are under the disposal of Providence 1 Sam. 2.7 Prov. 22.2 Therefore if Possession gives a Divine Right in one case why not in the other This Reasoning may be further improved by the Doctor 's Logick where putting out the Word Kings I argue thus in the Doctor 's Expression All Possession is equally Rightful with respect to God For those are rightful Owners who are put into Possession by God And its impossible there should be a wrong Possessor unless a Man can make himself Master of his Neighbours Fortune whether God will or no. Farther it will not be denied but that the Sabeans who took away Iob's Cattel Iob. 1.15 were Company of Robbers and which is worse they committed their Rapine by the Instigation of the Devil And yet Ver. 21. it 's said what was stollen by them was taken away by the Lord. Which according to the Doctor 's method of Interpretation will go a great way towards the proving their Divine Right He urges Rom. 13.1 That all Power is of God But this Text makes against him as he is pleased to expound it i. e. that it is meant of Power as Power without any respect to Right For his former Interpretation of Legal Power he has solemnly Recanted in his Preface Now if all Power be from God without regard to Law and Human Justice why a Captain of Moss-troopers who is an Usurper in little may not come in for his share of Prerogative I can't imagine For an Usurper and his Adherents are as much combined against Justice as any private Robbers They offer Violence to the Constitution they out-rage all those who oppose their Rapine and muster all their Force and Cunning to keep honest Men out of their own So on the other hand Thieves are generally formed into a Society They have their Articles of Confederacy their Original Contracts and Fundamentals as well as other People And therefore they must not be refused the Privilege of Usurpation upon the Score of being Out-lyers Upon the whole Why inferiour Thieves should be denied Divine Right any more than Usurpers is unimaginable Unless the Bigness of a piece of Injustice is a Circumstance of Advantage And a Man ought to be encouraged by Providence for Robbing in a greater Compass than his Neighbours These with some others of a resembling Nature are I conceive evident Consequences from the Doctor 's Scheme of Government Which besides that they prove the insufficiency of his Principles for nothing but Truth can follow from Truth They shew us at the same time that they are by no means so much for the good of Mankind as he insinuates And that we ought not to be so fond of them as he would make us nor so glad to see them well proved How much Honour he has done the Scriptures and the Convocation-Book by making them the Abettors of such Doctrin as this may easily be guessed I hope therefore it may be no hazardous Undertaking to joyn issue with the Doctor upon this point nor over-difficult to disengage these Authorities from seeming to give any Assistance to his Cause SECT II. Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book no Favourer of the Doctor 's Opinion BEfore I enter upon this Part of the Argument I must observe to the Reader That it has been managed with so much Advantage against the Doctor already that it might have been very well omitted here were it not possible that these Papers may fall into some hands that may not be so fortunate as to meet with other Satisfaction However I shall venture to be shorter upon this Head than otherwise I should have been Where I must 1. Premise That supposing the Convocation was unquestionably on the Doctor 's side he would be far from gaining his Point For Allegiance is a Duty which arises from our Subjection to the Temporal Power and therefore the Laws of each respective Kingdom must be the Rule of our practice in this Case A Synod though it may deliver its Opinion upon such a Point has no Authority to determin against the State The Church as She did not give Princes their Crowns so there is no reason She should pretend to take them away If She will be a Iudge and a Divider in these Matters She claims a greater Privilege than our Saviour owned I hope the Doctor won't say an Ecclesiastical Canon can set aside the Common Law and repeal an Act of Parliament This besides other Inconveniences of which the Doctor might be made sensible would be no other than graffing the Roman Pretences upon a new Stock and translating the Supremacy from St. Peter's to St. Paul's But that this Convocation should maintain such Doctrin as this is unimaginable since the great Design of their Book is to prove the Independency of Princes to vindicate their Rights against Church-Encroachments and to shew that Ecclesiasticks are as much their Subjects as the Laity 2. If we consider the Time in which this Convocation sat we shall find it very improper to fix the Doctor 's Principles upon them without the clearest and most convincing Evidence in their Writings For they met the first of King Iames I. when the Act of Recognition was passed in Parliament where the Bishops of this Convocation were present and gave their Votes for the Bill In which they Recognize and Acknowledge being bounden thereunto by the LAWS of GOD and Man the King 's Right to the Crown by inherent Birth-Right and undoubted Succession And oblige themselves their Heirs and Posterity for ever to submit to or stand by this Right until the last drop of their Bloods be spent And would these Reverend Prelates concur to the making a Law drawn up with such Clearness and Solemnity of Expression and go presently and contradict it in their Synod Was it their way to make the Bishop vote against the Lord and not only clash with the State but with themselves What! Declare themselves bound by the Laws of God and Man to stand by the Succession to the last drop of their Bloods And at the same time lay down Doctrin which will help us to as many Governments in a Year as there are Moons and as has been smartly observed make Captain Tom the most Soveraign and Divine Thing upon Earth Those who can believe the Convocation guilty of such Singularities as these must have a mean Opinion of them and ought to lay very little weight upon their Authority Having premised these Observations I shall proceed to examin the Sense of the Convocation as to the Point in hand And 1. I agree with the Doctor That Usurped Powers when throughly settled have God's Authority and are to be reverenced and obeyed i. e. These Princes who as the Canon speaks got their Authority unjustly and wrung it by Force from the true and lawful Possessor are to be submitted to as God's Ministers when the legal Claim is either surrendred or extinguished For where there is no other Title Possession is sufficient in
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
of the Legal King a long Silence and Interruption of Claim in the Right Line which must occasion perplexity of Title when revived yet these Princes are called pretended Kings and Henry the VI. though the third Monarch by successive Descent is called an Usurper and said to be rightfully amoved from the Government So little was our Author's Doctrine of Providence and Events understood in those days There is something behind in this Proposition which is worth the having and that is this He who has a Legal Right to the Crown but has it not ought by the Laws of the Land to be King but is not The Laws of the Land are the Measure of all Property so that whatever Estate Title or Jurisdiction the Laws give any Man they ought to be acknowledged his own He that has a clear indisputable Title to an Estate is nevertheless a Proprietor for being disseized And all Persons concerned ought to endeavour to give him Possession The Doctor 's next Business is to avoid the Charge of Hobbism which he had Reason to apprehend would be objected against him Let us see how he clears himself from this Imputation Why he says Mr. Hobbs makes Power and nothing else give Right to Dominion And pray does not the Doctor do the same I am much mistaken if this be not the design of his whole Book No the Doctor will tell you that Mr. Hobbs found God's Right to govern the World in his Omnipotence Whereas he makes him natural Lord of the World because he created it Under Favor we are not disputing God's Title to govern but Man's which I 'm sure the Doctor grounds solely upon Power as much as Mr. Hobbs However I desire to be resolved this Question Would God have a Right to govern the World if he was not Omnipotent If he would then Right ought to carry it against Power which is the thing I am contending for If he would not then his Dominion depends upon his Omnipotence and so the Doctor and Mr. Hobbs are perfectly agreed The Connexâ—on of the Doctor 's Consequences are somewhat remarkable in this Paragraph God has a Right to govern the World because he made it No Creature has a Right to govern any part of it but as he receives Authority from God Thus far all is well but observe what follows Therefore since Power will Govern God always gives Soveraign Authority to the Man who has Soveraign Power Therefore since Power will govern Wherefore will Power humane Power Govern Because God made the World These two Propositions will want a great deal of Cement to fasten them into any Coherence What! will Power govern whether God will or no That were hard indeed Will it govern Right or Wrong Most certainly And since it 's such a righteous Quality God always rewards it with his Authority That is since ambitious Men will usurp upon their Neighbours Dominions Since there will be sometimes a general Revolt from Lawful Governors and a Prince has not personal Strength enough to manage his Rebellious Subjects therefore that such unjust and treasonable Enterprizes might not be disturbed in their Success God always gives the Engager his Authority to settle and confirm them which is no doubt an extraordinary Encouragement And by parity of Reason may we not say that since God knows Men will Steal and commit Adultery therefore if they are strong enough to get their Neighbors Goods and Wives into their Possession they have a Divine Right to keep them For why a lesser Sinner should be denied the security of God's Authority when it s granted to a greater is somewhat difficult to understand For all this the Doctor will have it that Power does not give Right and Authority to govern Though his Reason for this Assertion is a demonstration of the contrary For he affirms that Power is a certain sign that God has given the Authority where he has placed the Power Now if Power be a certain sign of God's Authority then God's Power and Authority are inseparable and we may infallibly conclude the former from the latter And if Power be an invincible Argument to prove the Concurrence of God's Authority then Right if God's Authority can give any may be demonstrated from Power And if a Right to govern is demonstrable from Power then Power must give a Right to govern 'T is true the Doctor denies Power this Priviledge in the Case of Antiochus but this proves no more than a Contradiction of himself But because the Doctor seems somewhat shy of Mr. Hobs's Company I shall endeavour to make them a little better acquainted First They both agree as we have seen that Dominion is founded in Power which is a fair step towards a good Correspondence To go on Mr. Hobs owns That the Right of the Sovereign is not extinguished by a prosperous Invasion or Rebellion yet the Obligation of the Members the Subjects is And does not the Doctor say the same in other Words That notwithstanding the legal Right of the dispossessed Prince continues our Allegiance is only due to him who has the actual Administration of Sovereign Power Mr. Hobs says The Obligation of the Subject to the Sovereign is understood to last as long and no longer than the Power lasts by which he is able to protect them Now it will be hard to find any difference between this Maxim and that which follows of the Doctors The preservation of human Society Right or Wrong for he takes care not to distinguish upon the Means is the ultimate end of Government and will justifie whatever it makes necessary And elsewhere I believe no Man in his Wits would take an express Oath to follow his King into Banishment or venture being hanged at Home Again Mr. Hobs pronounces that he Who wants Protection may seek it any where and when he has it is obliged to protect his Protection as long as he is able And what does the Doctor come short of this Liberty in averring That we ought in Duty to swear to live peaceably under an unlawful Government That we ought to give him whom we believe to be an Usurper the Title of King To pay him Taxes and pray for him because we owe the secure Possession of our Estates to his Government And can the Doctor find in his Heart to quarrel with Mr. Hobs after all this harmony in Opinion I hope the Moral resemblance between them will make him kinder for the future After the Doctor has argued thus vigorously for Power one would think he might give up his Notion of legal Right However he is resolved to keep it against a rainy day and attempts to answer an Objection against its significancy upon his Principles He tells us Legal Right bars all other Human Claims No other Prince can Challenge the Throne of Right which by the way is a great Commendation of him that keeps it wrongfully The Doctor 's legal Right
