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
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
puts me in mind of Epicurus's Deities whom for Fashion sake he supposed to exist but gave them such a slender Constitution that it was impossible for them to hold out against the least rencounter of his Atoms Just so kind is the Doctor to a Prince whose Title stands upon the Fundamentals of the Government For what does this legal Right signifie Are the Subjects bound to restore him No. This would oblige them to Two opposite Allegiances Are they at Liberty to stand neuter Not that neither For Allegiance signifies all that Duty which Subjects owe to their King And if this as the Doctor affirms falls all to the share of him who has the actual Administration of Government I 'm afraid there will be but little left for the other And as if all this was not sufficient to Mortify his legal Prince he Musters the Laws and Lawyers against him And says it s a very wise Constitution which obliges us to pay our Allegiance to a Prince who is not the legal Heir i. e. to an Usurper And the Reasons and Order and Necessity of Government require it The Reason and Necessity of Government is a very serviceable Principle to the Author whether he does not misapply and overstrain it shall be farther examined afterwards At present I shall only desire to be informed of the Doctor Whether it 's any part of the business of Reason to do an unreasonable Thing what necessity there is to destroy Justice and establish a Revolt Indeed if there was a Law that a King should forfeit his Kingdom as soon as the Disobedience of his Subjects should oblige him to retire though the singularity of such an Act would be amazingly Remarkable yet it would not be absolutely unintelligible But this is not the Case For both the Doctor and the Dispute supposes that the King 's Right continues after he is Dispossessed Now this is that which makes it superlatively Wonderful His Right continues in full Force and yet as far as the Laws can provide he is barred from all possible means of Recovery For it seems the Subjects are bound to stand by the Usurper and to distress and fight the King de Iure if he offers to regain that which they own belongs to him He has a Right it 's granted as much as ever say you so Then I hope it 's to govern and if so his Subjects are bound to re-establish him Hold there cries the Doctor They are bound to stand by the Usurper I confess I always thought that if a King had a Right to the Crown the Subjects were obliged to pay him Allegiance Right one would think should relate to something For to have a Right to nothing is to have no Right But the see improvements of Time Here we have a Right without a Property a King without a Subject One who has a legal Right to govern and yet all the Kingdom has a legal Right and a legal Duty to kill him if he goes about it Thus the Doctor makes the Laws fall foul upon each other And gives the People a legal Right to oppose a legal Right in the Crown Which is somewhat a plainer though not a truer Contradiction than his bringing in a Divine and a Legal Right clashing with each other For here the repugnancy lyes in the Constitution so that the Word Providence which uses to be so serviceable can give him no Assistance In short to tell a Man he is a King and yet to assign all his Subjects over to another and to barr him all possible means of Recovery is such a Jest of Iniquity and supposes the Legislators so incomprehensibly Singular and Unreasonable that for the Credit of our Countrey we ought not to interpret the Laws in such a wild Sense If the Doctor had a mind to turn St. Stephen's into Bedlam and make the Nation Mad by Representation he could scarcely have gon a more effectual way to work To conclude this business if the Subjects are obliged to defend an Usurper in Possession as much as if he was their rightful Prince I would gladly know what priviledge the one has above the other I grant the Doctor allows the Dispossessed legal Prince a Right to make War upon the Usurper But then as he has ordered the Matter he can have none of his Subjects to help him but those he brings along with him Besides this Principle gives two contending Parties a Right to the same Thing and makes a War justifyable on both sides which is something more than usual In answer to a Second Objection he observes That an Oath of Allegiance can oblige no longer than the Regal Character continues which is most true But his Inference concerning the Grounds of the Oaths being removed is altogether inconclusive For where the Crown is settled upon Hereditary Right and fortifyed by irresistable Authority There the King must necessarily continue in Being as long as the Man Because the Subjects can have no Power to call him to an Account or displace him The Doctor encounters a Third Objection but with the same Success The Objection is That we swear to defend the King 's Right and the Right of his Heirs c. To which he returns That we dont swear to keep them in the Throne Right For some Mens practises would make one believe we swore to throw them out as soon as we had an Opportunity But the keeping our Prince in the Throne is sometimes impossible for us to do against a prosperous Rebellion Does it therefore follow that we must joyn such a prosperous Rebellion and support it with our Interest Is it the Meaning of the Oath that we should desert our Prince in his Distress and refuse him when he has most occasion for our Service If Subjects should swear with such Declarations as these there are few Princes would thank them