Power that it may be exercised but if wicked Men obstruct the exercise of it the Gift is not forfeited though the End is accidentally defeated In a Rebellion which is the Parent of Anarchy the Sovereign cannot exercise his Authority But does he then cease to be th 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is God's Ordinance Or arâ—â— the Rebels then Licensed to resist him The same is the case of Usurpation the Usurper obstructs the exercise of God's Authority and his own Wickedness can give him no Right to continue it The exercise of God's Authority is often hindred by the Wickedness of Men as for instance his Authority in a Father when his Children are Rebellious in a Husband when his Wife in a Master when his Servants are Disobedient and in a Bishop or Pastor in the Cases of Schism Usurpation and Persecution and yet still the one remainâ— a Father the other a Husband the other a Master and the other a Bishop though those are names which relate to the exercise of Authority as well as Rulers Kings and Governours 3. He insists much upon the silence of Scripture as to the distinction between rightful Kings and Usurpers he affirms there is no such distinction to be found any where in Scripture and thence he argues That if St. Paul had intended any such distinction he ought to have said it in express Words or else no body could have reasonably understood him to intend this precept of Subjection only to legal Powers To this Objection the Doctor himself hath given a sufficient Answer What he has observed of our Savlour in his Case of Resistance is as true of his Apostle We have no Reason to suspect that Christ would alter the Rights of Sovereignty This was no part of his Commission to change the external Forms and Polities of Civil Governments He who would not undertake to divide an Inheritance between two contending Brethren Luke 12. 13 14. Can we think he would attempt any thing of that vast Consequence as the alterations of Civil Power which would have unsettled the Foundamental Constitutions of all the Governments of the World Again What Rights he found Sovereign Princes possessed of he leaves them in the quiet Possession of for had he intended to make any change in this Matter he would not have given such a general Rule to render to Caesar the Things which are Caesar ' s without specifying what those Things are And therefore he leaves them to the known Laws of the Empire to determine what is Caesar ' s Right whatever is essential to the notion of Sovereign Power whatever the Laws and Customs of Nations determine to be Caesar ' s Right that they must render to him for he would make no alteration in this Matter Now say I if our Saviour or his Apostles had enjoyn'd Subjects to adhere to Usurpers against their legal Sovereigns They had altered the Rights of Soveverignty and unsettled the Fundamental Constitutions of all Governments But on the contrary they leave all Princes in the Possession of their Rights they have given 〈…〉 this general Rule that we should render them their dues and what those are they have left to the Laws of Nations to determine and whatever the Laws and Customs of Nations determine to be a Prince's Right that the Subjects must render to him for the Gospel has made no alteration in this Matter And if this be good Reasoning then the point is whether Allegiance were due to Usurpers before the Gospel for if it were not the Gospel has made no alteration in this Matter nor made that to be a due which before was none But the Examples of Scripture the Law and Consent of Nations which have always allowed the Resistence of Usurpers do put that out of Question and therefore supposing the Gospel has given us no distinction between rightful Princes and Usurpers that silence can be no Argument against it for the Gospel has left the Rights of Princes as it found them it requires Subjects to render them those Rights and if by the Laws of Nations Allegiance is the right of lawful Princes it is their Right also by the Gospel Where may we find in Scripture any Distinction between a true and a false Father a lawfull Husband or Master and such as usurp those Characters Yet Subjection is required to Fathers Husbands and Masters as well as to Sovereign Princes but there was no need that the Scriptures should declare that it was due only to real Fathers and to lawful Husbands and Masters or that it should give Rules to distinguish them from the Usurpers of those Authorities common sense is sufficient to inform us that such a Distinction is necessary to be made and in ordinary cases it is easie to distinguish them The Scripture requires Obedience to Parents but tells us not who they are nor distinguishes real Parents from pretended and yet no one thinks that final Obedience is due to the Usurpers of that Authority Suppose it to be in the Case of Subjection to Civil Powers the Scripture requires it but distinguishes not between lawfull Powers and Usurpers Must we therefore conclude that it requires