Support of Authority it being sufficiently evident from the Reason of the thing For First every Subject receives Security and Protection from the King and therefore ought to protect his legal Protector For as all Persons receive the common Benefits of Government so they ought to joyn in a common Defence of it Secondly all Persons are born equally Subjects from whence it follows That the essential Duties of Subjection of which Defence of the King is one chief Branch must necessarily extend to them all Thirdly all Persons are obliged to venture their Lives for the publick Safety and to appear against the Enemies of their Country But the direction of this Affair belongs solely to his Management who is vested with the Power of the Sword and has the Prerogative of making Peace and War Those whom he declares the publick Enemies are to be accounted such and no others To him only it belongs to judge of the bigness of the Danger to proportion the Preparation for War to appoint the time and place for Battel By vertue of which Privilege all his Subjects are bound to comply with his Appointment and to bring their Persons into the Field upon demand If we look into the Laws of our own Country we shall find them clear and decisive against the Doctor In the famous Case of the Post nati argued before the Lords and Commons in the Painted Chamber 4 Iac. 1. all the Judges agreed that Allegiance extends as far as Defence which is beyond the Circuit of the Laws That is the Subjects are bound to defend the King in what place soever he resides whether in his Dominions or elsewhere For as these Reverend Judges go on Every King may command every People to defend any of his Kingdoms this i. e. Defence being a thing incident to the Allegiance of all his Subjects Now if the Defence of the King's Person and Kingdoms is a thing incident to the Allegiance of all his Subjects or necessarily implied in the Notion of Subjection then every Man is obliged to be a Soldier whenever his Prince shall think fit to employ him in that manner This is no more than the Resolution of all the Judges in Calvin's Case who declare That every Subject is by his natural Ligeance bound to obey and serve his Sovereign And since this Obligation of the Subject is thus general and comprehensive it must certainly hold in Cases of greatest Necessity and Importance The Duty of an English Subject is more particularly described in the old Oath of Ligeance mentioned by Britton which as Sir Edward Coke adds is yet commonly in use to this day in every Leet and in our Books The Tenour of it runs thus You shall swear That from this Day forward you shall be true and faithful to our Sovereign Lord the King and his Heirs and Truth and Faith shall bear of Life and Member and terrene Honour c. This Oath as Sir Edward Coke observes elsewhere is to be taken of all above twelve Years of Age. The Oath of Allegiance made 3 Iac. 1. c. 4. takes in the same Compass of Duty For there the Subject swears To bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs c and him and them will defend to the uttermost of his Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever This if it were duly performed were enough in all Conscience and as much as can be expected from any Soldier unless the being listed obliges a Man to Impossibilities Now this Oath every Person of the Age of Eighteen years is bound to take if required by Authority Lastly That the extent of Allegiance reaches to the assisting the King in the Feild we may learn from 11 H. 7. c. 1. where we are told that The King calling to mind the Duty of Allegiance of his Subjects that by reason of the same they are bound to serve their Prince in his Wars against every Rebellion Power and Might reared against him c. This Statute we may observe does not found the Subjects Duty of asserting their Prince in his Wars upon their Military Oath and Possession but upon their Allegiance and therefore since all Subjects owe a Natural Allegiance to their King they ought to defend him in the Feild when and where he shall command their Service And thus if the Judges and Laws may be allowed to determine the Case the Doctors fine speculations about Non-assistance must come to nothing His distinction of the Parts of the Oath of Allegiance into the Natural Duty of Subjects and an Obligation superinduced by Law is both ill founded and misapplyed First This distinction has no Foundation either in Reason or Law Our Oath of Allegiance does not extend our Obedience as Bishop Sanderson well observes and make us more Subjects than we were before It only gives a new Security by the Solemnity of the Action for the performance of that to which we were antecedently obliged The Oath finds us Subjects otherwise we might refuse it it does not make us such And therefore those who have not Sworn such an Allegiance are bound to all the Duties of Subjection contained in it This Sworn Obedience is enjoyned by Authority only as a Recognition of our Natural Duty to which it adds nothing but the Enforcement of a Religious Circumstance Which is agreeable to the Judges Resolution in the forementioned Case of the Post nati That Allegiance was before Laws And in Calvin's Case it 's averred That a True and Faithful Ligeance and Obedience which is all we are sworn to is an incident inseparable to every Subject as soon as he is Born Secondly As the Doctors distinction is Chimerical so the Application of it is Mistaken and Unreasonable He says Natural Allegiance is due only to him who has the actual Administration of the Government Natural Allegiance under Favour can be due to none but him who is our our Natural Prince no more than Filial Obedience can be challenged by any excepting our Natural Parents But Possession abstracted from Right does not make any Man our Natural Prince no not in the Doctor 's Opinion For he elsewhere tells us That the Kings of Egypt and Babylon never had a Legal and Natural Right to govern Israel By which Words it's plain he makes a Legal and Natural Right to be the same But bare Possession does not give a legal Right and by consequence not a Natural one Thirdly Natural Allegiance is due to him who is King by the Laws of Nature but he who can prove his Title by nothing but the Administration of Government is no King by the Laws of Nature For Nature i. e. right Reason does not found Dominion in Power nor gives any Countenance to Injustice And if an Usurper has no Prerogatives of Royalty from the Laws of Nature then Natural Allegiance cannot be challenged upon this Score For a Principle which gives a Man no Right to govern can't lay an Obligation
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
them with no less than Damnation From whence it follows That whoever has an Human Right to an Estate has likewise a Divine Authority to secure it for we are commanded to obey the Ordinances of Man by God himself and Property is of his appointment So that as long as the Human Right to an Estate continues the owner enjoys it by God Almighty's Order and Appointment unless he declares expresly to the contrary which doubtless carry his Authority along with them 'T is true private Proprietors have not a Divine Authority for the same great purpose with Princes they have it not to Govern and make Laws to represent the Majesty and Soveraignty of God but they have it to fix the Bounds of Meum and Tuum no less than Princes have to assure their Government Farther If Kings as the Dr. grants are made by a Divine Authority their publick Acts particularly their Laws must have the same privilege For those Acts which are but Executions of the Royal Office and for which the Office it self was intended must have the same Authority with the Office and if the Laws of Kings have a Divine Authority the Estates which are settled by those Laws must partake of the same Advantage and have more than a meer Human Right for their Security Thus I have considered what the Dr. has urged for a Disparity between Usurpers and private Robbers and unless he has something farther to say in his defence the Consequence I have drawn upon this Head must stand in full force against him The next Objection which the Dr. endeavours to remove is the Instance concerning Ioash and Athaliah which he says was a peculiar Case because God had entailed the Kingdom of Judah on the Posterity of David I have made it appear above that there is no difference between an Human and a Divine Entail as to the Strength and Firmness of the Settlement because they are both founded upon God's Authority But since the Dr. has endeavoured to reinforce his Answer in his Vindication I shall briefly consider what he has there alledged First The Dr. grants that Princes have their Authority of Government and consequently of making Laws from God But yet we are to think Divine Political Laws much more sacred and universally obligatory than meer Human Laws 'T is confessed That Divine Laws are to be preferred to Human upon several accounts but this difference does not in the least affect the Obligation of the Subject and therefore is nothing to the Dr's purpose However it may not be improper to point out the Circumstances of Advantage By the way we may remember That we are not now disputing about Moral Laws but only those which are positive and political Now the preference which Divine Laws of this nature ought to have above those which are meerly Human depends upon these following Reasons 1. Because of the Solemnity of their Publication they are deliver'd in a more majestick manner proclaimed by miraculous and extraordinary appearances of Nature These Advantages of Promulgation exhibit the Authority of God as it were visibly to the Senses of the People and make a more reverential and lasting Impression upon their Minds than any Human Grandeur and Magnificence can do 2. Divine Laws oblige the Conscience by a direct and immediate Authority for God is that one Law-giver who has an original and independent Authority over us As for the Ordinances of Men they do not bind in vertue of their own Right but only upon the account of a delegated Power because God has commanded us to submit to them for his sake because they are made by those who are his Ministers and act in his Name 3. Divine Laws are preferrable in regard of the Excellence of their Matter they are the Results of Infinite Wisdom and Goodness and exactly proportioned to the Circumstances and Convenience of those for whom they are made There is nothing of Over-sight Passion or private Design in them to which Imperfections Human Laws are liable Upon these three accounts the Laws which are of God's own making ought to be more highly esteemed than those published by Human Governours But then these Advantages have no relation to the Sanction nor hinder the Obligation to obey from being the same in both for where the reason of Obedience is the same the Duty must be so too Now Human Laws being confirmed by God's Authority which is the Ground of our Obedience as much as those which are called Divine our Consciences must be equally engaged to both 'T is true the Divine Authority is somewhat more remotely conveyed in Human Laws than in the other but this distance does not make the Obligation less obligatory nor give the Subject any Liberty to dispute for as the Orders of a Prince are to be obeyed tho' delivered by inferiour Magistrates so God expects our Submission and Complyance as much when he commands by his Representatives as when He does it more immediately by himself And therefore what the Dr. observes concerning Divine Political Laws that they are more universally obligatory than any meer Human Laws is not always true and when it is so it does not proceed from the Kind of the Law but the Privilege of the Legislator I say it is not alwaies true for the Mosaick Ceremonies were Divine Laws but these Laws were in force only in Palestine and among the Nation of the Jews and therefore the Obligation to obey them could not reach so great an extent by far as an Edict of the Babylonian or Persian Monarchs whose Empire was much larger 'T is true a Divine Political Law may be more universally obligatory than a meer Human one because God is universal Lord and has a Right to govern all Mankind which it 's likely no one Prince will ever have But this Disparity if it should happen does not proceed from the unequal Authority of the Laws but from the different Jurisdiction of the Law-Makers The one it 's granted may Command farther but the other within its proper Precints is equally valid The Dr. affirms That the Dispute between Divine and Human Laws and a Divine and Human Entail of the Crown are of a very different nature But here he makes a distinction without a difference for are not all Entails grounded upon Law Divine upon Divine and Human upon Human Laws Therefore in disputing the Entails above mentioned we must debate the Nature of Human and Divine Laws because these are the Basis upon which the respective Settlements are supposed to stand From whence it will follow that if the Authority of Divine and Human Laws is the same the Entails depending upon either of them must have an equal firmness This Consequence it 's likely the Dr. foresaw which made him run out into a Mystical Discourse about Providence which Principle I have already undertaken and proved That Providence as the Dr. understands it is no Rule of Practice However I shall consider the Remainder of this