for their solemn Security I grant it 's sometimes impossible for us to keep our Prince in Possession against a Rebellion But certainly we ought not to follow a Multitude to do Evil. We ought to stand upon the Reserve and not fortifie the Rebels by our Revolt Soldiers don't swear That they will always get the Victory for that may be out of their Power But if they endeavour to debauch the Fidelity of the Army and make seditious Harrangues to defame the General they very much misbehave themselves Much less is it agreeable to change their sides upon the loss of a Pass or a Battel 'T is true upon the Prospect of an Exchange they may sometimes submit to be made Prisoners of War But if their Surrender will not be accepted without translating their Allegiance they ought rather to carry their Honour and Honesty into the other World than take their Life upon such scandalous Conditions To this Firmness in Loyalty not only Christians but Heathens upon whom Virtue and Bravery had made any considerable Impression always thought themselves obliged What the Doctor adds
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
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
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
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
all Cases of Possession Say you so Sir Then Athaliah ought to have been obeyed notwithstanding Ioash his Title if she could have kept the Mint and the Power in her Hands Now if this be not true as the Doctor must grant then our Saviour's Argument does not rely wholly on Possession but upon Right to Possession For that the Divine Entail of the Crown upon David's Family does not make the Case exempt and particular has been shown already 3. We are to observe That our Saviour left the Civil Rights of Society in the same State he found them He did not intend to alter the Laws of Common Justice to weaken the Titles of Princes and put them into a worse condition then private Men. So that if according to the Principles of Reason and the Laws of particular Kingdoms whoever has a Right to the Crown ought to have the Obedience of the Subject we cannot conclude our Saviour's Answer has made any alteration in the Case 4. If the Royal Image and Superscription always supposes Possession and infers Obedience His Majesty at St. Germains is still the Doctor 's Soveraign And he ought to have continued his Submission to him till his Money had been cryed down And which is more surprizing the Subject must be bound to two opposite and contrary Allegiances as long as the Coin of the two Contesting Princes is currant among us which the Doctor owns to be an impracticable Absurdity What he observes concerning the Prophesy of the Four Monarchies not being at an End is somewhat surprizing All People agree that the Roman Monarchy has the last of the Four and that has had its Period long since Now it 's a little strange that Events should be foretold concerning Things that are not And that the Prophesies concerning the Four Monarchies should extend to greater lengths of Time than the Monarchies themselves But what if the Four Monarchies were not at an End Must we comply with all successful Disorders under pretence of fulfilling Prophesies though we neither know their Meaning nor the Time of their Accomplishment Does God need the Wickedness of Men to bring his own Counsels to pass Doubtless he who has Omnipotence in his Hand can change Times and Seasons set up Kings and remove Kings as in his Wisdom he thinks fit without obliging the Subject to break the Laws of their Country and to fail in their Allegiance when it 's most needed God in whose Hand are the Hearts of Kings who has the disposal of Life and Death of the Passions and Tempers of Men may change his Representatives as often as he pleases without pitching upon such Methods which without a Revelation must of necessity in a great measure confound the Notions of Right and Wrong encourage Violence and weaken the good Correspondence and mutual Securities between King and People But the continuation of the Doctor 's Reason for Compliance is still more extraordinary viz. Under the Fourth Monarchy the Kingdom of Antichrist is to appear and the Increase and Destruction of the Kingdom of Antichrist is to be accomplished by great Changes And are we obliged to comply with every Revolution to swim down every Tide of State for fear the Kingdom of Antichrist should not increase fast enough Are we as much bound to support Violence and clap Justice under Hatches as the Iews were to obey the express Orders of the Prophet Jeremiah only because the Doctor fancies the Prophecy of the Four Monarchies is not at an End If this be not Enthusiasm which the Doctor denies pray God it be not something worse But to consider his Argument more fully I must go back to his 12th Page where he gives in his Reasons to prove That now God governs the World removes Kings and sets up Kings only by his Providence By which he means nothing but Force and Success let the means by which they are gained be never so unaccountable These Advantages though they come from Hell are always attended with Divine Authority and draw the Allegiance of the Subject along with them And because Soveraign and rampant Wickedness sounds but harshly and is very unlikely to have the Entail of all these Priviledges he gilds it over with the pompous Name of Providence This he says is God's Government of the World by an invisible Power whereby he directs determines and over-rules all Events in distinction from his more visible Government by Oracles Prophets c. So that now it