Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostle_n	doctrine_n	see_v	2,358	5	3.4477	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65954	An answer to Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of The case of allegiance due to sovereign powers which he made in reply to an answer to a late pamphlet, intituled, Obedience and submission to the present government, demonstrated from Bishop Overal's convocation-book : with a postscript, in answer to Dr. Sherlock's Case of allegiance, &c. / by the same author.	Wagstaffe, Thomas, 1645-1712.	1692 (1692)	Wing W205; ESTC R39742	234,691	160

a Settlement but the inference even with respect to his own notion is the same for he owns that it is not a duty to obey a Person in Possession of the Throne 'till he is thoroughly setled in his sense And that is till then he is no King for he is a King of Clouts whom no body is bound to obey so that either way it is not God's setting up or setting upon the Throne that denominates a King but that joyn'd with other Circumstances and the Question between us is Whether that is the Consent of the States and People or the Acquisition of Right The Dr. says If I will allow the dispossessed Kings to be Legal Kings he wonders how I should fansie that those Kings who dispossess the Rightful Kings and place themselves in their Thrones should in my sense be Legal and Rightful Kings too And yet I had told him how as plain as I could speak by the Death or Cession of those dispossessed Kings And the Dr. if he please may wonder still but it had been as well if he had answer'd it I now come to his Testimony from the New Testament Rom. 13.1 2. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers Vindic. p. 52. for all power is of God c. To this I said that by Powers the Dr. understands Vsurped as well as Lawful Powers Postscr p. 12. And his Reason is because the Scripture makes no distinction between Kings and Vsurpers And to these the Dr. adds those words he had mention'd in his Case of Allegiance between Kings whom we must and whom we must not obey And then tells me these last words I conceal because they spoil all my Argument And if they do so I will confess it was ill done to conceal them But if they do not 't is humorsome and captious to complain of it And let us see his Reason For saith he he adds I thought the Case of Athaliah had been a Distinction and had this precept been given in those days I wonder whether any body would have doubted of whom it ought to be understood of Athaliah or Joash Very well this was my Argument but how comes this to be spoyl'd by those last words That I cannot tell and it may be the Dr. will tell me in his next But at present he replys There was a distinction between Athaliah and Joash that she was an Vsurper and he a Rightful King and the Dr. makes a Distinction between an Vsurper and a Rightful King with respect to their Vsurpation and their Right But saith he this I say the Scripture makes no distinction between a Rightful King and an Vsurper with respect to the obedience of Subjects while they are setled in the Throne No! What does he think of setting up Joash when out of possession and deposing Athaliah when in possession This I think is a distinction between a Rightful King and an Usurper with respect to the obedience of Subjects And with the Drs. leave I am apt to believe that Killing on the one hand and Crowning and Allegiance on the other hand is a considerable distinction in that respect What follows that in reference to this the Case of Athaliah is no Example of such a distinction because the Jews might and did lawfully submit to her and that she was afterwards depos'd was owing to the Divine Entail This hath been urged and answered before and it is not at all to the Drs. purpose now For the Question here is only whether there be such a distinction in Scripture with respect to the Subject's Obedience And if the setting up Joash and the deposing and slaying Athaliah be not a Distinction there is no such thing as a Distinction in the World The Dr. adds Had this Law been given to the Jews at that time while Joash was conceal'd it must have been expounded of Athaliah who had possession of the Throne when Joash was known and anointed it must have been expounded of him as having a Divine Right to the Throne of Judah That is to say this Law would have been expounded of the Usurper if there be no Right Heir or none known but when the Right Heir is known it is to be interpreted of him and not of the Usurper As if any body could think this Law would have been expounded of Joash if he had not been living or had not been thought to have been living But what I pray has this Concealment to do in the matter The Distinction is not between the Concealment of the one and the Possession of the other but between Right and Vsurpation and both visible between Joash out of Possession and Athaliah in Possession of the Throne And here is the Question of whom ought this Precept to be understood of Athaliah or Joash if of Athaliah then she was ordain'd of God and to resist her had been to receive Damnation which was plainly false for she was resisted and killed and both justify'd Besides if it was to be understood of her then it could not be understood of Joash for it cannot be interpreted of Two Competitors But if it must be understood of Joash then a Rightful Prince out of Possession is the Higher Powers in the sense of this Text and an Usurper in Possession is not And then the whole Reason of the Drs. Argument fails then the Powers that be may be the Rightful Powers out of Possession in the intention and according to the direction of that Text. And then there is a Distinction in Scripture between Kings whom we must obey and Usurpers the Dr. calls them Kings whom we must not obey which is the thing to be proved I proceeded But saith the Dr. if the Apostle had intended such a Distinction he ought to have said it in express words and why so I pray The Dr. replys I gave him a reason for it which he is pleased to conceal why should we think the Apostle here intends a distinction unknown in Scripture But sure I did not conceal this for I had spoken to it just before as much as I thought needful and I did not see any reason to repeat it again The Dr. adds he said had there been any such Rule before given to submit to lawful Powers but not to submit to Vsurpers there had been some pretence of understanding St. Paul's all power of all Legal Power but there being nothing like this any where else in Scripture If he had intended any such distinction he ought to have said it in express words or else no body could reasonably have understood him to intend this Precept of Subjection to the higher powers only of Powers that had a Legal Right Now I cannot tell why the Dr. should say I conceal'd this for I answer'd it and that I think is not concealing it I had said are there not general Rules about right and wrong which extend to all Cases and Persons And if they extend to all Cases and Persons then there are Rules in