Dr. SHERLOCK's CASE OF ALLEGIANCE CONSIDERED WITH SOME REMARKS UPON HIS Vindication LONDON Printed in the Year MDCXCI TO THE READER THERE has been lately as I am informed several considerable Treatises published against Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance and though I have perused none of these Answers excepting the Author of the Postscript yet from the general Reputation they have gained I have reason to conclude they are likely to give the Reader satisfaction and the Dr. Diversion enough if he intends a Reply So that had not the following Papers been almost finished before I understood there were so many Pens drawn upon him I think I had neither put my self nor any body else to any Trouble upon this Subject However since the Dr. has hung out the Flag of Defiance sent us a general Challenge and seems desirous to charge a whole Party he of all Men has no reason to be disobliged for being attacked from all Quarters Indeed this Circumstance besides its complyance with his Inclinations must do him a Kindness let things happen how they will For if he is obliged to quit the Field it affords him the Excuse of being Oppressed with Numbers If he succeeds the Forces of the Enemy must add to the Glory of his Triumph I shall apply my self to the Consideration of the Body of his Book without making any large Animadversions upon his Preface his Business in these preliminary Pages being not to argue upon the Controversie but only to report Matters of Fact with reference to his late Behaviour and to draw up an History of his Integrity Which Design of the Dr's how necessary soever it might be to undertake is in my Opinion but odly pursued For he has shewn an open Partiality in his Conduct before his Complyance and made large Steps towards the Revolution when he was convinced of its being the wrong side He calls it Faction to appear with Heartiness and Concern in Defence of the Old Oaths though we believe them to remain in full Force He prayed in the Royal Stile for the present Possessors as early one Week excepted as the most forward He gives hard Language to those of the Church of England who absent themselves from the publick Communion since the Late Alterations in the Service which in their Judgments are both sinful in the Matter and defective in the Authority He seems sollicitous lest the Rightful Government should Recover and declares his Inclinations were engaged against it 'T is true he prayed heartily to God that if he was in a Mistake he might discover it and comply But he doth not tell us he spent any of his Devotions the other way He does not say that he prayed for Constancy and Perseverance provided he was already in the right That he desired the Divine Assistance to stand firm against Interest and Noise and Numbers and be neither bribed nor frightned out of his Duty Now to act in this manner is a much more difficult Performance than the other and therefore the Preparatory Dispositions ought to be begg'd of God Almighty with the greater Earnestness A little praying is sufficient to incline a man to consult his Ease and preserve his Fortune but to hazard or part with them both is a Piece of Discipline very unacceptable to Flesh and Blood and requires a more than ordinary degree of Courage and Resignation to undergo it These things considered the Dr. had reason to call the Reader his Confessor for I am much mistaken if he has not frankly discovered his Failings to him However the Dr. assures us he has received that Satisfaction he desired Which is not unlikely but whether it was the Return of his Prayers or not will be best understood by examining his Principles I have nothing farther to add by way of Introduction but only to desire it may be observed That the Dr. all along supposes the Revolution unjust and illegal and argues upon a Case of Usurpation And therefore if the Reader meets with any unexpected Freedoms in this Discourse he may please to charge it upon the Nature of the Dispute and thank the Dr. for giving the Occasion THE CONTENTS THE Laws relating to the present Controversie vindicated from the Exception of Obscurity Pag. 3. Several Consequences drawn from the Dr's Principles by which the Danger and Vnreasonableness of them is made apparent p. 5. Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book no Favourer of the Dr's Opinion p. 11. This proved from the Convocation's maintaining several Propositions inconsistent with the Dr's Principles p. 12. His Citations from the Convocation-Book unserviceable to his purpose p. 18. The Authority of the Aramites Moabites and Aegyptians unexceptionable p. 21 22. The Four Monarchies all Legal Governments p. 23. The Case of Jaddus considered p. 27. A brief Account how the Romans came by their Government over Judea p. 35. The Dr's Notion of Settlement inconsistent with it self p. 41. The 13th of Rom. 1 2. concerns only Legal Powers proved from 1st the Doctrin of the Scriptures p. 44. 2dly From the Testimony of the Ancients p. 51. 3dly From the general Sentiments of Mankind at and before the Apostles times p. 53. The pretended Difficulties of this Interpretation removed p. 55. The Dr's Argument from Matth. 22.21 answered p. 59. His Doctrin concerning Providence and Events considered p. 62. The Abettors of his Opinion in this point produced p. 65. Amos 3.6 recovered from the Dr's Interpretation p 67. Hobbism proved upon the Dr. p. 73. The Insignificancy of Legal Right upon his Principles p. 82. His Doctrin concerning the different Degrees of Submission c. examined p. 85. Intruding Powers have no Right to a qualified Obedience nor to the Royal State p. 86. The Original of Government easily accounted for without the Assistance of the Dr's Scheme p. 90. The Objections raised by the Dr. defended against his Answers p. 94. The first Objection That his Doctrin makes a King lose his Light by being notoriously injured made good Ibid. The Injustice of deserting a Prince upon the score of Religion and the Sophistry of this pretence discovered p. 96. Allegiance bound unconditionally upon the Subject by the Laws of Nature and of the Land p. 97. All Subjects upon demand bound to hazard their persons in defence of their Prince proved from the Resolution of the Iudges c. p. 97 c. The Dr's Distinction of the Parts of the Oath of Allegiance ill founded and misapplyed p. 99. The King's Authority entire after dispossession p. 101. The Pretences for a King de facto confuted p. 102. To Maintain in the Oath of Allegiance implies an endeavour to Restore p. 103 c. Treason may be committed against a King out of Possession p. 107. The Dr's Assertion That the Oath of Allegiance is a National Oath c. untrue and dangerous p. 111. The Objection That his Doctrin makes it impossible for an injured Prince to recover his Right defended p. 115. The Case of private Robbers and
Vsurpers the same p. 117. No difference between an Human and a Divine Intail as to the Firmness of the Settlement p. 125. The Object from Hosea 8.4 defended with some Remarks upon the Iewish Theocracy p. 130. His Doctrin not founded upon the same Principle with the Doctrin of Passive Obedience p. 133. His Objection That the disowning Illegal Powers limits the Providence of God in Governing Kings c. answered p. 134. His Argument drawn from the Necessity of Government considered and Counter-Principles set up against him p. 136 c. The Relation between Government and Allegiance examined p. 144. The Dr's Objections against an immoveable Allegiance unsatisfactory p. 145. The Vsurpation under the Rump and Cromwel and had Divine Authority by the Dr's Principles p. 148. Absolom a providential Monarch p. 155. The Insufficiency of the Dr's Plea from a National Submission and the consent of the Estates p. 157. ERRATA PAGE 4 Line 28 after nullum dele in p. 8. l. 23. after the add Dr's p. 9. l. 5. after were add a p. 10. l. 26. aft own'd add p. 11. l. 36. for these r. those p. 14. l. 9. for fall r. fell p. 17. l. 7. del by p. 17. Marg. for Heb. 12 r. Heb. 11. p. 28. l. 40. aft Canon add p. 31. l. 27. for uncouttly r. uncourtly p. 37. l. 32. for there r. here p. 42. l. 24. for any r. an p. 46. l. 27. after disallow add it p. 50. l. 14. for these r. there p. 51. l. 28. for of r. and p. 53. l. 36. Marg. for Sept. r. Lept Ibid. l. 37. for Aritogiton r. Aristogiton p. 54. l. 17. for Valena r. Valeria p. 59. l. 36. aft answer dele Ibid. add after which p. 61. l. 20. for has r. was p. 62. l. 35. after State add p. 68. l. 15. for imploys r. implies p. 69. l. 11. aft Dr. add may p. 71. l. 29. for King r. Kings p. 73. l. 12. aft we add can p. 83. l. 15. for the see r. see the p. 88. l. 4. for Crowned r. owned ibid. l. 32. aft and add the p. 93. l. 26. aft would deâ— p. 99. l. 24. for asserting r. assisting ibid. l. 25. for Possession r. Profession p. 101. l. 28. del other p. 104. l. 31. for from r. for p. 114 l. 35. aft seek add it p. 115. l. 4. for them r. him p. 118. l. 19. for Disputet r. Disputes ibid. l. 28. for remains r. remain p. 119. l. 17. for draws r. draw ibid. l. 18. for translates r. translate p 121. l. 28. for returning r. recurring p. 124. l. 30. aft Laws del and p. 125. l. 2. for them r. him p. 151. l. 4. for of r. and p. 153. l. 16. for Countries r. Counties p. 156. l. 3. for Goth r. Gath. Dr. SHERLOCK's CASE OF ALLEGIANCE Considered c. THat we may not be surprized with the Doctors Novelties he very frankly at first acquaints us what we are to expect from him He makes no Scruple to aver That the intermixing the Dispute of Right with the Duty of Obedience or making the Legal Right of Princes the only Foundation of Allegiance is that which has perplexed the Controversy His Reason is because Allegiance can only be paid to Government he means Force and therefore it can be due to no other Title From whence it 's plain That Illegal Violence is preferable to Legal Right i. e. a Man ought not to pay his Debts to his Creditor but to atturn to the next Highway-Man he meets I wonder the Doctor who seems so much concerned for Good Manners should set the Constitution aside with so little Ceremony For if Legal Right must always give place to Unjust Power the Priviledges of Law signifie nothing except they could make a Man invincible which I fear is a Task somewhat difficult If you enquire why the Author has such a mean Opinion of Right he 'll tell you Because all Arguments from this Ground serve only to confound the Cause and the Conscience and to lead Men into dark Labyrinths of Law and History First As for History in an Hereditary Kingdom it 's no doubt a difficult Point to find out the Royal Family To distinguish a King's Son from his Daughter and the Next in Blood from Iack Cade or Wat Tyler And at this rate except matters of Fact clear up if we pretend but to know our Right hand from our Left we may be carried into a Labyrinth And Secondly As for the Laws they are as dark it seems as if the Parliaments met only to propound Riddles and proclaim unintelligible Jargon to the Nation And if the Case stands thus those Gentlemen who have endeavoured to justifie the Legality of the present Establishment were certainly out in the management of the Dispute For if Right and Wrong are not distinguishable if Good and Evil are of the same Colour if it 's unsafe to make any Enquiries into such Niceties as these for fear of wildring our Understandings then I confess all Revolutions are alike to us and ought to be complied with However the Doctor might have been a little kinder to his own Party who no doubt did their best and not have told the World that they engaged in an unnecessary Argument which it was both unfit to dispute and impossible to manage to satisfaction and that their Performances how well soever meant have served only to confound the Cause I perceive if the Doctor had not gone in to their Relief all had been lost and therefore he is resolved to make them sensible of his Assistance and not to allow them the least share in the glorious Defence of the Revolution But if they are contented with this Character I have no more to say To return to the Laws which the Doctor avoids as so many Rocks and Shelves in Dispute fit only to wrack Conscience upon Now this Character as it s far from a Complement to the English Constitution so it s somewhat surprizing to one who remembers that this Gentleman has formerly been of another mind In his Case of Resistance he does not complain that the Laws which settle the Rights of the Crown were so mysterious and hard to be understood and yet this is not that one Principle which he says he has only renounced in that Book There he asserts the Prerogative and maintains Non-resistance from the Constitution as well as from any other Topick I wonder he should lose his Law after almost seven Years improvement of Study and Conversation After all the Doctor owns that the Laws setting aside their Obscurity are good things and were they easily understood he would willingly cast the Cause upon this Issue If we could readily find where the Seat of Government is fixed who is our King and what are the great Lines of Prerogative and Subjection If we could attain to this perfect Skills in the Government he plainly intimates That the Law would then be a clear and safe Rule of
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
