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
Circumcision because they were so commanded by the King who had the actual Government of their Country and sufficient power to crush them upon their Refusal From whence it follows That those Men of Resolution who were tortured for their Noncompliance and whom the Apostle is supposed so highly to commend threw away their Lives when they ought to have kept them and were Self-Murtherers instead of Martyrs He can't say these Precepts they were commanded to transgress carried any moral Obligation in them He must therefore recur to his Distinction between Humane and Divine Laws but this Expedient will not do his Business for I have proved that both of them as to their Authority are equally Divine Now as to the Matter in dispute it 's granted that God as universal Lord may alter the Seat of Property and Dominion and transfer one Man's Right to another but we ought not to conclude he has done it except we can prove our new Claim by the Course of Humane Justice or express Revelation Having shewn from the Principles of the Convocation that they cannot understand Providence and Thorough Settlement as the Doctor does without the plainest Inconsistency with themselves I shall proceed to give a distinct Answer to the Passages cited by him 1. To prove that Princes who have no Legal Right may have God's Authority He tells us the Convocation teach That the Lord in advancing Kings c. is not bound to those Laws he prescribeth others and therefore commanded Iehu a Subject to be anointed King From whence the Doctor infers That what God did by Prophets in Israel by express Nomination he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms without any regard to Succession or Legal Titles This he affirms as the Doctrine of the Convocation and attempts to prove it from their saying That the Lord both may and is able to overthrow any Kings notwithstanding any Claim or Interest which they can challenge In answer to this we may observe First That upon Iehu's being anointed by the Prophet he is called the lawful King of Israel and Ioram his Master is said to be his Subject Now if Ioram was Iehu's Subject it was Treason for him to attempt the Recovery of his Kingdom and consequently he could have no Legal Right after Dispossession For if Iehu was Lawful King then Ioram the dispossessed Prince had no Right to recover unless two opposite and contesting Claims can have a Legal Right to the same Thing which certainly is a Contradiction in Law From hence one if not both of these Conclusions must necessary follow 1. Either that his Distinction of Legal and Divine Right which he coined to answer an Objection is Chimerical and then the Difficulty he propos'd remains unanswered Or 2. If there was any singular Advantage in Iehu's Case because he was anointed by God's immediate Designation then it follows that Revelation about the Disposal of Crowns is a much safer Warrant then that which the Doctor calls Providence and that we can't argue with the same Authority from the one as from the other though the Doctor is pleased to affirm the contrary viz What God did by Prophets in Israel c. he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms Where by Providence we must understand the Doctor means Success Now that the Convocation does not suppose Revelation and Success equivalent to justify Alterations in Government but makes a wide Difference between them will appear from the Consideration of the Place before us They teach us in the instance of Iehu That God in advancing Kings is not bound to those Laws which he prescribes others Which is a plain Intimation that where Governours are not changed by God's express Order Allegiance ought to be paid according to the Direction of each respective Constitution For those Laws of Subjection which God is here said to prescribe others can be no other than the Laws which establish the Rights of the Crown in each particular Country which Laws according to the reasoning of this Passage are to be inviolably observed where God does not expresly interpose to the contrary And therefore in their Canon upon this Place they determine