Subjection to Usurpers And why may we not conclude alike for the Usurpers of paternal Authority Is it because Sense and Reason do agree that Usurpers must be distinguished in the one Case but not in the other But Reason tells me plainly that Obedience is not due to the Usurpers of Civil Power for he who has no Right to Power has no Right to Obedience The Foundations of Paternal and Civil Authority may be different but in both the Duty of Obedience must be founded on a Right to Obedience nothing can be due to him who has no Right as an Usurper of paternal Power has no Right so neither has the Usurper of Civil Power he has neither a legal nor natural Right and as for the Right of Providence both the Usurpers may lay an equal Claim to it for they are both advanced by the same way of Providence There is no more Reason therefore to pay Obedience to a Civil Usurper than to the Usurpers of the Power of Fathers Husbands or Masters and where there is a plain necessity of making a distinction the silence of Scripture is no Argument against it There is no express Distinction in Scripture between the legal and illegal Possessor of an Estate there are onely general prohibitions of Injury and Injustice and general Precepts of rendring every Man his Due but what Estates or Properties are due to every Man is left to the Civil Laws of Nations to determine and yet the Silence of Scripture in these points is no Argument against the Distinction of Right in private Possessions and how can it hold good against the same Distinction in respect of Sovereignty There is the like Reason and Necessity for admitting it in the one case as there is in the other if there be any difference it is on
that we will not allow God to deliver us unless he do it by Law This is pretty and passionate but to use his own Eloquence is a very nothing It is often a Duty to refuse Deliverance when God does deliver us we are sometimes bound to suffer Martyrdom not accepting Deliverance A Master of a Family does cruelly treat his Wife his Children and Servants God delivers them by suffering a Robber to drive him out of his Possessions he offers to govern them gently if they will swear to resist the former Possessor and accept of him as a Husband Father and Master A Prince oppresses his Subjects many of them rebel and bring Deliverance to the rest with this Condition that they will swear to joyn in the Rebellion In these Cases is it lawful for the oppressed to accept Deliverance When a Deliverance is offered which cannot be enjoyed without Sin it is God's Providence that offers it not for our Complyance but our Tryal and to accept of such a Deliverance will make us liable to his Vengeance The Question then is whether it be a Sin to abjure our lawful Sovereign and to assist an Usurper against him we believe that it is a Sin against humane Laws and against the Laws of God and Nature and if it be a Sin then interests of Flesh and Blood cannot make it lawful and therefore to talk of God's Deliverance when the only Question is about the lawfulness of abjuring a lawful Sovereign is in plain English only Cant and Banter His 6th Argument wherein he undertakes to confute Bishop Sanderson has fallen into better Hands and there I shall leave it the summ of it is this That we must renounce our Allegiance to the dispossessed Prince for the sake of the publick Good the Necessity and Ends of Government and I shall only observe that here he Argues upon the Fundamental Principle of the Jesuites Republicans and Fanatiâ—ks who have written for Resistance and if the Doctor expects it I will make good this Charge against him His 7th Argument is this These Principles answer all the Ends of Government both for the security of the Prince and Subjects and that is a good Argument to believe them true These Principles What are they Non-resistance Non-assistance and Allegiance to Usurpers A Prince who is in Possession is secured in Possession by them as far as any Principles can secure him against all attempts of his Subjects who must submit to him without Resistance though they are ill used On the contrary here is no Security for even the best of Princes his Subjects are indeed forbidden to resist him but if any attempt be made against him by Subjects or Foreigners he may be left to duel them all and to sight his Battles by himself against all his Enemies He will say that a good Prince must be defended by his Subjects and so say the Republicans that he must never be resisted and deposed But it is the unavoidable Mischief of their Principle that the Subjects are made the Judges of their Sovereign and they will often judge the best of Kings to be Tyrants And is not the Doctor 's Principle liable to the same Mischief If Subjects have a very bad King who notoriously violates their Rights they are not bound to defend him and are they not plainly then the Judges of his Crown They may judg the best of Kings to be a very bad one and then David look to thy self for Absalom or Sheba any Rebellious