is true as it happens in some other Revolutions they did not all submit to a Man and I conceive the Doctor will not insist upon the Necessity of this Condition But those who stood out Antiochus was well able to crush and did it to a very severe purpose As for the Time of his Government it held no less than three Years which the Doctor must own is long enough in all Conscience to justify a Compliance These Arguments for Submission are as strong as the Doctor 's Principles can require And yet we see the Convocation dislike Antiochus his Settlement and allows of Mattathias his Resistance So that nothing is more plain than that these Reverend Divines did not believe that the Concurrence of the Majority of a debauched Nation A full and uncontrolable Possession of Power lengthened out to three Years of Government were Advantages sufficient to infer a Divine Authority and to change a bad Title into a good one I know the Doctor urges That Antiochus his Governmert was not owned by any publick National Submission which is both more than the Convocation says or the Doctor can prove For if by a National Submission he means a Recognition of his Title in a publick Meeting of Persons of Condition he might probably receive such an Acknowledgment It 's not unlikely that Iason and Menelaus who were so forward in making their Court being Persons of the first Quality might engage the Nobility to render their new Allegiance in a solemn and publick Manner However the Business of Form is not Material 'T is certain from Iosephus that the generality of the Jews complied and when a Nation submits one would think there was a National Submission Indeed why should they not submit Here was most certainly Power in a very large and irresistable Proportion which is a thing we are told will Govern and therefore God always seconds it with his Authority I hope the Doctor does not believe Antiochus could make himself King of Iudea whether God would or no And if not How could these Jews have the Liberty to stand out against Providence and oppose a Divine Right 3. To give a farther Instance that the Convocation did not agree with the Doctor in his Notion of Power and Settlement We are told That if any Man shall affirm that the Jews might have withstood any of their Kings who claimed by Succession without Sin and opposing themselves against God or that the Kingdom of Iudah by God's Ordinance going by Succession when one King was dead his Heir was not in Right their King however by some Athaliah he might be hindered from enjoying it or that the People were not bound to obey him as their Lawful King He does greatly Err. Now for an Assembly to affirm That where a Succession is established the People cannot withstand it without opposing themselves against God that a Person who is Heir Apparent is immediately upon the Death of his Predecessor their Lawful King and ought to be obeyed as such notwithstanding the Usurpation of some Athaliah I say for them to affirm all this and at the same time to make Force a certain Sign of Divine Authority and that we ought to obey it from what point soever it rises To put it in the Subjects power to break all the Links of Succession and to give away an Hereditary Prince's Right by a National Submission or Treason as often as they please these are such rank such staring Contradictions that they are beneath the Inadvertencies of common Sense much more the Judgment of that Venerable Assembly If the Doctor replies that the Canon is to be restrained to a Succession which was settled by God's Ordinance or express Appointment and consequently to be understood only with Relation to the Kings of Iudea which had their Grown entailed by a particular Revelations To this I answer 1. That to take the Canon in this Sense is to make it insignificant and foreign to their Design Whereas it is evident their Book the first especially was written to assert the Right of Princes and to state and fix the Duty of Subjects But if the Examples they alledge and the Doctrine they maintain are not to be drawn down to application and practice what are we the better for them If their Precedents and Conclusions hold only for the Kings of Iudah to what purpose are they brought If we are unconcerned in them why are they couched into Canons and Principles and reported with that particularity and exactness We are not now to expect any express Orders from Heaven for the regulating Successions and therefore if the Convocation is to be understood only of Entayles by Revelation they might have spared their Pains for we are not likely to be the wiser for their Determination as they might easily perceive 2. I answer That Succession founded upon Humane Right is of equal Force with that which is supported by Revelation and requires as strong an Authority to defeat it 'T is true God in reward to David's Piety enntayled the Crown upon his Posterity by special Designation And no doubt it was no small Satisfaction to Him to be assured that his Family should reign as long as it continued and not be set aside by God's express Order to make room for another Line as that of Saul's was for himself But if by by the Fundamentals of the State the Crown was before Hereditary I cannot conceive what additional Strength could accrue to the Title from an Entayl by Revelation Eventually stronger I grant it might make it by refreshing the Peoples Minds and conveying an awfull Impression by the Solemnity of the Declaration but their Obligation to preserve the Descent was the same before For all Humane Provisions stand upon a Divine Bottom for which Reason the Apostle commands us to submit to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake The Laws of a Kingdom when the Authority is competent and the Matter just are as much as to the Ground of the Obligation the Laws of God as those he gave upon Mount Sinai And Kings are his Representatives as well as Angels by whose Disposition that Law was given Therefore those who pretend a Divine Repeal ought to bring Miracles and Revelation in one case as well as in the other These are such obvious Truths that the Convocation could not possibly overlook them and therefore could not lay any of that stress upon a Scripture Entayl upon which the Doctor insists But must suppose Compliance with Athaliah would have been as unaccountable in any other Country not governed by Revelation as it was in Iudea provided her Title was illegal To urge this Argument a little farther upon the Doctor If that which he phraseth Providence and Settlement is sufficient to null the Constitution thô never so clear and unquestionable then a great part of the Ceremonial Law was abrogated under Antiochus Epiphanes and the Iews were bound in Conscience to eat Swines Flesh and forbear
it as he pleases And thence it follows that when he has given it away by express Grant the former Possessor has no longer any Right and if not any no Legal one Farther If a Legal Right should continue after God has expresly given it away this absurdity will follow That God cannot repeal a Humane Law and consequently has a lesser Authority than Men. I have already proved that Revelation and Success are quite different Principles and that we have no manner of reason to infer God's Approbation from the latter as from the former and therefore the Doctor can take no Advantage from this way of Reasoning To return to the Kings of Babylon whose Title may easily be made out from the Scripture For first Iehoiakim submitted to Nebuchadnezzar and became his Servant and was afterwards deposed by him for his Revolt After him Nebuchadnezzar being Sovereign Paramount sets up Iehoiachin Son to Iehoiakim who was afterwards carried away Captive and his Uncle Zedekiah made King by the Babylonian Monarch Thus we see the Kings of Iudah who only had the Right to govern that Nation became Vassals to the King of Babylon held their Crowns of him and were contented to reign durante Beneplacito And though Nebuchadnezzar might possibly oblige them by unjust Force to these Conditions yet after they had submitted their Act was valid and obliged to Performance This is sufficient to make Nebuchadnezzar a Legal Monarch But this is not all For Moab Ammon Tyre Sidon c. are expresly given to him by God himself and all those Princes together with Iehoiakim and Zedekiah are commanded to come under the Protection and to own the Authority of the King of Babylon And destruction is denounc'd against those who refused to comply That Nation and Kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon and that will not put their Neck under the Yoke of the King of Babylon that Nation will I punish saith the Lord with the Sword and with the Famine and with the Pestilence till I have consumed them by his hand Thus we see the Kings of Babylon reigned Dei Gratia with a Witness They had their Charter for Government signed and sealed in Heaven and delivered to Notice and publick View by Authentick and Unquestionable Hands This certainly is enough in all reason to make Nebuchadnezzar a Rightful Prince If the Doctor has any Thing of this Nature to justifie the present Revolution the Cause is his own Therefore if he knows of any Prophets he would do well to produce them Let them but shew their Credentials and prove their Mission and we have done But if he has none of this Evidence the places cited by the Convocation that God takes away Kings and sets up Kings are foreign to his purpose 'T is true when God speaks from Heaven all Humane Laws ought to give place and be silent But then we must consider that Revelation and the Doctor 's Notion of Providence are widely different the the one is an infallible Direction the other will lead us into all the Labyrinths of Confusion and Injustice And make us Abettors of all those unaccountable Practises which ungodly Power has the Permission to act If any Man will be of this Opinion he ought not to make the Convocation his Voucher Do they not say then that God removes and sets up Kings Not just in the Doctor 's Words They affirm That God has ever used the Ministry of Civil Magistrates in other Countries as well as in Iudea c. And may not all this be done without giving his Authority to Usurpers 'T is true they instance in Nebuchadnezzar But this Prince had both the Submission of the Kings of Iudah and the immediate Appointment of God either of which were sufficient to make his Title unquestionable And since his Authority was thus fortified it 's no wonder that the Convocation pronounces that the Iews were bound to obey him So that in their Sense God is said to take away Kings and set up Kings either 1. By express Nomination This way if there was no other the Babylonian and Persian Monarchies may be defended The former has been spoke to already And of the latter it was foretold by Isaiah long before the Birth of Cyrus That he should be a Conqueror that God had holden his right Hand or strengthened him to subdue Nations And that he should restore the Iews to their own Country which could not be done without the Destruction of the Babylonian Empire 2. God is said to take away and set up Kings when he suffers one King to conquer another and the right Heir is either destroyed or submits And since we are not to expect new Revelations we are to conclude God removes Kings no other way but this Which is no Limiting the Providence of God in governing Kings and protecting injured Subjects as the Doctor supposes For God can when he sees it convenient either turn their Hearts or take them out of the World or incline them to Resign These are all easy and intelligible Expedients and don 't bring any of those Difficulties of Providence upon us as the Doctor has entangled himself with This keeps the ancient Boundaries of Right and Wrong unremoved and settles the Duty of a Subject upon a Legal Basis. Indeed where Revelation fails what is so reasonable a Direction to steer by as the Constitution which is confirmed by the Laws of Nature and the Authority of God Is not this a much more accountable Method than to resign up our Consciences to Violence and impetuous Accidents and to make Treason our Oracle Now setting aside the Scripture-right the Babylonian and Persian Monarchs had to their Empire it 's easy to conceive that these victorious Monarchs either destroyed those Kings they dispossessed or made them submit their Claim as Edgar Atheline did to William the Conqueror That this practice of dispatching them was usual to settle the new Conquests and prevent Competitors is very probable Upon this account it was that Nebuchadnezzar slew Zedekiah's Sons and all the Nobles of Iudah And at the fall of the Babylonian Empire Belshazzar was slain as we may learn from Daniel and Xenophon And how kindly the Romans used their Royal Captives may be guessed without other Examples by the Treatment of Perseus and his Family Now where the right Owner of the Government is destroyed though never so wickedly the Usurper becomes a Lawful Prince For Possession is a good Right where there is no better These Observations are sufficient to justify Submission to the four Monarchies without having recourse to the Doctor 's new Scheme I am now to attend the Doctor to Alexander the Great whom he gives a hard Character and thinks any Prince who gets the Throne may pretend as much Right as he Whether the Ground of Alexander's War was defensible or not is not material to the pointâ— However he insists very much upon the Justice