That if any Man shall affirm that any Prophets Priests or other Persons having no direct and express Command from God might Lawfully imitate the said Fact of Elizeus who caused Iehu to be anointed in anointing Successors to Kings which had otherwise no just Interest Title c. to their Kingdoms or that it is Lawful for any Captain or Subject high or low whatsoever to bear Arms against their Sovereign c. by the Example of Iehu except it might first plainly appear that there are now Prophets sent extraordinarily from God with sufficient and special Authority in that behalf he doth greatly Err. And since the Convocation condemns the removing of Princes without particular Orders from Heaven It 's plain they could not believe that every effectual Revolution had God's Approbation For if they did believe that God does that by his Providence now which he did formerly by his Prophets i. e. If they did believe his Will is to be interpreted by Events and that he approves and acts in all Revolutions which are successful Why do they pronounce all Practices of this Nature Unlawful except they are warranted by express and immediate Authority from Heaven Certainly they could not declare that Unlawful which they believed to be God Almighty's doing What is the Reason they tell us No Man must imitate the Example of Iehu thô like him he should be chosen by the Captains of the Army and have Power and the Consent of the People to dethrone the Lawful Prince If they thought Revelation and Success Principles of equal Certainty If it was their Opinion that Providence was always on the prevailing side and that Kings had no Right to govern any longer than the major part of their Subjects were willing to obey them The Doctor 's Instance to prove that Providence or Success is a certain Manifestation of the Divine Approbation is clearly against him For thô the Lord may and is able to overthrow Kings notwithstanding any Claim Title c. Yet it 's evident by this Example and the Canon made upon it that the Convocation did not think this was ever done without God's particular Commission For it 's positively affirmed by this Reverend Synod that Ehud and Othoniel the Deliverers mentioned in this place Were raised up by God Almighty with a full Assurance of their lawful Callings and made Judges immediately by Him without which Prerogatives it had been altogether unlawful for them to have done as they did Because that God foresaw what Mischief private Men as all Subjects are in respect of their Prince might do under the Colour of these Examples Now if it 's unlawful for any Person to step out of his private Sphere and to act counter to the Laws of Subjection and common Justice without
with the former And though I don't pretend to know what the Doctor is hatching in his Heart yet I 'm afraid he has slipped into this damnable and damned Opinion of the Spencers for he has ventured to affirm with great assurance That the Diminution of the Crown and the Personal Right of the King are very different Things Now if they are so very different it is because they are separable from each other And if the Crown may be diminished without injuring the Personal Rights of the King then the Rights of the Crown are not tyed to the King's Person That is in the Spencer's Language Allegiance the great Prerogative of the Crown follows the King 's Politick Capacity not his Personal and is due not to any Hereditary Advantage of Blood but may be challenged by Possession and Power especially if the Administration be cast into a Monarchical Figure From these Observations 't is evident That to maintain and defend the King's Person Crown and Dignity implyes an endeavour to restore him For not to repeat what has been said already the Crown is in construction of Law the Ius regnandi So that to swear to maintain his Crown imports an Obligation to defend his Right which is inseparably annexed to his Person and runs parallel with his Life unless he resigns From whence I conclude against the Doctor and Republican Saunders That in the Sense of the Oath to restore is necessarily included in Maintaining But possibly we are not aware what a monstrous