seems neither Scripture nor Law nor Reason signifie any thing towards the stating the Right of Kings and the Obedience of Subjects No We must submit to the Infallibility of the Sword which is the only proper Judge to decide all Controversies of State and why not of Religion too We must conclude that all Civil Confusions all Publick Injustice though never so horrid is directed by God Almighty And all Events how impious soever they may be in their Causes and Consequences are determined and over-ruled by his Providence To fortifie this extraordinary Position he attempts to make God's Permissions and Approbations the same as to Events Though the Distinction between these two is both necessary and generally acknowledged But to make God as the Doctor does the Author of all the Good or Evil which happens either to private Persons or publick Societies is an untrue and dangerous Proposition For First It 's a Contradiction to plain Scripture Secondly It makes God the Abetter and Maintainer of Sin Thirdly It destroys the Notion of his Patience 1. It 's a Contradiction to plain Scripture For though the Doctor affirms That the Scripture never speaks of God's bare Permission of Events these following Citations not to mention any more will shew he is mistaken For don't we read that the Devils besought our Saviour that he would suffer them to enter into the Herd of Swine and he suffered them Now by the Doctor 's Principle our Saviour must either have forced the Devils into the Swine or at least have raised their Inclination to enter and concurred with it But the Scripture speaks no such Language It affirms no more than a bare Permission of the Devil's Malice Another Proof to confirm the Distinction between what God does and what he permits as to Events may be taken from Acts 13.18 where God is said to suffer the Manners of the Israelites forty Years in the Wilderness He did not as the Doctor 's Proposition supposes direct them in the making of the Golden Calf He did not determine their Idolatries nor over rule them into all their Murmurings and Disobedience Farther Was not the destroying Iob's Cattle and Servants and the afflicting his Person an Event And will our Author say That all this was brought to pass by the Influence and Direction of Providence And that the Devil would not have used Iob thus hardly if he had not been over ruled by God Almighty I am sorry the Doctor should support his new
and at the same time to deny the Duties consequent upon it is to say that we are resolved not to render to all their Dues notwithstanding the common Reason of Mankind and the Apostles Command to the contrary But he the legal Prince does not and can't Govern If that is none of his own Choice it ought not to be alledged to his Prejudice If nothing but the Disobedience of his Subjects hinders him from Governing it 's unreasonable for them to plead their own Crime in Discharge of their Allegiance and to make a Privilege of Rebellion His next Answer has nothing new in it excepting an Admonition to all Princes to be upon their good Behaviour For they must take some care to preserve their Crowns by good Government i. e. they must govern as the Doctor and the rest of their Loyal Subjects think fit Which Courtly Advice must end in an Appeal to the judicious Mobb and make the Vulgar the last Resort of Justice For these being the Majority ought not to be denied the common Privilege of examining the Actions of their Sovereign But what is the Penalty the Doctor lays upon Princes if they don't give Satisfaction Why then their Subjects are allowed to stand Neuter and not to maintain them so much as in Possession Just now the Doctor told us That the Duty of the Subject was to obey the Laws of the Prince in Possession Some of which Laws provide expresly for the Defence of his Person Crown and Dignity Now to allow this Priviledge to an Usurper and deny it to a lawful Prince in Possession amounts to little less then asserting That Justice ought to be Discountenanced and that a bad Title is better than a good one But is the Doctor sure the People are at Liberty not to assist a Prince when he does not please them Are they not bound to defend a Divine Right which he grants is never parted from Possession Is not God's Authority in a bad Prince supposing he was really such as much as in a good one If not Dominion is founded in Grace and so we are gotten off from Thomas Hobs to Iohn of Leyden and Knipperdolling And though the Doctor was not very sure the Subjects are bound to defend an unacceptable Prince in his Throne yet a little time has better informed him For Pag. 29. he grants it's Reasonable enough to venture our Lives and Fortunes to defend the King's Person and Government while he is in Possession This I mention that the Doctor may have the Honour to confute himself Neu quisquam Ajacem possit superare nisi Ajax However at present he will not be thus Liberal For if the Subjects have a bad Prince who notoriously violates their Rights What follows Then to be even with him they may be bad Subjects and notoriously violate his Rights In such a Case if he cannot defend himself and fight an Army singly Let him go though we are bound to support him by the Fundamental Laws of Government in General and of the Constitution in Particular But what if he Strikes at Religion If he does it 's able to bear the Blow without any Damage A Man might as well undertake to stab a Spirit as to destroy Religion by Force We can never lose our Faith unless it 's thrown away by Negligence or surrendred by Treachery Religion is out of the reach of Injury and