of his Cause and tells his Soldiers they were ingaged in a Holy War and that his Design was to revenge the Injuries done to Religion by Darius and Xerxes Kings of Persia who made a barbarous Descent upon Greece and violated all Laws Humane and Divine And in his Letter to Darius he sets forth by way of Declaration how the Grecian Colonies in Ionia and about the Hellespont had been oppressed and harassed by his Predecessors How Greece was over-run with Fire and Sword And besides other terrible Articles of Accusation he tells him That his Father Philip was assassinated by some Persian's Instigation And at last appeals to the Gods with a great deal of Assurance Now I don't find Darius ever offered to purge himself and therefore the Charge might be all true for ought appears to the contrary And if so I hope the Doctor will be kinder to Alexander's Title and not Censure such a Religious Expedition especially where Liberty and Property were so much concerned And if this won't do there are several other considerable Circumstances after Darius his Death to alledge in behalf of Alexander's Legal Right 1. We don't find Darius his Son who was taken with his Mother at the Battel of Issus outlived his Childhood and therefore it may be taken for granted he never put in his Claim 2. Alexander married Statyra Darius his Eldest Daughter which made him at the lowest a Matrimonial King And no doubt this Lady would not contest the Administration of Affairs with him at that time And for fear the Doctor should find out a Salick Law in Persia it may be observed in the Third place That Oxatres Darius's Brother submitted to Alexander and rid in his Guards And now for ought I see his Title is clear on all sides But the Doctor attempts to prove from the Authority of the Convocation that the Iews were bound to submit to Alexander when he summoned Iaddus the High Priest and the rest of them to surrender though it cannot be denied that Darius was then living In Answer to this I shall prove First That this Assertion is a manifest Misconstruction of the Convocation Secondly That considering the Condition Darius was then in such a Submission as the Doctor contends for must be unlawful by his own Principles First The Doctor misrepresents the Convocation 'T is true the Convocation asserts The Iews were the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was settled among them But then they plainly suppose that Alexander's Authority was not settled while Darius lived For 1. They inform us That Iaddus sent Alexander word that he could not lawfully violate his Oath of Allegiance to Darius whil'st that Prince lived Now in reporting this Answer of Iaddus they don't add the least mark of Censure or Disapprobation Whereas it 's their Custom throughout their whole Book when they relate any unwarrantable Passages of History to shew their dislike and to condemn the Fact This Method as it was necessary to declare their Opinion and make their Narrative instructive So there never was a more important occasion to pursue it than in the place before us For if they were of the Doctor 's mind they must have thought Iaddus was wonderfully to blame for giving Alexander such a categorical peremptory Denial And therefore they ought to have censured and exposed such a dangerous Mistake for fear of the malignity of the Precedent Not submit to Alexander while Darius lived What a mortal Obstinacy was this No less in the Doctor 's Divinity than a direct standing out against Providence and opposing a Divine Right And would the Convocation who are wont to take notice of lesser Failings suffer an Error of such a pernicious Consequence to pass without the least stroke of Correction This if the Doctor 's Sentiments and theirs had been the same would have been an unpardonable Omission A Negligence that common Honesty and Discretion could never have been guilty of But to shew they were of a different Opinion we find Iaddus's Behaviour justified by the Authority of their Canon where we have these remarkable Words If any shall affirm that Iaddus having sworn Allegiance to King Darius might lawfully have born Arms himself against Darius or have solicited others whether Aliens or Jews thereunto he doth greatly Err. They tell us in the foregoing Chapter out of which this Canon is drawn that Alexander desired Iaddus to assist him in his Wars against the Persians and in the Canon which is nothing but the Historical Part formed into Doctrines and practical Truths They assert that it 's a great Error to say that Iaddus might have born Arms against Darius i. e. that it was unlawful for Iaddus to have assisted Alexander and by consequence that his refusing this Prince was a commendable Instance of Loyalty And yet after all this Evidence the Doctor is pleased to say That the Convocation in their Canon takes no Notice that Jaddus could not submit to any other Prince while Darius lived No Notice Do they not say it was unlawful for Iaddus to have born Arms or to have solicited any others to a Revolt Which is as plain a Justification of his Incompliance with Alexander's Demands and as full an evidence that Success does not transfer Allegiance as is possible And is all this nothing But the words whil'st Darius lived are not transcribed from the History into the Canon it 's granted However this Omission upon which the Doctor founds himself is not at all material For 1. The Sense of the Canon concerning the unlawfulness of Iaddus's taking Arms against Darius is indefinitely expressed and by the Rules of reasoning ought to be understood without any limitation of time unless the subject matter requires it which it 's far from doing to the Doctor 's purpose in the Case before us For the Canons being but an Abridgment of the History of the Chapters drawn into practical Propositions They ought to be taken in the same Sense and understood in the same comprehensive Latitude with the History unless there is a plain Exception to the contrary For unless the Chapters and Canons are to be understood alike to what purpose is the History premised in the one and repeated in the other Since the Chapters are the Body from whence the Canons are extracted they ought to regulate their Meaning and explain their Ambiguities if there should happen to be any Besides it 's the Custom of Conclusions of this Nature to be contracted into a lesser Compass than the Principles from which they are inferred All unnecessary lengths of Expression being industriously avoided upon such occasions What wonder is it then to find the Canons less wordy than the Historical Chapters 2. Unless the Canon holds out the full meaning of the Chapter the Sense must be uncertain and uninstructive They tell us it was unlawful for Iaddus to have taken up Arms against Darius But how long was this Allegiance to last Why according
Apostle Commands us to submit to the King as Supream and unto Governors as unto them who are sent by him Now if we are bound to submit to Subordinate Governors by virtue of their Delegation because they are sent by the King or Supream Power It follows that when they are not sent by him but Challenge our submission upon the score of independent Right they are not to be obeyed Suppose then the Emperor's Procurator of Iudea had set up for himself in the Apostles Time and brought over the Sanedrim and the Majority of the Jews to his Party and possessed himself of the Civil and Military Power of that Nation were the Jews bound to submit to the Procurator or not By the Doctor 's rule undoubtedly they were For here is nothing less than his Through Settlement and by consequence Providence and Divine Authority to oblige them to acquiesce But on the contrary St. Peter's Doctrine teaches us to look upon this Procurator as a Treasonable Usurper and to have nothing to do with his Settlement For we cannot suppose him acting in his Masters Name when he Rebels against him unless we can imagine the Emperor would grant a Commission to fight and destroy himself If therefore the reason of our submission to inferior Magistrates is founded in their Subordination in their being sent by the Supream as is evident by the Apostles Argument Then certainly we are not to obey them how successful soever they may be when they act upon their own pretended Authority and against him that sent them I can't foresee what the Doctor can reply excepting that Iudea was but a small part of the Roman Empire and therefore a general Revolt in that Country alone could not plead God's Authority from their Success nor oblige the Noncomplying Subject to Obedience To this I answer That if we are to obey the Higher Powers i. e. those who can crush us without respect to the Legality of their Title If Soveraign Force and Soveraign Authority are the same then we ought to obey them as far as their Power reaches For so far their Divine Authority must extend If the Revolt be general and the Power undisputed the Largeness of Dominion is not at all material For as has been observed the Boundaries of Empire are of an inferior Consideration They depend only upon Pacts and Humane Laws and ought not to stand in competition against Providence and hinder the exercise of a Divine Right God without question can change the Limits as well as the Governors of a Kingdom and ought not to be confined in this respect no more than in the other And since Settlement and Success is a certain Sign of Divine Authority we ought according to the Doctor to submit to every Subdivision of Power though never so illegally Cantonized as long as they keep distinct and unsubordinate to each other 3. That the Distinction between Lawful and Usurped Powers is not unknown to Scripture will be manifest from the consideration of Hebr. 13.17 There the inspired Author commands the Hebrews to obey those who have the Rule over them and submit themselves I grant the place is to be understood of Church-Governors but it 's as plain by universal Practice that this Submission is to be paid to none but Lawful Spiritual Powers For if any Bishop should offer to govern another's Diocese and Usurp his See such intrusions have been always condemned by the Church and the People obliged to adhere to their first Bishop And since this Scripture concerning Ecclesiastical Rulers has been always understood of those who are Lawfully and Canonically set up though these words are not expressly in the Text why the Higher Powers should not be restrained to Magistrates Legally Constituted is somewhat hard to imagine What reason have we to suppose God should Confirm an intrusion upon the State and disallow in the Church Why should he give his Authority to Temporal Usurpers and deny it to Spiritual Are not Bishops de Facto as good as Kings of that Denomination To put the Case more home and to draw it into a narrower Compass Let us suppose according to St. Cyprian's Principle every See independent of each other and that a lawful Bishop is deposed by his People and another chosen and consecrated by the Presbytery who are the Spiritual Estates and nothing of the usual Solemnity omitted Now I desire to know whether the New Man is a Bishop and has a Divine Right to govern the Diocese If the Doctor says Yes he contradicts the Universal Church and destroys the Episcopal Authority If he says No I would gladly hear his Reason The Person we are speaking of is generally submitted to and called Bishop and wears the Episcopal Habit and had all the Ceremonies performed at his Consecration and is disown'd by none but a few obstinate People and what would you have more If you say the Clergy were under Tyes of Canonical Obedience to their former Bishop that neither They nor the Laity have any Power to depose their Bishop or to ordain a new One that such Proceedings are contrary to the Fundamental Laws of Church-Government and subversive of its Monarchical Constitution This is all Truth I grant but am afraid it will disoblige the Doctor 's Argument For under Favor are not the States bound by natural and sworn Allegiance to their King What Right have the Members to depose the Head and Inferiors to displace their Supreme And what Law is there to chuse a Prince in an Hereditary Kingdom By what Authority do they these things And who gave them this Authority I put these Questions to the Doctor because I hope he will be so kind as to take them for no more than Enquiries Farther By the Doctor 's Assistance it may be urged That in the first Ages of Christianity Bishops were nominated by the Holy Ghost as Kings were in Israel and Elections apparently governed by Miracles and Inspiration as we may learn from Clemens Romanus And as it hapned afterwards in the Case of Fabian Bishop of Rome But now since Miracles are ceased God does that in the Church by his Providence which he did at first by express Nomination Therefore though one Layman should consecrate another his Episcopal Character ought to be acknowledged against the Canonical Bishop provided the great Body of the Diocese has submitted to him and the whole Administration of Ecclesiastical Government is in his hands and every thing is done in his Name and those who won't submit can be crushed by him And if any one objects against this Bishop de Facto I hope the Doctor 's parallel Reasons will satisfie him For first Here is as good a spiritual Settlement according to our Author's interpretation of that word as a Man would wish To go on No Man can make himself a Bishop any more than a King whether God will or no. God is then said to set up a Bishop when by his Providence he advances