Contents the Oaths of Allegiance will be big with if restoring is included in maintaining For then besides several other terrible things which I shall consider afterwards We swear it seems to disturb all Governments and raise Rebellions if we can to restore our King which are such absurd and unreasonable Engagements That had they been expressed in the Oath no Man in his wits would have taken it I think so too as the Doctor has represented the Matter But then before he drew such tragical Inferences it had not been amiss for him to have proved that there is any Government to disturb under a Usurpation For by way of Quere I would gladly know how there can be a Government without any Authority to administer Acts of Government And how a Man can have any Authority who has no Right to ground it upon or to give him a publick Character If Allegiance as we have seen is inseparably tyed to the Person of the King one would think there was no danger of a Crime in the performance of it Unless we should stretch it beyond the duration of his Person and appear from him after he was dead If the asserting the Laws and supporting the Constitution and engaging in the Cause of Justice Is a raising of Rebellion the Names of things are very much altered of late and if the things are not so too some Persons I fear are in no good Condition But to insist upon this no farther I believe the Doctor forgot that this extravagant Oath of Allegiance cannot be refused by any Person except Women Covert of the Age of Eighteen Years without incurring a premunire Now by the Iudgement of a premunire a Man is thrown out of the King's Protection And his Lands and Tenements Goods and Chattels are forfeited to the King And his Body is to remain in Prison at the King's Pleasure Now a Man though he had no higher aim than Self-preservation might better venture the inconvenience of following his King into Banishment and run the risque of the rest then have this Act executed upon him For these are present and severe Punishments whereas the other are but contingent and remote Misfortunes at the worst So that no Man in his wits who considers the danger of declining this Oath would scruple the taking it though it was drawn up with all that Strictness of Loyalty which startles the Doctor And though he has dressed up this Oath in frightful Colours and given it an unkind parting Blow which looks like a sign that there was more of Convenience than Inclination in their former Correspondence yet if we take off the disguise and wipe off the marks of the Doctor 's hard usage we shall find it of a Complexion agreeable enough that it obliges us to no more than what was our Duty before and implied in our natural Allegiance and that the Contents of it are both reasonable and necessary to the Support of Government The Dr. proceeds to remove another Difficulty contained in the Oath of Allegiance viz. we swear to the King's Heirs and lawful Successors who are not in actual Possession and therefore that must signifie to give them Possession Right If the King dies Possessed of the Crown we must swear to maintain the Succession otherwise it seems not But 1. I can't conceive what Security this construction of the Oath can give to an Hereditary Monarchy Yes very much says the Doctor For if the King dies Possessed we swear to maintain the Succession and to own none but the true Heir But how long is this Maintenance and Owning to last Truly no longer then his Sword can challenge it If he gets Possession we are for him and so we are for any body else For if Iack Straw steps before him and proves lucky in his Events the true Heir must be contented to live upon the Metaphysical Dyet of legal Right without any Subjects to support him And thus the Oath of Succession when prudently interpreted resolves it self into this kind Interpretation That we solemnly swear to be unalterably true to our own Ease and Convenience and to adhere Religiously to the nimblest and strongest Party And for fear this should not satisfie the lawful Successor we swear moreover if you please not to make it our Act to set up any Prince who is not the right Heir True For there may be