invulnerable like the Soul in which it 's seated For it 's not in the Power of Violence to rifle our Understandings or ravish the Freedom of our Wills Religion instead of being Weakned rises upon an Opposition and grows more Glorious by Sufferings as is manifest from the History of the Primitive Christians I don't mention this as if we lately either felt or indeed had any reason to fear any thing like a Persecution but only to shew the Sophistry of the Doctor 's Argument For if the Religion of the Subject be out of the Prince's Power to alter it ought not to be pretended as a Reason of Deserting him Besides to pretend Religion for the breach of Oaths and Natural Allegiance is the greatest Reproach we can lay upon it and makes one part of it to contradict and destroy another And though the Doctor says It 's a little too much for the Subjects to venture their Lives to keep a Prince in the Throne to oppress them That is a Prince the People are not pleased with for if they don't fancy him they will either say he is or will be an Oppressor Now if Allegiance depends upon the Qualities of the Prince and his Subjects were made Judges of his Behaviour as the Doctor will have it it 's impossible for any Government to continue At this rate the Ignorance and Levity of some the Disgust and Ambition of others would soon argue themselves into Liberty and the State into Confusion And therefore Obedience is unconditionally bound upon us by the Laws of Nature which are part of the Constitution of this Realm as the Judges agree in Calvin's Case This Faith and Ligeance of the Subject is as they observe proprium quarto modo to the King omni soli semper and by consequence forecloses all Objections against Rigour and Maleadministration Allegiance as all the Judges resolve it in the Case of the Post nati follows the natural Person of the King and by consequence must continue as long as his natural Person is in being without any respect to his Moral Qualifications But a Subject and a Soldier are two things and a Man may be the first without any Obligation from the Laws of God or Man of being necessarily the latter To this I answer That though every Subject needs not be a Soldier by Profession yet whenever his Prince is in danger and requires his Service he is bound by the Laws of God and Man to fight for him I doubt not but the Doctor is so far of Sir Edward Coke's Opinion That the Duty of the Fifth Commandment extends to the King who is Pater Patriae Now one part of the Duty we owe our Parents is to defend their Persons from Violence Which Assistance seems due a fortiori to the Father of our Country who has the Jurisdiction over all private Families and from whom both our selves and our Parents have received Protection Solomon tells us where the Word of a King is there is Power And if the Subject is bound to give a general Obedience to his Prince then certainly he is not at Liberty to decline his Service when his Crown and Person are concerned The same Conclusion is plainly implied in our blessed Saviour's Answer to Pilate If my Kingdom were of this World then would my Servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Iews From which Words this Proposition naturally follows That Subjects as Subjects are bound to hazard their Persons in Defence of their Prince Indeed this Doctrine stands in little need of the
their own we have Liberty to come in at the Evening and sup with them and may wipe our mouths after all with the same good Conscience the Woman did in the Proverbs But truly I think those who won't venture to ride the Chace ought not to be admitted to the eating of the Venison However if we examine the matter critically it 's hard to tell which sort of Revolters the early or the later ought to be preferred They have each of them their peculiar Excellencies The one has more Courage the other more Caution and both the same Staunchness of Principles Ambition is predominant in the first Fear and Covetousness in the latter who is such a flexible apprehensive Creature that whoever can command his Interest may likewise command his Actions and fright him out or into any thing at their Pleasure I observe 2. That this Construction of the Doctor 's determines against K. Charles II. as fully as is possible For he was driven into Banishment before he could gain his Right And the Rump and Cromwel mounted the Seat of Government And the King his Father dyed dispossessed of the Crown So that by the Doctor 's Reasoning the People were not only disingaged from the Successionary part of the Oath but were bound to stand by the Commonwealth and oppose the Restauration If any one questions K. Charles I. his being dispossessed at his Death he may please to consider That this Prince was not only Defeated in the Field and made Prisoner by his Rebellious Subjects But there was a High Court of Justice erected to try him for Treason The Supream Power and Authority was declared to be in the Commons of England And Monday 29. Ian. 1648. the Day before his Majesties Martyrdom The Commons in the Name of the present Parliament enact That in all Courts of Law Justice c. And in all Writs Grants c. instead of the Name Style Test or Title of the King heretofore used that from thenceforth the Name Style c. of Custodes Libertatis Angliae shall be used and no other In short the King's Name was enacted to be struck out in all judicial Proceedings in the date of the Year of our Lord in Juries in Fines in Indictments for Trespass and Treason From these unquestionable Matters of Fact it 's manifest beyond contradiction That the King had not so much