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
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
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
in this place concerning his Providential Kings has been sufficiently taken notice of already Thus I have done with his Propositions which thô I think some of them a great deal too plain yet I cannot perceive they carry any Evidence with them to the Author's Advantage His Doctrine That different Degrees of Settlement require different Degrees of Submission is such a Masterly Stroke in Politicks that I think in this Paragraph he may be said to have out-done himself Such a Posture of Affairs seems to require at least to justifie such a qualified Submission But 1. This is a needless Distinction For such a limitted Compliance cannot be justified unless it 's required i. e. unless 't is a Duty to comply The Reason is because no Subject is independent of the Constitution He is not at liberty to qualifie his Allegiance at his Discretion and to choose to submit to what Governour he pleases Such a Latitude would make Subjection an Arbitrary Relation which the People might throw off at their pleasure For if their private unauthorized Will is sufficient to translate part of their Allegiance the whole must by the same Reason lye at the Mercy of their Inclinations Thus much is granted by the Doctor himself For though at present he seems to make these Degrees of Submission no more than politick Provisions and a little Ceremony to an approaching Revolution yet when he comes to state the Business he calls them Duties and carves out several Branches of Allegiance such as Praying Paying Taxes c. under the notion of an Obligation which is a sufficient Argument they are required to be done 2. His proportioning Submission to the Degrees of Settlement seems in plain English no less than a License for Men to turn as the Tide does to shake off all sense of Honour and Justice when they are likely to prove expensive and to make an Idol of Interest As if a Man should say thus Look ye Gentlemen things are so kindly ordered and so fair an Allowance is given that when you find a Government going down you may draw in your Loyalty and sink your Allegiance But pray take care you do it by Degrees for if you are too quick the King may recover and you may live to repent it So on the other hand when you see Rebellion in a thriving Condition and to have gotten the better of the Laws you must be sure to comply with the Success as fast as it rises and follow it step by step as it gets ground By this means you will not fail to keep pace with Providence To sleep in a whole Skin and enjoy the secure Possession of your Estates And if the new Interest gains farther and encreases into a full and plenary i. e. into a twice full Possession and looks vertically upon you at least as you fancy and if you are out you must look to that If it will not give you leave to stand between Two Governments any longer but presses you to a final Declaration under considerable Forfeitures than you must come in with a full Tide of Duty and fall to Swearing as fast as you can If the Reader can make any other Sense of this Passage I shall be glad of it But for my part I think it Paraphrased naturally enough I shall now briefly touch upon the Dutyes and the reasons of them which the Doctor says we ought to pay such a Prince whom we cannot think the Providence of God has settled in the Throne i. e. whom we must believe an unlawful Prince And here the Doctor is very Liberal For First We must Promise Swear or give any other Security upon demand to live quietly and peaceably under his Government But why his Government When the Doctor supposes he has no Title either from Law or Providence What reason has an Usurper who has neither Humane nor Divine Authority to make himself a Iudge and a Ruler over Men And if by the supposition the Government does not belong to him and he has no Authority over the Subjects Upon what account are they bound to enter into Engagements and to give him Security to establish his Violence Can the Doctor deny that Subjects are bound to assist their Prince in all just Quarrels If he cannot By what Law are they at Liberty to swear a Neutrality to the Usurper and to make themselves as useless to their Prince as if they were Dead If they may renounce their Active Obedience Why not their Passive too Why may they not attack their lawful Sovereign in the Feild draw their Sword against acknowledged Justice and fire upon God Almighty But what if the Usurper won't let the Subjects have the Priviledge of their Countrey without these Conditions Why then I desire to know whether they are not bound to follow their King into Banishment or if that Liberty is denyed to suffer whatever shall be put upon them A Second Branch of Duty to an Usurper who by his name has a Right to nothing is Paying of Taxes For it seems These are due for the Administration of Government i. e. for medling with that which he has nothing to do with for seizing upon the Revenues and Power and Jurisdiction which the Doctor grants belongs to another This is great Liberality in the Doctor However it appears by what I have already proved that he might have spared citing Rom. 13.6 to this purpose But it seems it 's his way to bring in the Apostles as he does his Kings right or wrong There is another Reason behind viz. Because we owe the secure Possession of our Estates to the Protection of the Government let the Government the Usurpation be what it will we ought to pay for it That is though Lucifer were at the head of it we ought to give him Provender and bring our Money in the Sacks Mouth we ought to give a Man Money to secure our Estates though we know he intends to levy Men with it against the Decalogue and buy Powder and Ball to shoot our Parents The Primitive Christians chose rather to lose their Lives than be at any Expence towards the Furnishing out the Heathen Worship And if Parricide and Regicide be not as bad as the worst Idolatry I have no more to say If People may take this Liberty to secure an Estate I think they need not be very scrupulous how they get it Thirdly We must give the Title of King to an Usurper when we live in the Countrey where he is Crowned Because this is a piece of good Manners It 's somewhat strange that the Doctor who in so many Passages of his Book has used a certain Prince at such an uncourtly rate should be thus full of Ceremony though after all I much question whether it 's any part of Manners to give the King's Title to an Usurper when we believe him to be such An Usurper who has no Right to the Crown can have none to the Title of King for
Substance of Sir Robert Filmer's Opinion and because the Doctor has said nothing to confute it I shall vindicate it no further His next business is to shew how impracticable and precarious a Government would be if it was settled upon the Choice of the People Now thô I don't pretend to understand the Doctrine of Original Contracts yet upon Supposition any Kingdom was fixed upon this Foundation I can't perceive it would be so sandy as is pretended Yes If Subjects give Princes their Authority they may take it away again when they think fit That is to say after they have solemnly parted with their Freedom and resigned themselves up to the Disposal of another they may break their Oaths and Promises to God and Man and Enfranchize themselves whenever the Humour takes them This is to out-do Mr. Hobs who obliges his Common wealths-men to stand to their Pacts when their Words are once past But there can be no irresistable Authority derived from the People Why so May they not transfer their Right to Resistance without any Limitation of Conditions This cannot be denied and if their Liberty to Resist is thus absolutely conveyed away one would imagine they should be obliged to Performance of Articles If Securities depend only upon the Inclinations of those that make them the Philosophers and Divines have very much misinformed us At this rate no Man ought to trust another any farther than he can throw him and all Society and Intercourse must grow impracticable The Doctor pursues his point and discovers That a Government must be Res unius Aetatis For there can be no Hereditary Monarchy upon these Principles of Choice because one Generation can choose for none but themselves For what Right had my Ancestors to choose a King for me 'T is well for the Doctor 's Ancestors he did not ask them what Right they had to be his Ancestors Such a Question for ought one knows might have brought Difficulties along with it But in Answer to the Doctor 's Demand I desire to know of him whether our Ancestors have not a Right to Govern us If they have why may they not assign over their Jurisdiction and choose a Governor for us By the Doctor 's Logick we may refuse Obedience to any Law which was made before our own time For if our Ancestors could not possibly have any Right to choose us Kings they could have none to choose us Laws His saying one Generation cannot bind another is a manifest Mistake as the Settlement of Inheritances will inform him I think he needs go no farther than a Bond for his Satisfaction To come nearer the point all the Reverend Judges in Calvin's Case affirm That every Subject as soon as he is born oweth by Birthright Ligeance and Obedience to his Sovereign And if he owes this Duty by vertue of his Birthright one would think it should be upon the Score of his Relation to his Parents whose Act he is bound to stand by unless we can suppose he consented to the Constitution in the State of Preexistence To put the matter beyond Dispute I shall produce a remarkable Instance from Scripture It 's the Case of the Gibeonites who notwithstanding they over-reached the Children of Israel into a Treaty by a false Relation of their Country yet after the League was once made the then Israelites and their Posterity were bound to observe it And when Saul out of a Zeal for the Interest of his Kingdom made a Slaughter of the Gibeonites God punished this Breach of Faith with three Years Famine and the Gibeonites had Satisfaction given them We are now to examine Conquest which he tryes to unsettle by saying if Conquest gives a Right then the most unjust Force is Right and every one who is stronger than his Neighbour has a natural Right to Govern him I confess these are sad Stories if they were true But who may we thank for them but the Doctor and Mr. Hobbs who by founding Dominion in Power have as much as in them lyes brought these Consequences unavoidably upon us His Speculation about Submission is somewhat surprizing This he calls a forced and after Consent to own him who has made himself King And affirms by Implication That we might disown a Prince who has thus Scared us into Subjection were it safe to do so That is Oaths and Promises are not to be kept though the Matter be never so Lawful if we are put upon them against our Will This is strange Casuistry and if allowed would make wild Work For if an unwilling Consent if one may speak so is a sufficient Dispensation it 's easie to pretend it in all Cases which Liberty would in a great Measure destroy the Securities of Trust and Commerce between Man and Man His last Effort upon legal Government is in these Words The continuance of an Usurpation can never give a Right c. A bad Title can never improve into a good one though it remains after the right Heirs are Extinct which is as great a Paradox as any of the rest For all Mankind have hitherto agreed That Possession alone is a good Title when there appears no better The reason of this Universal Maxim is plain First Because no Man ought to be molested in what he enjoys excepting upon the Plea of Right For he that disturbs a Man without Right disturbs him without Reason But by the state of the Case no Person has any Right to molest the forementioned Possessor in regard the legal Heirs are supposed no longer in Being Secondly The practise of this Maxim is necessary to the Peace of Society which would be very much disordered if a long continued Possession might be disturbed without any Pretence of Right Now where there is no third Person injured nor no Injustice done those Principles which tend most to the Peace of Society ought to carry it Thus the Doctor has made it his Business with what Success the Reader must judge to disparage and unsettle all Legal Titles to make way for his Leviathan Model which resolves all Government into Providence that is into Power The Doctor now proceeds to Objections and in Answer to one concerning the Injustice of adhering to an Usurper against a lawful Prince he replies That the Right of a Lawful Prince is to administer the Government and not to obey him when he does not and cannot Govern is to deny no Right But on the other hand if a Prince has a Right to administer the Government certainly he ought to have this Right and the People are bound to help him to the Administration of this Right when it 's forcibly detained from him For if he has a Right to the Administration of the Government he has a Right to command his Subjects and consequently they are bound to reserve their Duty for him only and to range themselves under his Obedience as soon as may be To acknowledge a Right
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
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