danger in doing otherwise especially when the King dyes possessed For then the Posse of the Kingdom is usually conveyed immediately to the right Heir and his Interest is much the strongest We ought therefore to be faithful to him when it 's unsafe for us to desert and assist him as long as he is able to live without us 'T is granted we are not to be too busy at first in setting aside the Succession for fear of burning our Fingers But if any ambitious Person is strong enough to make a Break in the Line we may lawfully comply with the Intrusion So that it seems we must not form an unjust Interest nor set out with it at first for possibly it may sail us But when it has gathered Strength by the Conjunction of more Wickedness and improved into a thriving Condition we may fix and support it fairly enough I perceive some people out of a tenderness to Society won't give us leave to break our Fast with Rebels for fear we should ruffle our Concerns and miscarry before Noon but when the day is once
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
disobliging our great Patrons of Liberty Nay he is so far from condemning such singular Casuists that he seems to argue in Justification of them For They says he could not think that Oaths which were made and imposed for the Preservation of a Protestant Prince and the Protestant Rights and Liberties of Church and State could oblige them to defend and maintain a Prince in his Vsurpation as they thought upon both The Dr. by his wording it would almost make an ignorant man believe that the Protestant Religion was the Supreme Power in England and that we were Bound to support it in the Field against the King But those who will take the pains to peruse the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy will see they oblige us to bear True Faith c. to the King and to defend him and his Heirs and Lawful Successors without making any Enquiry into their Creed It was never known that the Kings of England held their Crowns by the Tenure of Religion If their Claim had not been wholly founded upon Birthright and Proximity of Blood there had been no Pretence for the late Bill of Exclusion But such Absurdities as these are too gross to deserve any farther Consideration And since we are indispensably Bound to serve and defend our Prince without any regard to his Perswasion it must be a very bad Religion which teaches us to desert or oppose him There can't be a greater Reproach cast upon the Reformation than to make it give Countenance to such horrid and treacherous Practices as these What our Author means by the Protestant Rights and Liberties of the State is hard to understand for the Rights of the State are purely Secular and Civil He may as well call a Farm a Protestant Farm as give that Epithete to the Rights of the State but the word Protestant must be crammed in otherwise the Charm will not work The Dr. once more lays a great stress upon a National Submission and Consent and makes it necessary to the introducing a Settlement Now I have shewn that this Expedient must be altogether unserviceable to our Author upon his own Principles for if by whatsoever means a Prince ascends the Throne he is placed there by God's Authority of which Power is a certain sign To what purpose is the Consent of the People required Have they the Liberty to refuse Submission to God's Authority when it produces such infallible Credentials and appears in such a demonstrative manner Besides as has been already hinted his making Submission a necessary Assistant of Power is not only a Contradiction of himself but likewise brings a farther Inconvenience along with it and makes that Absurdity which he endeavours to throw upon Hereditary Principles return upon his own for if God's Authority is not given to any Prince before a Through Settlement and this Settlement cannot be compleated without a National Submission then God as well as men is confined by Human Laws or by Human Inclinations which is as bad in making Kings which is to say that the Right of Government is not derived from God without the Consent of the People How the Dr. will disengage is best known to himself Farther