Cromwel if as the Dr. affirms neither the Laws of Religion nor of the Land declare it unlawful to submit to an Usurpation And therefore I think the Great Body of the Nobility Gentry and Clergy have reason to take it ill from the Dr. for making their Forefathers a Company of Mad-men who notwithstanding they had all imaginable Authority and Obligation from Human and Divine Laws to acquiesce and consult their own Safety yet out of a Romantick Notion of Loyalty chose rather to hazard their Souls and Bodies and Estates than submit to the Determinations of God Almighty who is always supposed to set up a Governour when by His Providence He puts the Soveraign Power into his Hands 2. By the Dr's Principles it was not only Lawful to submit to Cromwel's Usurpation but the People were directly obliged to it For 1. It 's well known that the Common-wealth of Cromwel were absolute Masters of the Three Kingdoms and entirely possessed of the Government Now the Dr. has solemnly told us That since Power will Govern God so orders it by his Providence as never to intrust Soveraign Power in any Man's Hands to whom he does not give the Soveraign Authority This Usurpation therefore having Soveraign Power in an high and irresistible degree could not be disowned without rejecting God's Authority which certainly no man can have any Privilege to dispute 2. The Dr. expresly averrs That the Preservation of Human Societies does of necessity force us to own the Authority even of Vsurped Powers And if we are under a necessity of owning their Authority one would think we could not have the liberty to refuse them 3. The Dr. observes That our Saviour's Argument for paying Tribute relies wholly on the possession of Power without any mention of Consent and inferrs from thence That if this be a good Reason it 's good in all other cases that we must submit to all Princes who are possessed of the Soveraign Power and are in full Administration of Government And can the Dr. deny these Advantages to the Usurpers upon K. Charles II No There was not so much as the least Garrison which held out against them And as for the Administring part all Affairs Civil Military and Ecclesiastical were managed solely by their direction 4. If we were unprovided of other Proofs a few Questions in the Dr's words would decide the Controversie I desire to know therefore Whether God Rules in a Kingdom while an Vsurper fills the Throne Particularly did God Govern in England Scotland c. from 1648 to 1660 If He did who was it He governed by Not by K. Charles II. for he was dispossessed It must therefore be by the Common-wealth and Cromwel to whom the Government was disposed by God's own Will and Counsel For to allow no more than a Divine Permission is in the Dr's Opinion a great Error For Will any man say That God Governs such a Kingdom as is not governed by His Authority and Ministers Does Providence and Government signifie only His Permission To resolve Providence into a bare Permission especially in matters of such a vast consequence as the disposal of Crowns is to deny God's Government of the World Now if Cromwel c. did not Rule these Kingdoms barely by the Permission of Providence but had God's positive Authority and bore the Character of his Ministers then their Right was unquestionable and their Persons sacred and it was great Wickedness to resist or disobey them And since the Dr. has laid down such Notions as these concerning Providence and given such Prerogatives to Power it 's too late for him to recall his Liberality to the Rump and Cromwel he must not think of unsettling them again for want of a National Consent unless he has a mind to recant the Main of both his Books For if they had God's Authority on their side the People whether willing or not were bound in Conscience to obey them However I shall briefly consider what the Dr. offers to disprove the Settlement of the fore-mentioned Usurpation He tells us The Convocation allâ—dges two ways whereby a Government unjustly and wickedly begun may be throughly settled viz. By a general Submission or by Continuance I have proved above That the Convocation does not take Settlement in his Sence and that he has no reason to make use of their Authority for illegal Proceedings But granting his own Supposition I can't perceive what Service it can do him for if General Submission or Continuance without Legal Right are either of them sufficient to compleat the Notion of Settlement it will be difficult to find an Objection against the Rump's and Cromwel's Authority For 1. As for Continuance the Rump held the Government from 1648 to 1653 and Cromwel was the Supreme Power from 53 to 58 And if Five Years of Soveraign and Uncontested Power is not sufficient to make a Through Settlement I doubt the Dr. has been too quick in his late Complyance But 2 dly Though after a Continuance of this length the Rump and Cromwel by the Dr's Principles had no need of any National Consent and Submission to perfect their Settlement yet it does not appear that the Dr. has disproved their Title so much as in this point As for Submission it was generally paid them There was not so much as the Face of an Enemy in the Field Their Courts were frequented their Coin was current and their Authority undisputed in all Posts of Government but there was no National Consent because the greatest part of the Representatives were slung out of the House excepting a few Rumpers 1. How does the Dr. know but that the Rumpers had a National Consent for secluding these Members The Consent of Silence and Submission they certainly had for the Nation neither offer'd to restore these Members by Force nor shewed any publick Dislike of their being expelled 2 dly Does the Dr. think there can be no National Consent testified any other way than by the Peoples chusing a few Men from Towns and Countries to represent them If the matter stands thus the Four Monarchies had no National Consent nor any Through Settlement for there was no such things as Parliaments in those Times and Countries But before we take leave of these Rumpers the Dr. may remember that they were summoned by the King's Writs and had his Royal Assent to sit as long as they pleased If some People had such a Colour of Authority they would flourish with it at no ordinary rate 3 dly The Dr. objects against Cromwel's Parliaments That they had no National Consent c. because they were not chosen according to the Ancient Customs and Vsages of the Nation Some People will not be sorry to hear that a National Consent cannot be given by Representation unless the Representatives are legally chosen and the Ancient Customs of the Constitution observ'd I wonder how this Reason dropped from the Dr. for it overthrows the
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