Son or Subject may destroy thee at their Pleasure there is but little difference between Resistance and Non-Assistance as to the Security of Kings the one exposes them defenceless to be murthered by the other this brings them to the Scaffold and that chops off their Heads and 't is the same thing to Princes whether they are betrayed or resisted abandoned or deposed assaulted by Assassins or exposed naked to them But The Doctor 's Principles will not serve the Revolutions of Government to remove one King and set up another and why so the Revolutions of Government are not the Subjects Duty but God's Prerogative that is God may make Revolutions but the Subjects must not promote them and if God can change Governments without the Subjects Assistance why may he not do it without their Complyance But yet Subjects must comply and transfer their Allegiance and then the new King is secure till he disobliges his Subjects for then they who have Power from God will think they have a Call to execute his Prerogative and the rest will say in their Hearts let him go if he cannot defend himself and if sighting by himself he chances to â—e beaten then God removes him we must â—dore the rising Sun and Allegiance must â—e always a Lacquey to Success These â—re Principles sure that Princes have reason â—o be jealous of for whatever Service they may do them at one time they may do them as great disservice at another they advance Usurpers to the Throne and then tumble them headlong from it But when any Prince is setled in the Throne these Principles put an end to all Disputes of Right and Title and bind his Subjects to him by Duty and Conscience I may answer in his own way it is evident that these Principles were either unknown to the World and that is an Argument against them or else that they cannot put an end to Disputes of Right and Title for there have been such Disputes in all Ages and I believe will be to the end of the World If this be trifling let the Doctor answer for it But admit his Principles were generally receiv'd it is evident they can never put an end to Disputes of Right nor bind the Subjects by Duty and Conscience to an Usurper for he expresly acknowledges that the Providence of God removes and sets up Kings but alters no legal Rights nor forbids those who are dispossessed to recover their Rights The dispossessed Prince has still a legal Right and Claim which he may lawfully prosecute by War And is not here an admirable end the Controversy about Right Oh! but this Controversy is between the Princes only upon these Principles it can be none among the Subjects for they are bound by Duty and Conscience to the Prince in Possession And what are they bound to Non-Resistance and Submission Is that any Security to the Sovereign when he is invaded by the lawful Prince Are they bound to Allegiance or to an actual defence of the Usurper against him That they cannot be for it would be a bond of Iniquity if the dispossessed Prince has a just cause of War and this is evident to the Subjects Is it lawful for them to support an unjust Cause against a just Cause It is generally agreed that a War cannot be just on both sides Grotius gives this Reason because in the nature of the thing there cannot be a moral Faculty unto contrary Actions a right in one
the side of Sovereignty which is the preserver of private Property and of much greater Importance and therefore in reason ought to be better secured and the right to it be more inviolable however if there be no distinction in Scripture about the Rights of Sovereignty so neither about the Rights of Property and therefore the Silence of Scripture is of itself no Argument against it Let us suppose the Throne to be vacant and two Competitours claiming it and claiming a Right to our Allegiance how shall the Conscience of the Subject be directed in this Dispute Here the Scripture is perfectly silent and gives him no particular Directions but the Laws of the Land and the Oath of Allegiance will direct him to pay his Allegiance to the true and lawfull Heir if he knows him and the Doctour acknowledges that the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience when they do not contradict the Laws of God And he acknowledges also that in such a Case we are bound to oppose the illegal and to assist the lawful Title thus far the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience though the Scripture makes no distinction between a lawful and unlawful Heir But suppose farther that the false pretender does actually usurp the Throne and the lawful Heir does still demand our Allegiance Here again we suppose the Scripture to be silent and that there is no distinction in it between rightful Princes and Usurpers and then it is evident we can have no other direction but the Law of the Land and if the Law determines our Allegiance to the rightful Heir we are certainly bound to obey the Law because it contradicts not the Laws of God But the Doctour will not allow that the Scripture is