I must ask him the old Question over again Whether this National Submission must be Legal or Illegal If an Illegal Submission will serve his turn this is no better than plain Force under the Disguise of a new Name 't is a violent Combination against the Laws and Rightful Governour and resolves it self into the Principles of Power If the Submission ought to be Legal he must not only prove it such but be obliged to give up the main design of his Books and dispute a point which he has declared is nothing to his present purpose However I must follow him through all the Windings of his Discourse He says Though some men dispute whether a Convention of the Estates not called by the King's Writs be a Legal Parliament yet all men must confess they are the Representatives of the Nation c. I suppose very few People besides the Dr. will dispute Whether a Convention is a Legal Parliament or not if they consider that the King's Writs are necessary to impower the People to make and return Elections And supposing they had the advantage of this Preliminary yet unless the Members take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy all their Proceedings are declared null and void by express Statutes Now if a Convention is no Legal Assembly their Deputation from the People signifies nothing it only makes them the Mouth of publick Disorder and the Illegal Representatives of the Nation And how the Dr. can oblige them by such a Character I can't imagin But the Nation can have no Representatives but such when there is no King in the Throne To make this Argument good the Dr. should have prov'd That the Throne is immoveably fixed at Whitehall That the King was Legally ejected by his Subjects That after this Retirement they sent to entreat him to return and promised a more agreeable Behaviour That upon these Submissions he refused to engage any farther and resigned up the Government into their Hands The Dr. should have proved that all this was either done or else unnecessary before he set the Nation a Representing at all Adventures As for his Flourish with the word Estates I question whether it will do him any service for Who made them Estates Does their Number and Quality make them such Then they are Estates in the Intervals of Parliament in their own Houses in a Tavern as well as at other times and places Does the Choice of the People though altogether Illegal give them the advantage of this Character If so I would gladly be informed whether every Riotous Meeting may not furnish out their proportion towards a Body of Estates to be compleated by the general Distraction of the Nation I perceive I must enquire farther I desire therefore the Dr. would tell me whether the Parliament House has any peculiar Vertue to raise private Persons into a publick Character If it has great care ought to be taken who comes into it Besides it 's worth the knowing which way this mysterious Privilege is conveyed Have we any Legislative Brick and Stone Or does the House work by way of Steams and Exhalations as the Oracle at Delphos is said to have done The Dr. I perceive does not trouble himself with these Scruples but is resolved to go on with his Submissions c. and tells us That the Consent and Submission of the Convention especially when confirmed by subsequent Parliaments is a National act Therefore I must ask him a few more Questions How a Convention can sublimate it self into a Parliament i. e. How a private and illegal Assembly can give it self the Privilege of Authority and Law Now a National Act without and against the Authority of the Constitution is to speak softly no better than a National Disorder
