Dr. deny these Advantages to the Usurpers upon K. Charles II No There was not so much as the least Garrison which held out against them And as for the Administring part all Affairs Civil Military and Ecclesiastical were managed solely by their direction 4. If we were unprovided of other Proofs a few Questions in the Dr's words would decide the Controversie I desire to know therefore Whether God Rules in a Kingdom while an Vsurper fills the Throne Particularly did God Govern in England Scotland c. from 1648 to 1660 If He did who was it He governed by Not by K. Charles II. for he was dispossessed It must therefore be by the Common-wealth and Cromwel to whom the Government was disposed by God's own Will and Counsel For to allow no more than a Divine Permission is in the Dr's Opinion a great Error For Will any man say That God Governs such a Kingdom as is not governed by His Authority and Ministers Does Providence and Government signifie only His Permission To resolve Providence into a bare Permission especially in matters of such a vast consequence as the disposal of Crowns is to deny God's Government of the World Now if Cromwel c. did not Rule these Kingdoms barely by the Permission of Providence but had God's positive Authority and bore the Character of his Ministers then their Right was unquestionable and their Persons sacred and it was great Wickedness to resist or disobey them And since the Dr. has laid down such Notions as these concerning Providence and given such Prerogatives to Power it 's too late for him to recall his Liberality to the Rump and Cromwel he must not think of unsettling them again for want of a National Consent unless he has a mind to recant the Main of both his Books For if they had God's Authority on their side the People whether willing or not were bound in Conscience to obey them However I shall briefly consider what the Dr. offers to disprove the Settlement of the fore-mentioned Usurpation He tells us The Convocation allâ—dges two ways whereby a Government unjustly and wickedly begun may be throughly settled viz. By a general Submission or by Continuance I have proved above That the Convocation does not take Settlement in his Sence and that he has no reason to make use of their Authority for illegal Proceedings But granting his own Supposition I can't perceive what Service it can do him for if General Submission or Continuance without Legal Right are either of them sufficient to compleat the Notion of Settlement it will be difficult to find an Objection against the Rump's and Cromwel's Authority For 1. As for Continuance the Rump held the Government from 1648 to 1653 and Cromwel was the Supreme Power from 53 to 58 And if Five Years of Soveraign and Uncontested Power is not sufficient to make a Through Settlement I doubt the Dr. has been too quick in his late Complyance But 2 dly Though after a Continuance of this length the Rump and Cromwel by the Dr's Principles had no need of any National Consent and Submission to perfect their Settlement yet it does not appear that the Dr. has disproved their Title so much as in this point As for Submission it was generally paid them There was not so much as the Face of an Enemy in the Field Their Courts were frequented their Coin was current and their Authority undisputed in all Posts of Government but there was no National Consent because the greatest part of the Representatives were slung out of the House excepting a few Rumpers 1. How does the Dr. know but that the Rumpers had a National Consent for secluding these Members The Consent of Silence and Submission they certainly had for the Nation neither offer'd to restore these Members by Force nor shewed any publick Dislike of their being expelled 2 dly Does the Dr. think there can be no National Consent testified any other way than by the Peoples chusing a few Men from Towns and Countries to represent them If the matter stands thus the Four Monarchies had no National Consent nor any Through Settlement for there was no such things as Parliaments in those Times and Countries But before we take leave of these Rumpers the Dr. may remember that they were summoned by the King's Writs and had his Royal Assent to sit as long as they pleased If some People had such a Colour of Authority they would flourish with it at no ordinary rate 3 dly The Dr. objects against Cromwel's Parliaments That they had no National Consent c. because they were not chosen according to the Ancient Customs and Vsages of the Nation Some People will not be sorry to hear that a National Consent cannot be given by Representation unless the Representatives are legally chosen and the Ancient Customs of the Constitution observ'd I wonder how this Reason dropped from the Dr. for it overthrows the
disobliging our great Patrons of Liberty Nay he is so far from condemning such singular Casuists that he seems to argue in Justification of them For They says he could not think that Oaths which were made and imposed for the Preservation of a Protestant Prince and the Protestant Rights and Liberties of Church and State could oblige them to defend and maintain a Prince in his Vsurpation as they thought upon both The Dr. by his wording it would almost make an ignorant man believe that the Protestant Religion was the Supreme Power in England and that we were Bound to support it in the Field against the King But those who will take the pains to peruse the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy will see they oblige us to bear True Faith c. to the King and to defend him and his Heirs and Lawful Successors without making any Enquiry into their Creed It was never known that the Kings of England held their Crowns by the Tenure of Religion If their Claim had not been