Mental Evasion or Secret Reservation whatsoever But to swear with this private supplemental Sense That we will bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King provided the Majority of his Subjects will do so too if this is not a plain wresting of the common Sense and Understanding of the Words if this is not a Mental Reservation to purpose I despair of seeing any such in the Iesuits Morals Secondly This Construction of the Oath makes Government very uncertain and precarious The Dr. frequently flourishes with the Body of the Nation I hope he does not think the Nation is all Body By this great Body I suppose he must mean the Majority of the Kingdom Now if a Government lyes at the Discretion of the Multitude it must needs be admirably provided for If a King must go to the Poll for his Sovereignty and and we are obliged to tell Noses to know whether our Allegiance continues or not we are likely to enjoy the Blessings of Peace and Order at a great rate The generality of Mankind formerly don 't use to be over burthened either with Prudence or Conscience and I don't perceive that this Age has much mended the matter Which makes me wonder why the Dr. should give them such an unbounded Privilege to pull down and set up Kings to dispence with Oaths and other Commandments to repeal Laws to transferr Titles and turn the World topsy turvy at their pleasure But which way does the Great Body of the Nation absolve themselves from these Oaths By Law No. They are not the Legislative Power The Parliament it self cannot pretend to this Privilege without the King This Great Body are Subjects like other People when they are separate and dispersed Whence then comes the sudden Alteration Can they rendezvouz themselves into Independency Can a Crowd give a man a Dispensation purely by the Magick of their numbers and the Disorder of their Meeting This makes the Composition work incredibly beyond the vertue of the simple Ingredients Who would live alone if Company can do all these Wonders Well! Possibly the Dr. means This Great Body can't absolve themselves from their Oath lawfully but when they have once done it their Act must stand Can they not do it Lawfully Then certainly not at all For in these cases id tantum possumus quod jure possumus Who ever heard that unlawful Absolving or a Dispensation against Authority and Right signified any thing However this is the Dr's meaning which makes him still more incomprehensible For 3 dly This Construction confirms the highest Breaches of Law and gives Force and Authority to the most irregular Proceedings It does not warrant the Deposing Act it 's true but when it 's over it gives it a Blessing and pronounces it valid The Pope sometimes pretends to depose Princes by a Privilege of Right But this Doctrine scorns to be beholden to a Colour of Justice but does the same thing by a Privilege of Wrong It sets Violence in the place of Law and gives Treason and Authority the same effect And how the difference between Good and Evil can consist with such a Latitude is somewhat difficult to understand But what can the minor part of the Subjects perhaps but a little handful do towards the restoring their King Why they can shew an exemplary Firmness and Resolution which may probably encrease their numbers and awaken the better-meaning part of the People into right Apprehensions of their Duty They can wait God Almighty's leisure retain their Integrity and save their Souls And is all this nothing The Dr. has a farther Reserve and that is An Oath to fight for the King does not oblige us to fight against our Country which is as unnatural as to fight against our King As unnatural then it 's unnatural to fight against our King which is worth the observing To go on and 1. As the Oath of Allegiance does not oblige us to fight against our Country so neither does it to sight against our King If it did it has been well kept Besides I would gladly see a reason why we ought to preferr the Country to the King Did we swear Allegiance to the Country or has it any Authority over us independent of the King If not why should we esteem Multitudes above Justice and side with the Subject against the Soveraign 2 dly We are to remember That the Dr. disputes upon a Supposition of Usurpation and therefore the Assistance of our Country does not belong to his Plea For those who appear for the Rightful Prince for the Laws and Establish'd Government of the Country they and no other are properly speaking the Friends of the Country If the Dr. takes the Country on any other notion he must make it a Wilderness of Disorder or a Den of Thieves And to carry on the Dr's Supposition To fight against Revolters is not to fight against our Country They have no Country to lose but have forfeited the Privileges of their Birth and Industry by their defection And though they may find Favour if they seek in time yet they can challenge none The Dr. was apprehensive that this Post was scarcely tenable and therefore after a little skirmishing retires to the main Fort his pretended Disposal of Providence And after all he grants That Subjects must have Regard to Legal Right And if they pull down a Rightful King and set up a King without Right they greatly sin in it Most certainly And therefore one would think when they have set up a pretended King without Right they ought to pull them down again and not persevere in the Breach of their Duty What the Dr. adds by way of Parenthesis That Subjects ought not to remove or set up Kings without Legal-Right unless the Constitution of the Government should in some cases allow it is somewhat unintelligible 'T is true some people would make us believe though without Reason That the Constitution does acknowledge an Illegal Prince after he is once set up and established But that it should allow the setting him up in any case I suppose was never heard of till now If the Constitution allows of its own Violation and the Laws grow lawless and give Men Authority to break them it 's time to look out for some other Government I can guess what the Dr. would have called such disputing as this is if he had catched an Author at such a disadvantage The Dr. proceeds to another Objection viz. This Doctrine of his makes it impossible for an injured Prince to recover his Right This is a severe Charge How does he purge himself Surprizingly enough He tells you It may be called a Difficulty in Providence if you please but it 's no Difficulty to the Subject unless a passionate Affection for the dispossessed Prince makes it a Difficulty Otherwise it will rub off easily enough For 't is but yielding to Necessity and leaving every thing else to Providence and there is an end of
Paragraph a little farther Now the Dr's Reason why a Divine Entail is stronger than a meer Human one is Because the first is founded upon express Revelation the later has nothing more than a providential Settlement of the Crown upon such a Family but Providence is not to be expounded against the express Revelation of God's Will To this I answer That an Human Entail has a great deal more to plead than the Dr's Notion of Providence It has a Legal Right to support it's Title which gives it an equal firmness with a Claim made from Divine Designation For we have plain Texts of Scripture to submit to the Constitution of our respective Countries and to look upon our Lawful Governours as God's Ministers And since a Legal Right is fortified with express Revelation it must have an equal privilege with a Divine Entail and carry it against all Providential Pretences by the Dr's own Argument He goes on and attempts to prove the difference between Divine and Human Laws as to their Force because in the first Case the Authority of God gives an immediate Divine Authority to the Laws made by God in the other Case the Authority of God terminates on the Person and does not immediately affect his Laws To this it may be replied 1. That according to the Dr's description of a Divine Law there are few or none of this Character to be found either in the Old or New Testament for the Mosaick Law was given by the disposition of Angels and the Gospel was delivered by the Apostles 'T is true those Precepts given by our Saviour may be said to proceed from a Supreme and Soveraign Power But then we are to consider that his Humanity was the Organ of their Conveyance So that by our Author 's Reasoning these practical Manifestations of the Will of God are but Human or Angelical Laws at the highest For not being delivered by the Deity Himself the Authority of God must be conveyed at a distance and terminate on the Person of the Minister who represents Him and by consequence cannot immediately affect his Laws Now this Immediate Conveyance is the Dr's distinguishing Privilege which he makes essential to the Character of a Divine Law And therefore I would gladly know why an Entail grounded only upon a Prophetical or Angelical Law may not be over-rul'd by Providential Events as well as an Human Legal Settlement For Angels have no original Immediate Authority any more than Kings and Kings are called Elohim Gods as well as the other and have as ample and I may add a more standing Authority to Govern Mankind than any of the Heavenly Hierarchy Now if Providence understood in the Dr's sence ought to have the same effect upon those Laws which were given by Angels or Prophets as upon others which are meerly Human as by his Argument it must have then Ioash's Entail was cut off by Athaliah's Possession and Iehojada was guilty of Treason for deposing her 2 dly It 's not at all material as to the Dispute in hand Whether the Divine Authority affects the Laws of Princes immediately or mediately As long as we are certain of the thing the manner of its Conveyance is no abatement of the original Vertue The Dr. grants That Princes have God's Authority to make Laws Now God's Authority to make Laws implies a Right to make them And since as the Dr. observes there are no Degrees of Right there can for the same reason be none of Authority and therefore it must be full and perfect where-ever it is If the Divine Commission of an Human Law-giver is certain and unquestionable we need enquire no farther for God's Authority receives no prejudice by being delivered to His Representatives So that provided the truth of the thing is secured the way of its coming to us whether by Removes or not signifies nothing for in this Case the distance of the Conveyance does not in the least weaken the Force of the Operation What the Dr. adds concerning Divine Laws That they have 〈◊〉 Superior Authority to all Human Laws is true but foreign to his purpose for God can null his own Laws as well as those which are purely Human as He has actually done in the Mosaick Dispensation so that the possibility of a Divine Repeal does not make any difference between Human and Divine Laws they being both of them equally liable to such an alteration Besides we are to observe that though God can repeal the Laws made by Himself or his Representatives yet we are by no means to suppose that Events and Providence as the Dr. takes it are any Authentick Declarations of the Divine Will His Instance in the By Laws of a Corporation is likewise unserviceable for these private Laws within the Precincts of the respective Towns have the same Force with the more general Laws of the Kingdom provided their Charter is comprehensive and full and granted by those who have the entire Legislative Power which last Privilege cannot be denied to God Almighty and therefore his Authority must be as strong in the delegation as in its more immediate exercise The Dr. in his Case of Allegiance to which I am now returned endeavours to gain a Text in Hosea from the usual Interpretation and make it consistent with his Principles Here as the Dr. observes God expresly charges Israel with making Kings without him They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes but I knew it not To this the Dr. replies That this was not true as to all the Kings of Israel after their separation from the Tribe of Judah If it was true of some of them it 's sufficient to justifie the objected Exposition against him This Answer therefore being perfectly inoffensive I shall pass to his Second in which he argues That Baasha slew Nadab the Son of Jeroboam and made himself King without God's express nomination And yet God tells him I have exalted thee out of the Dust and made thee Prince over my People Israel Now if there were any difficulty in this Text the Dr. has effectually removed it in his Case of Resistance the Passage is not only well managed but stands unrecanted And thus it is God having threatned to destroy Jeroboam ' s whole Family Baasha fulfills this Prophecy by the trayterous Murther of Nadab who succeeded his Father Jeroboam in the Kingdom and usurped the Government himself and slew all Jeroboam ' s House This Murther and Treason is numbred among the Sins of Baasha for which God afterwards threatned to destroy his House as He had done the House of Jeroboam And yet he having usurped the Throne and got the Power into his hands and no Man having a better Title than his God is said to have exalted him out of the Dust and made him Prince over his people Israel All which plainly shews that where there is no regular Succession i. e. where the Kingdom