But the Generality of the Kingdom have willingly and cheerfully submitted So much the worse unless they had the Liberty to do so What if they should willingly submit to the setting up the Alcoran What if they have an Inclination to Murther or Adultery does the Universality of the Consent make such Practices innocent and warrantable Does not the Dr. know the Generality have frequently a mind to do those things which they ought not and will he thence inferr that we must follow a Multitude to do evil Well! but they have Bound their new Allegiance by Oath If they have can they not keep it as well as they did their former one However by the way it 's not amiss to consider whether Oaths are powerful enough to transferr Titles without the Owner's Consent and to alter the Seat of Authority Whether a man can swear away another's Right without asking his Leave If he can Justice and Property are very precarious uncertain things and not worth the regarding I should now have proceeded to a more particular Examination of the Law-part of his Book but having considered his most Material Objections from that Topick already I suppose it needless to dispute this Branch of the Controversie any farther I shall therefore take Leave of the Dr. And if he thinks I have used him with too little Ceremony I desire he would remember the Unnecessary Provocations he has given and when he considers how freely he has Reflected Censured Challenged and Contemned he will have no reason to be disobliged with his Brethren for an abatement of their Esteem However after all I have no manner of Quarrel to the Dr's Person but to his new Principles I am and ever hope to be an Enemy THE END Pref. Id. p. 3. Pref. p. 5. p. 3. Pref. p. 6. Alleg. p. 1. Pag. 17. Pag. 2. Pag. 1 2. Case of Resist Pag. 107 111 191 196. Pag. 2. Doct. Stud. cap. 8. p. 16. Pag. 3. Ibid. Pag. 13. Pag. 15. Pag. 12. P. 14. Prop. 4. Pag. 3. Vid. An Answer to a late Pamphlet Intituled Obedience and Submission c. demonstrated from Bishop Overall's Convocation Book Luke 12.14 John 18.36 Can. 28. Convoc p. 84. Pag. 86. Pag. 86. Alleg. p. 9. Case of Resist p. 204. Pag. 66. Pag. 5. Alleg. p. 15. Pag. 66 68. Convoc Convoc p. 67. 1 Maccab. c. 1. Joseph Antiq. Jud. lib. 12. cap. 6 7. Joseph ib. c. 7. Convoc p. 69. Joseph ib. c. 15 1 Maccab. 1.57 compared with cap. 4.52 2 Maccab. 10.5 Joseph Antiq. Jud. lib. 12. cap. 7 11. Page 48. Can. 17. 2 Sam. 7. 1 Pet. 2.13 Act. 7. Heb. 12. Pag. 6. Conv. p. 46. Ibid. Conv. p. 57. Id. p. 46. Alleg. p. 26. Alleg. p. 6. Can. 25 p. 47 48. 2 Kings 9. Conv. p. 53. Pag. 52 53. Pag. 53. Pag. 6. Conv. p. 83. Pag. 58. Coke's Reports lib. 7. Calvin's Case Conv. p. 58. 2 King 24.1 2 Chron. 36. 2 Chron. 36.10 11. Jer. 27.2 3.11 12. Ibid. v. 8. Dan. 4.17 Isa. 45. v. 1 4 13.44 v. 28. Alleg. p. 37 38 Pag. 32. Curt. lib. 3. Id. lib. 4. Diodor. Sic. Curt. lib. 7. Alleg. p. 8. Can. 31. Conv. p. 64. Can. 30. Pag. 65. Pag. 64. Alleg. p. 8. Alleg. p. 8. Conv. p. 64. Alleg. p. 8. Pag. 20. L. 11. c. 8. Vind. Ib. Ibid. Vind. Ib. Joseph l. 11. c. 8. Ralegh Hist. c. Pag. 583. Curt. lib. 4. Alleg. p. 17. Ibid. Alleg. p. 8. Pag. 17. Pag. 14. Conv. p. 64. Alleg. p. 8. Antiq. Jud. l. 12. c. 1 3. Alleg. p. 7. Can. 33 34. Can. 33. Ibid. Joseph Antiq. Jud. l. 14. c. 1. Id. cap. 2 3. Ibid. cap. 7 8. Ibid. cap. 13. Ibid. cap. 25 28. Id. l. 15. c. 2 3. L. 15. c. 9 11. Alleg. p. 8. Deut. 17 15. Vind. p. 11 12. Deut. 7.3 2 Sam. 11.3 Id. 23.34 2 Sam. 12. 2 Sam. 21.2 Deut. 20.17 Conv. p. 52. Conv. p. 53. Pag. 55. Jer. 27. Pag. 61. Pag. 62. Can. 33. Pag. 82. Deut. 17.15 Gen. 49. Case of Resist p. 50. Alleg. p. 8. Alleg. p. 15. Alleg. p. 1 2. Pag. 9. Ibid. Pag. 9. Alleg. p. 10. Pag. 10. Ibid. Pag. 11. Rom. 13.1 1 Pet. 2.13 Alleg. p. 19. 2 Kings 11. Vindic. p. 40. c. Rom. 13.1 Matth. 21.23 Alleg. p. 6. Ep. ad Corinth Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Hist. Alleg. p. 6. Id. p. 9. Alleg. p. 14. Id. p. 12. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Rom. 13.1 Vindic. p. 57. Ibid. Heb. 13.17 Heb. 5.4 Vind. ibid. Rom. 16.17 1 Cor. 11.18 19. 2 Cor. 11.13 Tit. 3.10 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. 1. Prov. 19.14 70 Interpr Theod. in Loc. Alleg. p. 13. In Loc. Alleg. p. 11. Luke 22.53 Ephes. 6.12 Ralegh Hist. p. 295. Id. p. 298. Just. l. 1. Scaliger de Emend Temp. p. 403. Animad p. 90. Demost. adv Sept. p. 382. Gell. Noct. Att. l. 9. c. 2. Thucid. l. 6. p. 450. Just. l. 2. Plut. in Arat. Timol. Bodin de Repub. L. 2. c. 5. p. 207. Id. p. 210. Rom. 13.1 Alleg. p. 19. Ibid. Ibid. Alleg. p. 19. Pag. 20. Tacit. Annal. lib. 1. Ed. Lips Ibid p. 7. Dion Cass. lib. 53. p. 503. Id. lib. 57. p. 602 603 606. Id. lib. 59. p. 640 lib 60. p. 664 665. Id. lib. 57. p. 507 508 509. Bodin de Rep. l. 1. c. 8. p. 82. Alleg. p. 21. Ibid. Ibid. Pag. 20. Alleg. p. 21. Matth. 