as the Shadow of Authority left him but was perfectly out of Possession before he lost his Life I shall draw one Advantage more from this Citation and so dismiss it The Inference is this That Treason lies against the King though out of Possession For the Regecides who were not comprehended in the Act of Indemnity were excepted for Sentencing to Death or Signing the Instrument of the horrid Murther or being Instrumental in taking away the Life of King Chales I. For this Reason They are left to be proceeded against as Traytors to his late Majesty according to the Laws of England If the Doctor desires another Instance that Treason may be committed against a King out of Possession he may receive Satisfaction from the first 12 Years Reign of King Charles the Second For in this Act of Indemnity it 's said That by occasion of great Wars and Troubles that have for many Years past been in this Kingdom divers of his Majesties Subjects are fallen into and be obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties And to the intent that no Crime committed against his Majesty or Royal Father shall hereafter rise in Judgment or be brought in Question against any of them to the least Endamagement of them either in Lives Liberties or Estates his Majesty is pleased that it may be Enacted That all Treasons Misprisions of Treasons acted or done since the 1. Ian. 1637. to the 24. of Iune 1660. shall be Pardoned Released c. From this Act we may observe 1. That though the King was newly restored at the making of this Act it 's said notwithstanding Divers of his Subjects not his Fathers had for many Years past been obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties c. which is a plain Argument that as his Reign was dated from the Death of K. Ch. I. so they looked upon the People of England as his Subjects from that time and that his Authority to punish was entire during his Dispossession otherwise they could not have been obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties for acting against him 2. The King pardoned all Crimes committed against Himself Which would have risen up in Judgment and Endamaged his Subjects in their Lives Liberties or Estates Some of which Crimes as they can amount to no less than Treason so they must relate to the time of the Usurpation because the King was but very lately entered upon the actual Administration of the Government Neither do we read of any Treasons committed against the King from the 29 th of May to the 24 th of Iune which was the utmost term to which the Pardon extended 3. All Treasons Misprision of Treason c. excepting those excepted are Pardoned from Ianuary 1. 1637. to Iune 24. 1660. Now if Treason did not lye against a King though out of Possession this Pardon should have reached no farther then 1648. because then K. Charles I. was Murthered and his then Majesty deprived of his Kingdoms till the Year 1660. The General Pardon I say ought to have stopped at 1648. unless we can imagine the King intended to rank those among Traytors who appeared for his own Interest and to pardon the Treasons committed against Cromwel and the Rump which is a Supposition sufficiently Romantick especially if we observe That the pretended Indictments of High Treason against any of the usurped Powers are considered by themselves in the next Chapter and pronounced null and void And the Styles of the Usurpation Keepers of the Liberties of England Protectors c. notwithstanding their plenary Possession are declared to be most Rebellious Wicked Trayterous and Abominable and Detested by this present Parliament And why all these hard Words Because these Names of Authority when misplaced Were opposite in the highest Degree to his Majesties most just and undoubted Right That the Doctor may not complain for want of Evidence in this Matter I shall cite him a Proclamation of both Houses for Proclaiming King Charles the Second Dated May 8. 1660. It begins thus Although it can be no way doubted but that his Majesties Right and Title to his Crowns and Kingdoms is and was every way COMPLEATED by the Death of his most Royal Father c. without the Ceremony or Solemnity of a Proclamation Yet since the Armed Violence of these many Years last past has hitherto deprived us of any such Opportunity wherein we might express our Loyalty and Allegiance to his Majesty We therefore c. Now if the King 's Right was every way Compleated at his Fathers Death and the Allegiance of the Subject was due to him before his Restauration than
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
that business But what if the Subject has a passionate Affection for Justice as well as for his Prince and can't draw his Sword against the Laws with any manner of satisfaction What if he is afflicted to see a brave a generous and good-natur'd Prince so deeply injured What if he has an aversion to Violence and hates to strengthen the Workers of Iniquity If he has not command enough of his Conscience to conquer all these Scruples what Relief can the Dr. give him Very little that I know of And as for his calling it a Difficulty in Providence he must either mean That it 's a Difficulty to God Almighty or else That it is to human Understandings an incomprehensible way of proceeding for Providence to bar a good Prince of his Right only for having treacherous Subjects and bad Neighbours And if this be his meaning I agree with him unless we had a particular Revelation to clear the point But then I must add That the Dr's Scheme bearing thus hard upon the Attributes of God is but a bad Argument to conclude the reasonableness of it