perfectly silent in this matther for he objects That the Apostle generally affirms that all Power is of God and therefore if he had not intended that we should understand this as universally as he expresses it he should have limited it to legal and rightfull Powers This I have answered already there is no necessity of understanding the Apostle's words universally of all the Powers that ever were are or shall be in the World it is very probable he spake onely of the Powers then in being viz. the Roman Emperours the Words will fairly allow that Construction and it is impossible to confute it And therefore since there is no necessity of understanding the words so universally as to take in all Usurpers it is evident That Text is no sufficient Rule to direct us in that Difficulty and if there is no plainer Direction in the Bible we are left only to politick Laws and if these direct us to pay Allegiance to the lawful Prince they are a Rule to us and we must regulate our Actions by them In short the Scripture directs us to render to Sovereign Powers their due and not to resist them as it directs us to pay Obedience to Parents Masters and all that have Authority over us But which are the higher Powers and who are our Parents or Masters or are invested with any Authority over us the Scripture does not determine but when there iâ— any Competition we are left to Moral Evidence to Political Laws and to the Laws of Nature and Nations to direct us and it is no imperfection in Scripture if it does not determine such Controversies if it supposes us rational Creatures and embodied in Civil Societies and under the Direction of Laws sufficient to determine them 4. The Doctor urges That if the Apostle had intended such a Distinction between rightfull Princes and Vsupers to the fulfilling of his Precept it would be necessary for Subjects to examine the Titles of Princes and to that end to be well skilled in the History and Laws of Nations and to be able to judge between a pretended and real Right and to know exactly what gives a real Right But thâ—se are great Disputes among learned Men and how should unlearned Men understand them And I cannot think that the Resolutions of Conscience in such Matters at all Mankind are concerned in should depend on such Niceties as learned Men cannot agree in The Force of this Objection as far as I can apprehend it is this That learned Men who are skilled in Law and History do often differ in their Opinions of a legal Right and it cannot then be supposed that unlearned Men who are the greatest part of Mankind should be able to judge of it and therefore it cannot be a Rule to them But is not this Objection as strong against the Law of God as against the Laws of Nations If nothing can be a sufficient Rule to the unlearned which the unlearned cannot agree in Does it not plainly follow that the Scripture cannot be a Rule of Faith to the unlearned who are the greatest part of Mankind because the most learned do differ in interpreting it Is not this to say they are his own words that nothing can be clear in Scripture which is matter of Controversie and thus we mâ—st be either Scepticks in Religion or seek an insallible Interpreter Thus Hereticks oppose the Arâ—â—â—â—es of Faith thus Papists Dispute against the Scripture's being the Rule of Faith and yet I think it would be unjust and uncharitable to insinuate as he does against his Adversary that the Doctour has an Inclination to Rome because his Argument looks kindly towards it But the Doctor easily eludes this Consequence I grant indeed that the Resolution of Conscience ought not to depend on such Niceties of Law and History as learned Men cannot agree about and that is a Reason why legal Rights should not be the Rule of our Obedience to Princes but is this a Reason to reject the Directions of Scripture too because some Men will dispute the plainest Texts Well but are not Law and History in many things as plain as the plainest Texts in Scripture And if those can be no Rule of Conscience because learned men do raise Disputes about them does it not follow that the plainest Texts of Scripture can be no Rule of Faith if the learned raise a Controversie about them if nothing can be a sufficient Rule which has been disputed by the learned neither Law nor History nor Scripture nor even Sense or Reason are sufficient Rules for inextricable Difficulties have been raised about them by perverse Disputers He will say that legal Right depends on the Niceties of Law and History but Articles of Faith upon plain and evident Texts of Scripture and yet even those evident Texts are many of them perplex'd by the Niceties of Criticism and the subtile Interpretations of Hereticks The Scripture evidently teaches the Divinity of Christ but the Doctor knows and no Man better that the Socinians who deny it do elude the plainest Texts and by their Skill in Criticism do wrangle them into Niceties A Rule then may be plain and sufficient though learned men do pretend it is difficult