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
him to the Episcopal Throne and puts the Spiritual Authority into his hands All Events are directed and determined and over-ruled by God So that it 's plain that all Elections of Schismatical and Heretical Bishops were over-ruled by Providential Appointment Besides if there was any distinction between God's Permissions and Appointments yet we ought in reason to ascribe the Advancement of Bishops to God's Decree and Councel because it 's one of the principal Acts of Providence and which has so great an Influence upon the Government of the Church and the Salvation of Mens Souls And if he decrees any Events certainly he peculiarly orders such Events as will do most good or most hurt to the Church From the Absurdity of this way of Reasoning it evidently follows that the Author to the Hebrews must be interpreted of Lawful Rulers though the distinction is not expressed And since the Scripture by undeniable Consequence teaches us not to submit to those who govern in the Church without Right we ought to conclude our Duty the same with relation to the State It 's in vain to urge that this Epistle was written after that to the Romans and therefore St. Paul could have no reference to it This Objection must vanish before those who own the New Testament written by the Holy Ghost For whatever is dictated by Inspiration must be coherent and uniform especially when Duties of a moral and unalterable Obligation are delivered So that unless the Doctor can show a disparity between Church and State such a one I mean as destroys all proportion of Reasoning from the one to the other he must grant that those Higher Powers mentioned by St. Paul are to be understood only of those who are Lawfully such I now perceive by the Doctor 's Vindication which I did not before remember that the Author of the Postscript has touched upon this Argument And since I am somewhat concerned in the Vindicator's Answer I shall beg leave of the above-mentioned Author to make a short Reply For as the Doctor has ordered the Matter a few Words will serve He says the Cases mentioned Rom. 13.1 and Heb. 13.17 are by no means Paralel And that the Apostle to the Hebrews had no reason to make any such Distinction which it was necessary for St. Paul to have done Rom. 13. if he intended to be understood only of Lawful Powers This he endeavours to prove from the Universality of the Expression Because St. Paul gives a general Charge to be subject to the Higher Powers and generally affirms that all Power is from God To this I answer That the Text to the Hebrews is as comprehensive as that to the Romans Obey them that have the rule over you is an indefinite Proposition which he knows is equivalent to a Universal St. Paul it 's true affirms all Power is from God And does not the Author to the Hebrews say with relation to Spiritual Jurisdiction that no Man takes this Honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron Besides if all Power is from God then all Spiritual Power is from him which makes way for Heretical Intruders and is a Contradiction to the 13th of the Hebrews by his own Concession But if the Words all Power are to be restrained to a particular Sense the Universality the Doctor contends for is gone If they must be confined to Temporal Powers why are they not capable of a farther Limitation Why should they not be understood only of Lawful Temporal Powers as well as the Rulers mentioned by the Author to the Hebrews though with the same extent of Expression are meant of none but those who are Lawfully ordained But the Apostle to the Hebrews knew who had the Rule over them at that Time and that they were Lawful Ministers and had he added any such Distinction i. e. expresly commanded them to submit only to Lawful Rulers he might have made the Hebrews jealous about the Title of their Church Governors and spoiled his Exhortation of obeying them In answer to this I observe First That this Inconvenience which the Doctor imagines might easily have been avoided without omitting this Distinction For the Apostle might have added a Clause that he did not question the Authority of their present Governors but only gave them a Caution not to be led away with every pretending Heretick for the future Secondly I observe that the Doctor grants that if the Apostle or the Hebrews had known that either Nullity or Forfeiture could have been truly objected against the Authority of their Spiritual Rulers there would neither have been Submission enjoyned by the one nor Obedience given by the other Thirdly I have already proved and shall do farther that the Roman Emperors at the writing of St. Paul's Epistle were Legal Princes and if so St. Paul or the Spirit he wrote by must know it And as for the Romans they had as good an Opportunity of being satisfied about their Temporal Governors as the Hebrews had about their Spiritual And therefore by the Doctor 's reason St. Paul might forbear adding the Word LAWFUL to Higher Powers because he knew the Emperor's Title to be good and for fear of making his Subjects jealous by such a Distinction But Fourthly Is the Doctor sure that the Apostle to the Hebrews knew that their Spiritual Rulers were all Lawfully constituted The Doctor concludes this Apostle to be St. Paul Now St. Paul complains that these was Schisms and Heresies in the Church in his Time yet there was false Apostles who transformed themselves into the Apostles of Christ. And is he certain the Hebrews were troubled with none of these He may please to remember that the Ebionites Gnosticks Nicolaitans and Cerinthians sprung up in the Age of the Apostles and most if not all of them in Palestine Fifthly Granting the Apostle knew the present Church of the Hebrews was free from unlawful Governors He likewise knew that other Churches were not and that even this would not be always in so good a Condition Now if the Apostle wrote for the Instruction of all Ages and Countrys and I hope the Doctor will not limit the Authority and Usefulness of the Scriptures to a particular Climate or Country he could not suppose the Church had always Lawful Pastors and by consequence the Doctor 's reason why he omitted the Distinction must necessary fail For when their Governors were unlawful they ought to think them so and not be barred up by any Scripture Expressions from a reasonable Enquiry Sixthly I would gladly know the Doctor 's reason why Title and Legality must always be expected in Sacred but not in Civil Authority Why God allows Usurpers to represent him in the State and denies this Privilege to those of the same Character in the Church And what Arguments he has to prove that the Jurisdiction of Kings ought to be more precarious and uncertain than that of Bishops 2. This
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