He says No man could have foreseen how Ch. the Second should have returned who had a powerful Army against him or J. the Second be driven out of his Kingdom at the Head of a powerful Army without shedding of Blood Now the reason why the latter instance of this Mystery was so difficult to penetrate is given by the Prophet Because the Heart is deceitful and desperately wicked who can know it However according to the Dr's Application Providence was as much concerned in the one as in the other as much engaged to incline Men to desert and betray their Prince as to return to their duty to him He goes on to inform us That all the Plots and Conspiracies of the Loyal Party were vain and had no other effect but to bring some worthy and gallant men to an unhappy End All the Plots c. That is the Loyal Party plotted to restore the Government and conspired against Rebellion This is somewhat oddly expressed but new Language and new Notions do well together I perceive the Dr. is resolved to furnish out Cloth and Trimming too for one bout But after all these fine words if his Doctrine holds true these Gallant Worthy Men were no better than Men Worthy and Traytors to God and the Common-Wealth Some People will likewise wonder since he had bestowed such Commendations upon the Royallists why he should tarnish their Character by saying they came to an Vnhappy End If he means it with respect to their Friends it might be so If in relation to themselves it 's utterly deny'd For is it in earnest a Misfortune to sign our Loyalty with our Blood and to dye in defence of the Laws Is it an Unhappiness to value our Honour and Integrity above our Lives and to expire in Constancy and Greatness If the Case be thus the Martyrs came to an Vnhappy End But I shall dismiss this Argument The Dr. is at last apprehensive lest this Doctrine should prove inconvenient and dangerous to Princes and answers the Objection by saying The contrary Doctrin is much more dangerous to Subjects Whose Interest it seems must be preferr'd though their Behaviour be never so monstrous and irregular I shall afterwards endeavour to shew That the Security of the Subject is better provided for upon the old Principles than by this new Scheme But why is the contrary Doctrin so dangerous to the Subject Because it 's a Folly to believe any Princes will endure those who are obliged by Principles of Conscience to oppose and disown their Government Is it Folly to think any Prince will endure such things Then it 's Folly it seems for him to endure them Here the Dr. has given us a Cast of his good Nature and shewn what a kind Advocate he is for his Brethren the Non-Swearers But why will he not endure them Does the Dr. think no Prince will endure a Man that has any Principles of Conscience Not when they are turned against him Why not if there is no Malice in the Opposition Why should any Power persecute People to the death meerly because they are willing to go Heaven and are afraid of being damned An intruding Prince if he has any Spark of Honour or Generosity in him if his Temper be not as ill as his Title won't sacrifice such Persons to Rage and Resentment Not only because such sort of Revenges look uncreditably and mean but because he knows his Interest is not declined out of Humour or Animosity but upon the score of Principles and Duty The Dr. undertakes another Objection which lies against his Doctrin of Providence viz. That Pyrates and Robbers have as good a Title to his Purse as an Vsurper has to the Crown What he has brought in answer to this in his Case of Allegiance I have already considered But he has since endeavoured to support himself upon some new Reasons in his Vindication and therefore these must be likewise examined Before I enter upon this matter it may not be improper to take notice That the Dr. was forced to make use of such extensive Principles in his first Book that like a large Town they are much the weaker for their Compass Which makes the defence of them at all Quarters utterly impracticable I am mistaken if that which I have formerly alledged together with the obvious Consequences which result from it does not contain an Answer to what the Dr. has lately produced For if as he maintains all Power whether Legal or Illegal is from God and a certain sign of his Authority if Providence orders all Events which are for the Good or Evil of private men as well as publick Societies if there is no difference between the Divine Permissions and Approbations no Evil in the City which the Lord has not barely permitted but done If all this be true I confess I cannot understand why a Robber's Title is worse than a Usurper's However since the Dr. continues of another mind the Grounds of his Dissent shall be considered Now he endeavours to shew That private Robberies and Vsurpations have not the same Effect and Confirmation from Providence Because all private Injuries are reserved by God himself to the redress of publick Government therefore his Providence has no Effect at all upon such Personal Rights But such Disputet 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 such as the correction of Kings and the transferring of Kingdoms And here the final determination of Providence in settling Princes upon their Thrones draws the Allegiance of the Subjects after it 'T is granted That Government is appointed by God for the redressing private Injuries but it 's likewise as true That all Injuries of this kind are not actually redressed There are very many
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
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