22.21 Alleg. p. 21. Alleg. p. 14. Pag. 22. Ibid. Ibid. Pag. 12. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Luke 8.32 Ibid. Palmer to the Earl of Essex Epist. Ded. 1644. Cockain's Serm. Nov. 29. 1648. Pag. 32. Dr. Owen's Ebenezer p. 13. Jenkins's Petit 1651. P. 2. 1651. Alleg. p. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 237. Petit. Oct. 1651. Sermon at Exeter to the Judges March 23 1650. Pag. 24. Dan. 2.21.4.17 Saunders Ib. p. 13 16 19. Alleg. p. 12. Amos. 3.6 In Am. 3.6 Jonah 3.10 Comment in Amos Tom. 3. p. 279. In Loc. Isa. 45.7 Episcop Inst. l. 4. p. 305. Alleg. p. 12. Alleg. p. 13. Alleg. p. 13. Ibid. Ibid. Pag. 14. Pag. 12. Pag. 14. Cotton's Abridgment fol. 670.671 Baggot's Case 9 E. 4. Alleg. p. 15. Ibid. Ibid. Alleg. p. 48. Leviath p. 174. Alleg. p. 14 15. Leviath p. 114. Alleg. p. 40. Pag. 29. Leviath p. 174. Alleg. p. Alleg. p. 15. Pag. 14. Pag. 15. Alleg. p. 53. Pag. 57 58. Alleg. p. 26. Pag. 16. Ibid. Ibid. Pag. 17. Pag. 17. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Nov. Org. l. 1. Print Stat. 1 E. 4. c. 1. Rot. Par. 1 E. 4. L. Bacon Vit. H. 7. p. 1004. 1 Mar. Sess. 2. c. 17. 1 King 19.13 2 Sam. 16.16 18. Judges 9. Alleg. p. 17. Ibid. Ibid. Vid. Caution â—gainst Inconsistency Alleg. p. 14. Pag. 62. Pag. 23. Ibid. Gen. 27.29 Alleg. p. 24. Ibid. Ibid. Coke's Rep. part 7. Calv. Case Josh. 9.15 2 Sam. 21.1 6. Alleg. p. 24. Pag. 15. Pag. 24. Ibid. Pag. 26. Pag. 27. Pag. 27. Ibid. Ibid. Cokâ—'s Rep. 7 part Calv. Case Moore 's Rep. Alleg. p. 27. Calvin's Case fol. 13. S. Joh. 18.36 Moore 's Rep. fol. 798. c. Fol. 14. Calvin's Case fol. 6. Instit. part 1. fol. 69. 7 Jac. 1. c. 6. Alleg. p. 50. Pag. 67. Moore 's Rep. fol. 798. c. Calvin's Case fol. 5. Alleg. p. 28. Alleg. p. 6. Alleg. p. 28. Ibid. Alleg. p. 15.26 Moore 's Rep. fol. 798. c. Alleg. p. 31. Alleg. p. 14. Alleg. p. 31. Calvin's Case fol. 12. Ibid. fol. 11. Alleg. p. 62. Alleg. p. 29. Saunders Serm. before the Judges at Exeter 1650. p. 23. Alleg. p. 29. 7 Jac. 1. c. 6. Coke's Instit. part 1. l. 2. fol. 129 130. Alleg. p. 29. Pag. 30. Walkers Hist. of Independency part 2. p. 100 110. 12 Car. 2. c. 11. Ibid. 12 Car. 2. c. 12. Alleg. p. 60. Alleg. p. 30. Ibid. Alleg. p. 31. Alleg. p. 31 32. 13 Car. 2. c 1. P. 33. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Alleg. p. 33. Jer. 17.9 Alleg. ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Alleg. p. 34. Alleg. p. 15.34 Alleg. p. 12. Ibid. Vind. p. 46. Alleg. p. 25. Pref. to the Case of Alleg. Alleg. p. 26. Vind. p. 47. Vind. p. 54 55 Id. p. 54. Alleg. p. 34 35 Vind. p. 42. Jam. 4.12 1 Pet. 2.13 Rom. 13.4 Vind. ibid. Vind. p. 43. 1 Pet. 2. Rom. 13. Vind. ibid. Acts 7. Psal. 82. Vind. p. 6. Vind. p. 44. Ibid. 1 Kin 15.27.16.2 p. 130. 1 Kings 14 10 11. 1 Kings 15.28 29. Chap. 16.7 Alleg. p. 36. 1 Kin. 11.38 Vid. Hos. 1. Dissert de Theoc. Jud. l. 1. c. 4. Sect. 2. P. 19.20 Jer. 27. Alleg. p. 36. Rom. 13. 1 Pet. 2.13 Alleg. p. 36. Alleg. p. 37. Alleg. p. 38. Ibid. Isa. 8. P. 38 40 41 44. Matt. 16.24 25. Mar. 8.34 35. Cic. Lib. 1. de Offic. Id. Lib. 3. de Offic. Ibid. Ibid. Heb. 11.31 Alleg. p. 44. Ibid. Alleg. p. 15. p. 17. p. 31. p. 41. Alleg. p. 47. Ibid. Alleg. p. 33 Vind. p. 38. Vind. p. 39. Ibid. Alleg. p. 44. Ibid. Ibid. Tit. 2.12 14. Alleg. p. 45. Alleg. p. 46. 1 Tim. 5.8 Vind. p. 66. Vind. p. 13. Vind. p. 65. Alleg. p. 44. Id. p. 45. Alleg. p. 12. Id. p. 15. Id. p. 41. Id. p. 21. Vind. p. 59. Ibid. Vind. p. 67. Ibid. Vind. p. 67. Ibid. Ibid. Vind. p. 69. Alleg. p. 46. Ibid. Alleg. p. 48. Alleg. p. 14. 2 Sam. 15.14 Raleigh Hist. c. p. 281. 2 Sam. 17.26 Anti Jud. l. 7. c. 9. 2 Sam. 19.9 2 Sam. 16.5 6 2 Sam. 17.14 Ant. Iud. l. 7. c. 9. Ioseph ibid. 2 Sam. 24.9 2 Sam. 15.18 Grot. in 2. â— Reg. c. 8. v. 18. 2 Sam. 15.18 2 Sam 17.27 2 Sam. 16.18 2 Sam. 17.11 Antiq. Jud. l. 7. c. 8. 2 Sam. 19.10 2 Sam. 17.4 Alleg. p. 49. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Alleg. p. 50.51 Id p. 13 15. Alleg. p. 25. Alleg. p. 50. Id. p. 50 51. 7 Jac. I. 30 Car. II. Ibid. Plut. de Def. Orac. Alleg. p. 51. Ibid. Ibid.