Settlement and by the same Logick he might have compounded it of Fire and Water If Power will govern and is a certain sign of God's Authority to what purpose are the States convened Cannot Providence dispose of Kingdoms without their Leave Or does a Divine Right depend upon humane Forms and Solemnities In short either Power implies a necessary Conveyance of Divine Right or not If not then it s no certain sign of God's Authority and so the Doctor 's Fundamental Principle is out of doors If it does then there is no need of the Submission of the Estates to perfect the Settlement But since the Doctor has call'd them together I desire to know whether they are Legal or Illegal Estates if Illegal they had better have kept at home than meet to break the Laws If they are a Legal Body let this be proved And thus at last we must be brought to debate the Legality of a Revolution which the Doctor tells us is an unnenecessary unfit and impracticable Undertaking However as the Doctor has ordered the matter the Estates can have nothing to do with it And therefore I can't imagine what he brought them in for unless it were for a Varnish It 's likely he thought naked unornamented Violence would make but an untoward Figure and that People would be too much frighted to spell out its Divine Authority For this Reason he has dressed up his Power in the habit of Justice and supplied the defect of Law with Pomp and Pageantry But he seems not well pleased because his definition of Settlement is not allowed him and would gladly hear a good Reason why the general Submission of the People can't settle the Government unless the Prince submit also I hope it 's no bad Reason to say the Submission of the Prince is necessary in this Case because no Man can lose his Right without Forfeiture or Consent Nay Forfeiture itself supposes a conditional Right and implies Consent at a remoter distance The Doctor himself acknowledges That Consent is necessary to transfer a legal Right From whence it follows That where the Princes legal Right is not transferred by his own Submission it still remains in him unless Kings are in a worse condition than other People and lose the common Privilege by being God's Representatives Now one part of the King 's Right is to govern his Subjects and if he has a Right to govern they must of Necessity be under any Obligation to obey him And that must needs be a firm Settlement which all People that make it are bound to unsettle again As for his Distinction between Legal and Divine Right I have shewn the Vanity of it already To conclude this Section If the Doctor is resolved to persist in his new Opinion That all Soveraign or Usurping Powers have God's Authority and that Subjection is due to those who have no legal Right He must look out for some other Supports for that of the Convocation and Church of England will be sure to fail him Now that the Reader may not think him unprovided with Abettors I shall shew by and by from what Quarter he may receive a considerable Assistance SECT III. The Doctor 's Arguments from Scripture and Reason examined HAving done with the Convocation I must go on with the Doctor to Scripture and Reason from both which intermix'd with each other he attempts to prove That all Soveraign Princes that is every one that has Force to crush the dissenting Party Prince Massianello not excepted who are settled in their Thrones are placed there by God and invested with his Authority That is in plain English they must be obeyed as God's Ministers though they have no legal Title and the People know they have none This in so many words he knew would sound harshly and therefore has given the Expression a turn of Advantage To come to his Proofs Which he has reduced into Propositions Among these His first Proposition That all Authority is from God is undeniable Second Proposition That Civil Power and Authority is no otherwise from God than as he gives his Power and Authority to some particular Person or Persons to govern others This is likewise granted him But what use he can make of it I cannot imagine For though no Man can govern by God's Authority unless God gives it him it does not follow from hence that God gives his Authority to Usurpers The Doctor knows God did not give it to Athalia and why other Usurpers should be in a better Condition he has not yet offered any satisfactory Reason Force and Authority though our Author confounds them have always been looked upon as Things vastly different The first is nothing but Violence and Irresistibility The other Authority is a moral Capacity to do an Action and always implies a Right So that they who pretend to God's Authority must make good their Title either by the ordinary Plea of humane Laws or by the extraordinary one of Revelation They must prove they have a Right distinct from their Power otherwise they contradict the Sense of Mankind and destroy the very Being of Morality However the Doctor thinks it plain from St. Paul and St. Peter That all those who exercise Supreme Power are set up by God and receive their Authority from him notwithstanding they have no other Title but the Sword In order to the removing this Mistake I shall endeavour to prove that by the Higher Powers the Apostle meant only Lawful Powers 1. Because we have a Rule in the Scripture to interpret the Apostle in this Sense For the Distinction between Lawful and Usurped Powers is not unknown to Scripture as the Doctor pretends 2. This Interpretation is supported by the Authority of the ancient Doctors of the Church 3. It s agreeable to the Sentiments the Generality of Mankind had of a Usurpation At and before the Apostles Time 1. We are warranted by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to conclude that by the Higher Powers are only meant those who are Lawfully Constituted as appears 1. From the Instance of Athaliah Who though she had Power and Settlement in as ample a manner as can be desired yet she had no Divine Authority nor any Right to the Peoples Obedience as is plain from the History The Doctors Solution of this difficulty from the Entail of the Crown upon Davids Family has been shown insufficient I confess the Doctor has offered something farther lately in defence of his Notion though I think much short of his point However the Learned Authour of the Postscript being particularly engaged in this Case and having managed it with so much Advantage I shall forbear to insist any farther upon it 2. Another Argument from Scripture that by the Higher Powers are meant only Lawful ones May be taken from 1 Pet. 2. v. 14. The next verse to that which the Doctor Quotes for a contrary Opinion In which place the
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