Interpretation of Rom. 13.1 which I am contending for is supported by the Authority of the Fathers I shall produce some Testimonies from them St. Chrysostom upon the place puts the Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is every Governor chosen and set up by God Almighty To this he Answers in the Apostles Name I affirm no such thing For I am not now Discoursing of every particular Prince but of Government it self The Constitution of Magistracy does indeed proceed from the Divine Wisdom to prevent Confusion and Disorder Therefore the Apostle does not say that there is no Prince of God But that those Powers that be are ordained of God Therefore where the wise Man tells us that it's God who joyns a Woman to a Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He means no more then that God instituted Matrimony Not that every one who lives with a Woman is joyned to her by God For we see many cohabit sinfully and not according to the Laws of Marriage Which is by no means to be attributed to God Almighties doing This Comparison without the rest of this Father's Testimony is sufficient to show that he was far from believing that Power and God's Authority always went together For as a Man and a Woman can't be joyned together by God though they receive each other with never so much Freedom unless the Essentials of Matrimony are premised especially when either of them are preingaged So an Usurper though he may debauch the Subjects with presents of Flattery from their former Obligations yet the whole commerce is no better then civil Adultery and therefore must not pretend to be Authorized from Heaven The next Testimony shall be taken from Theodoret who affirms That the Power of unjust Men as all Usurpers are does not proceed from God's Choice but only the Dispensation of Government in General Now if unjust Powers or Usurpers are not chosen or delegated by God then they can have none of God's Authority For no Man can have God's Authority but he to whom it 's given Bare permission to Govern as the Doctor goes on will not do And yet this is all Theodoret allows to such unqualified Persons Occumenius and Theophylact express themselves to the same purpose with St. Chrysostom Only they add That all kinds of Power whatsoever are Orderly as Theophylact has it Ordained by God Whether it be that of a Father over his Children or a Husband over his Wife c. Now these two Jurisdictions of Father and Husband are on all hands granted to be unexceptionable and founded in the Laws of Nature and Revelation And since these Fathers have made their instance only in Powers confessedly Lawful We have Reason to believe they understood the Apostles Higher Powers in this sense had they given us no other Argument which it's evident they have These Testimonies of the Fathers not to mention others together with the concurrent Sense of our own Divines the Doctor is pleased to call a Common Evasion And tells us he knows not what they mean by Civil Authority unless it be that God intended that Mankind should live under Government And is not this a sufficient meaning No. This does not prove that all Power is from God unless those who exercise this Power which he must mean by Authority receive it from God Right And is the Doctor offended at this Is he angry because they don't contradict themselves which they must have done if they had asserted Successful Violence had a Divine Commission to act by Their maintaining Civil Authority to be of Divine Institution with an Exception to particular Persons proves that all Legal Power is from God and that they took Power not for meer Force as the Doctor does but under the Notion of Right and Authority If the Doctor is resolved to stick so very close to the Letter I am afraid it will carry him to a Construction he will not approve What does he think of the Kingdom of Satan is not that called the Power of Darkness Will the Doctor say these Powers are ordained by God I hope he is not so much straitned for Government as to make the Devil a Magistrate 3. The interpreting the Text in dispute only of Lawful Powers is agreeable to the Sentiments the generality of Mankind had of Usurpation at and before the Apostles time I shall give some Instances out of the most famous Governments in the World by which it will appear that Mankind has always had a very unkind Opinion of Usurpers And notwithstanding their Success they have not thought them so much the Favourites of Providence nor their Calling so Divine as we are lately made to believe To begin Astartus Contemporary with Rehoboam recovered the Kingdom of Tyre after it had been held twelve Years by Usurpers as Sir Walter Ralegh informs us It seems these Tyrians knew nothing of the Divine Right of Possession from whence I conclude it 's no innate Principle The same Author observes that the ten Tribes did never forbear to revenge the death of their Kings when it lay in their Power of which he gives some Instances nor approved the good Success of Treason unless Fear compel'd them So that it 's plain when they did comply it was Interest not Duty which engaged them From whence it follows that they were as much unenlightned as to this Point as the Heathenish Tyrians To continue the Argument the counterfeit Smerdis was in possession of the Empire of Persia for some Months who after he was understood to be an Impostor the Princes of the Blood immediately removed him which practice of theirs is mentioned by Iustin with Commendation And the just odium which Usurpation lay under was probably the Reason why this Usurper's Government is pretermitted and not reckoned by itself in the Chronological Accounts but added to the Reign of Cambyses as the Misrule of Cromwel was to that of King Charles II. From Persia let us travel homewards into Greece and to the most polite part of it Athens where we shall find the Memories of Harmodius and Aritogiton honoured and their Families exempted from paying Taxes for delivering their Country from the Tyranny of Hippias who broke in upon their Government and was expelled by the Athenians after several years Usurpation The learned Bodin gives us the Sense both of the Greeks and Romans in this matter as fully as can be desired 1. He defines a Tyrant or Usurper to be one who unlawfully seizes upon the Government And then adds Such a Person the Laws and Writings of the Antients command to be slain and propound the highest Rewards to those who can dispatch him Neither in such a Case are the Qualities of the Person considered or any distinction made between a kind and a cruel Usurper Let this therefore be laid down as an undoubted truth That whosoever in a Monarchy shall wrest the Government from the Lawful King or shall set himself
up for a Prince where the Supream Power is by the Constitution in the People may be lawfully killed by all or any Person of the Community And for this Conclusion he Quotes the Lex Valena among the Romans And Solon's Law at Athens which was not much different from the other And that this Doctrine concerning Tyrants might not be prejudicial to Rightful Governors under pretence of Maladministration He takes care to subjoyn That Lawful Princes where they are Supream in their Government Such as they are in France Spain England c. Are not to suffer in their Dignities Fortunes or Lives whether by Force or Formality of Iustice though they are never so flagitious and oppressive These passages I have cited from the Greeks Romans c. not that I approve of their expedient of Assassination but to show what an Aversion they had to Usurpation Alas They were perfectly to seek in the modern Doctrine of Possession They never dreamed that Violence and Right were words of the same signification Or that the continuation of an injury could give an Improvement of Title and supply the defect of the first Injustice They believed that the property of Crowns and Scepters was at least as well fixed as that of private Persons and that it was not in the Power of Violence and Treason to take it away These Observations are sufficient to prove that unless we will make St. Paul clash with St. Peter and contradict other plainâ— Texts and Inferences from Scripture Unless we will Expound the Text contrary to the Fathers run counter to the Sentiments of Mankind in general and debase Christianity below the Justice and generosity of Heathenism we must understand St. Paul's all Power of all Legal Power And therefore I think there was as little Reason as Decency in the Doctor 's making so bold with the Apostle as to say That he ought i. e. God ought to have made an express distinction between Legal and Illegal Powers otherwise no body could reasonably have understood him that he meant only the first As to the difficulties which he imagines will follow from this Interpretation viz. It will be necessary for Subjects to examine the Titles of Princes and to be well skilled in the History and Laws of a Nation I Answer 1. That all these Inconveniences as the Doctor reckons them the Iews were liable to under the Family of David Upon which he owns the Crown was so firmly entailed that it could not be defeated by Usurpation This Entail was made by God's Appointment And does God put his own People upon all these intolerable Inconveniencies Did his infinite Wisdom fix the Government upon the most incomprehensible Basis Does God use to oblige Men to determine Disputes above their Capacity to lead them into Labyrinths of History and Perplexities of Conscience I suppose the Doctor does not imagine the Iews were all inspired with the knowledge of David's Family and of the elder Branches of it and yet we don't read they were ever at a loss about it but found the right way to their Sovereign easily enough And so doubtless they may do in other Countries without the Doctor 's Assistance It requires no great reach of Understanding to resolve all the Questions incident to this matter A Man needs not be any great Lawyer to tell whether he lives under a Monarchy or a Commonwealth It 's no difficult matter to distinguish the King from a Subject especially in a Country where the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy are almost universally taken There are very few People with us so ignorant as not to know that it's Treason to take up Arms against the King And as for the Right Heir to the Crown he is generally as easily known as the Louvre or Whitehall One would have thought that since God by immediate Designation has given the Royal Authority to a particular Family and tied the Obedience of the Subject to Legal Right the Doctor would have concluded that an Adherence to Legal Right was most for the Advantage of Society And not have given us Reasonings which reflect upon the Divine Model and which suppose the Seat of Authority much more unaccountably fixed in the Iewish Government than in those of meer humane Contrivance But the Legality of Princes Titles is a great Dispute among Learned Men and how then should Unlearned Men understand them 1. He may remember that himself and the generality of the Learned in this Kingdom had not long since very different Thoughts of the present Controversy from what they now have and whether their Improvements in Learning or some other Reasons have altered their Opinion is a great Question 2. Can Unlearned Men understand nothing about which the Learned differ Then without doubt they are not bound to understand the Creed For there are and always have been a great many Learned Jews and Heathens and Hereticks who dispute about these Things Nay why should they believe any Religion at all since there are several Learned Atheists who deny it What he adds concerning the Title of the Roman Emperors which for many Ages together were either stark nought or the very best of them very doubtful is of the same Complexion with the rest For 1. The Emperors Titles when St. Paul wrote this Epistle to the Romans which is the time pointed at by the Doctor and the Controversy could not be stark nought for many Ages together because at the time of the Apostle's writing the Empire itself was little more than One hundred Years standing 2. What Authority does the Doctor bring to shew the Emperor's Titles defective Why none but his own Indeed he had no other for if we consult the Historians who treat of this Argument we shall find the matter quite otherwise than our Author represents it The Reader may be satisfied from Tacitus that Augustus and Tiberius were chosen by the Consent of the People and Senate The Consuls Senate Army and People swore an Oath of Allegiance to Tiberius If part of this Author's Works had not been lost we might no doubt have received the same Testimonies from him concerning the Titles of Caligula and Claudius For Dion Cassius an Historian of unquestionable Credit speaks home to all four He tells us That the whole Senate pressed Augustus by earnest Entreaties to take the Soveraign Authority of the Empire to himself Tiberius was likewise made Emperor by the Importunity of the Senate and Consent of the People Caligula and Claudius had the same Charter for their Authority For as the same Author informs us They received the Empire by the Choice of the Senate and Army I might cite Suetonius who is full to the same purpose were not what is already alledged sufficient for the Point in hand However there is one thing in Cassius very remarkable which shews how comprehensive and absolute the Emperor's Power was For all other great Branches of Authority which lay