wholly founded upon Birthright and Proximity of Blood there had been no Pretence for the late Bill of Exclusion But such Absurdities as these are too gross to deserve any farther Consideration And since we are indispensably Bound to serve and defend our Prince without any regard to his Perswasion it must be a very bad Religion which teaches us to desert or oppose him There can't be a greater Reproach cast upon the Reformation than to make it give Countenance to such horrid and treacherous Practices as these What our Author means by the Protestant Rights and Liberties of the State is hard to understand for the Rights of the State are purely Secular and Civil He may as well call a Farm a Protestant Farm as give that Epithete to the Rights of the State but the word Protestant must be crammed in otherwise the Charm will not work The Dr. once more lays a great stress upon a National Submission and Consent and makes it necessary to the introducing a Settlement Now I have shewn that this Expedient must be altogether unserviceable to our Author upon his own Principles for if by whatsoever means a Prince ascends the Throne he is placed there by God's Authority of which Power is a certain sign To what purpose is the Consent of the People required Have they the Liberty to refuse Submission to God's Authority when it produces such infallible Credentials and appears in such a demonstrative manner Besides as has been already hinted his making Submission a necessary Assistant of Power is not only a Contradiction of himself but likewise brings a farther Inconvenience along with it and makes that Absurdity which he endeavours to throw upon Hereditary Principles return upon his own for if God's Authority is not given to any Prince before a Through Settlement and this Settlement cannot be compleated without a National Submission then God as well as men is confined by Human Laws or by Human Inclinations which is as bad in making Kings which is to say that the Right of Government is not derived from God without the Consent of the People How the Dr. will disengage is best known to himself Farther I must ask him the old Question over again Whether this National Submission must be Legal or Illegal If an Illegal Submission will serve his turn this is no better than plain Force under the Disguise of a new Name 't is a violent Combination against the Laws and Rightful Governour and resolves it self into the Principles of Power If the Submission ought to be Legal he must not only prove it such but be obliged to give up the main design of his Books and dispute a point which he has declared is nothing to his present purpose However I must follow him through all the Windings of his Discourse He says Though some men dispute whether a Convention of the Estates not called by the King's Writs be a Legal Parliament yet all men must confess they are the Representatives of the Nation c. I suppose very few People besides the Dr. will dispute Whether a Convention is a Legal Parliament or not if they consider that the King's Writs are necessary to impower the People to make and return Elections And supposing they had the advantage of this Preliminary yet unless the Members take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy all their Proceedings are declared null and void by express Statutes Now if a Convention is no Legal Assembly their Deputation from the People signifies nothing it only makes them the Mouth of publick Disorder and the Illegal Representatives of the Nation And how the Dr. can oblige them by such a Character I can't imagin But the Nation can have no Representatives but such when there is no King in the Throne To make this Argument good the Dr. should have prov'd That the Throne is immoveably fixed at Whitehall That the King was Legally ejected by his Subjects That after this Retirement they sent to entreat him to return and promised a more agreeable Behaviour That upon these Submissions he refused to engage any farther and resigned up the Government into their Hands The Dr. should have proved that all this was either done or else unnecessary before he set the Nation a Representing at all Adventures As for his Flourish with the word Estates I question whether it will do him any service for Who made them Estates Does their Number and Quality make them such Then they are Estates in the Intervals of Parliament in their own Houses in a Tavern as well as at other times and places Does the Choice of the People though altogether Illegal give them the advantage of this Character If so I would gladly be informed whether every Riotous Meeting may not furnish out their proportion towards a Body of Estates to be compleated by the general Distraction of the Nation I perceive I must enquire farther I desire therefore the Dr. would tell me whether the Parliament House has any peculiar Vertue to raise private Persons into a publick Character If it has great care ought to be taken who comes into it Besides it 's worth the knowing which way this mysterious Privilege is conveyed Have we any Legislative Brick and Stone Or does the House work by way of Steams and Exhalations as the Oracle at Delphos is said to have done The Dr. I perceive does not trouble himself with these Scruples but is resolved to go on with his Submissions c. and tells us That the Consent and Submission of the Convention especially when confirmed by subsequent Parliaments is a National act Therefore I must ask him a few more Questions How a Convention can sublimate it self into a Parliament i. e. How a private and illegal Assembly can give it self the Privilege of Authority and Law Now a National Act without and against the Authority of the Constitution is to speak softly no better than a National Disorder