before dispersed in several Offices of State were annexed to the Imperial Dignity The Emperors used to be Consuls Tribunes of the People High-Priests Censors and out of the Iurisdiction of the City they are called Proconsuls and are Legibus Soluti i. e. above the Punishment of the Laws Now if the Senate and People who had the Right to dispose of the Roman Government resigned themselves and their Authority into the Emperor's hands what should hinder the Title of these Princes from being unquestionable Nothing can be plainer than that as Bodin affirms The People may give away all their Right to govern if they please And adds agreeably to the foregoing Testimonies that the Lex Regia was understood in this Sense This is so evident that the Doctor himself is forced to confess it though in lame imperfect Language The Emperors he grants did gain some kind of Consent from the Senate And if their Consent was once gained it 's to no purpose to Object the indirect Methods of obtaining it for allowing it was extorted by Fear or Flattery or other Arts this is not sufficient to null the translated Authority That when once resigned is past recall It being than too late to plead that a Man was wheedled or frighted out of his Consent This the Doctor very well understood and therefore tells us that the Romans themselves were great Usurpers and therefore I suppose had no Right to translate But this Objection I have already answered in the Dispute concerning the Convocation-Book And since the then present Powers were Legal Powers the Apostles Direction was very significant to Christians of other Ages from which they ought by parity of Reason to conclude it was their Duty to submit to none but Lawful Governors What he urges from Scripture of the Jews being bound to submit to the four Monarchys has been considered in the foregoing Section As for his saying they were Manifest Usurpations and yet set up by the Council and Decree of God and foretold by a Prophetick Spirit This comes short of the Case unless he has any Prophesies to produce in behalf of the Revolution Besides his Argument proves too much which is a sign it 's of kin to the Emperor's Titles stark nought For our Blessed Saviour's Passion was decreed by the Counsel of God and foretold by Prophecy and yet I conceive the Doctor is not so hardy as to affirm the Iews and Romans had a Divine Right to crucify him But we have no Example in Scripture that any People were ever blamed for submiting to the present Powers whatever the Usurpations were To this it may be Answered 1. There are a great many Actions in the History of the Scriptures unquestionably unlawful which notwithstanding are mentioned without any Censure upon them Thus neither Noah nor Lot are blamed for their Intemperance nor Rebeckah for teaching Iacob to gain his Father's Blessing by Deceit And to come nearer the point Absalom is not directly blamed for Rebelling against David and will the Doctor conclude from hence that lie did well in it The Reason why the Scripture does not condemn every irregular practice is because it supposes Men endowed with Principles of Natural Religion and Morality which teach them to distinguish between Good and Evil and that they are to take their Measures of Virtue and Vice from the Rules of Reason and Revelation not from Precedent and Example 2. We may Observe that in the Usurpation's upon the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes it was the Custom of the Usurpers to destroy the Family of their Predecessor And when there is no Competition from a Legal Claim Possession is a good Title And therefore it 's no wonder the Israelites were not blamed for submitting to the present Powers for in that Case they were Legally Established And as for the House of David it was never set aside by Usurpation till the Time of Athaliah Now after Iehoiada had discovered that their Legal Soveraign Ioash was living I desire to know of the Doctor whether the Iews were bound to submit to Athaliahs Government or not If he says yes He not only condemns Iehoiada for Deposing Athaliah but makes the Divine Entail upon Davids Family upon which he lays so much stress signify nothing If he says no he gives up the Argument For then we have undoubted Principles of Scripture which condemn a Submission to Usurpation which are much safer Rules than Examples for Conscience to rely upon The Doctor proceeds to prove that Obedience is due to Usurpers when they are seized of the Administration of the Government from our Saviours Answer to the Pharisees and Herodians concerning Tribute Mony Render to Caesar the Things which are Caesar's Before I give a distinct Reply to this Objection it will not be improper to consider the occasion of the Text Now we are to observe that the Pharisees and Herodians enquired of the Lawfulness of paying Tribute to Caesar not out of a desire of Instruction from our Saviour but to entrap him They proposed an ensnaring Question concerning Tribute a plain Catagorical Answer to which they knew must of necessity provoke either the Roman or the Pharisees Party against him This our Blessed Saviour calls an Hypocritical tempting of him And since the Time of his Passion was not yet come we may conclude he intended to avoid the danger of the Question not by declining it but by giving an Answer of an Obscure and uncertain Sense Upon which no Charge could be grounded because of its Ambiguity This the Proposers well understood They knew they could not fix any determinate meaning upon our Saviour's Words which made them Marvel at the prudence of his Answer and leave him Whereas had he plainly resolved the Question either way they had gained their intended advantage upon him And since there was a designed obscurity in our Savior's Answer as being most proper to secure himself and to discourage the Malice of those who came to entangle him it 's unreasonable to draw any Conclusions about Government from thence especially such which not only contradict other plain places of Scripture but are repugnant to the Notions of common Justice and the sense of Mankind Having premised this I Answer 1. That the Doctor by this Argument of Tribute should have come in to the Revolution when the new Money was first Coyned as he has been told already 2. Caesar as I have proved was the Lawful Prince of Iudea and the right Owners of the Soveraignty as well as the Jewish Nation had submitted to him And since he was not only possessed of the Government but of the Title to Govern the Right of Coinage belonged to him and when this Prerogative of Royalty was produced by the Pharisees it 's no wonder to find his Right to Tribute inferred from thence The Doctor urges That our Saviour's Argument relies wholly on the Possession of Power And if this be a good Reason it 's good in