have not the Peoples consent And as he says Why should we think the Apostle here intends a distinction unknown in Scripture Case of All. p. 20. The Doctor to prove his Exposition argues thus When the Apostle says All power is of God there is no reason to confine this to all legal Powers unless it were evidently the Doctrine of Scripture that Usurped Powers are not of God which is so far from being true that the contrary is evident And this is a reason directly against all that he says here When the Apostle says All Power is of God there is no reason to confine this to all Powers consented to by the People unless it were evidently the Doctrine of the Scripture that Powers without the consent of the people are not of God which is so far from being true that the contrary is evident And the consequence is That this Precept is to be interpreted of all Usurpers or of none and the Dr. must interpret it of the Rump and Cromwel or discharge his Argument as insufficient And let the Dr. at his leisure shew me where in Scripture All Power and the Present Powers and the obedience to them is limited to a national Consent or where there is such a distinction that the higher Powers by the consent of the People ought to be obey'd and the higher Powers without their consent may not if he will not undertake it all his Argument from a national consent signifies nothing if he will he must renounce with a witness But the truth is This business of the Peoples Consent seems to me to be put in for no other end but to stop the mouth of an Objection which the Dr. foresaw would open wide upon him but does not at all concern his Hypothesis which stands or falls without any manner of relation to it For how come the People to have any share in God's Providence in setting up Kings or what have they to do with Gods Authority or how comes it to pass that their consent makes it a duty to obey God's Authority and their dissent makes it no duty Those men indeed that say that all Power is originally in the People and that they may resume it and dispose it as they please for them to say that the consent of a People settles a Government or makes it is agreeable enough to their Principles and the People derive to the persons governing the Authority that is originally in themselves But for them that maintain it as a Principle that all sovereign Authority is of God to talk of the Peoples consent as necessary to make Obedience a duty to that Authority is a contradiction and it is a fine Doctrine to say that the Authority is deriv'd from God but the Obedience to it is deriv'd from the Peoples own consent And this it seems was the case here for the Dr. tells us with respect to those Usurpations that it was lawful to submit to them tho they were not bound in conscience to do it Now if it was lawful for them to submit and become Subjects to those Usurpations then they had God's Authority for it is not lawful to become Subjects to persons who have not God's Authority if they were not bound in Conscience then their obedience to God's Authority depended purely upon their own consent And that is God by his Providence gives the Usurpers Authority and the People by their Consent make it a duty to obey it And so the matter is divided the Authority of Government is from God and the duty of the People from themselves If the Dr. hath a mind to deliver his present Argument from these consequences let him give some other account of the Peoples consent and I am afraid it must come to one of these two either that Usurpers have not God's Authority or if they have then the Peoples consent is not necessary to make obedience a duty if the first then his Hypothesis and most part of his two books signifie nothing if the last then all that he says on the present head signifies as little 2. Those Usurpations might be setled according to the Doctor 's Notion of a Settlement notwithstanding what he hath oppos'd to the contrary Now it will be needless to repeat the Doctor 's Notion of a Settlement at length He does not think convenient to insist upon it himself He takes sanctuary only in one small branch of it The submission or consent of the great Body of the Nation And methinks since the Dr. insists so much upon it he should have given us some small proof or if that could not be had something like a proof that the Peoples Consent is included in the Notion of a Settlement or that a setled Government to which God annexes his Authority by plain construction means the Peoples consent All the rest of the Branches for this same thorough Settlement according to him is a great composition viz. The whole administration of Government Case of All. p. 9. the whole power of the Nation all things done in his name and by his Authority These the Dr. hath taken great care of and all his Arguments are one way or other a proof of But this of the Peoples Consent must shift for it self if it will serve to answer an Objection well and good but for proving it no matter for that tho it seems as the Dr. now states the matter it is not one branch but the chief nay for any thing I can see it is all the Settlement or however it is so essential to it that all the rest are nothing wi hout it Possession of the Throne by providence T●e whole administration of the Government and the Power of the Nation all things being acted in the Usurper name and by his Authority All these and I know not how much more signifie nothing at all with respect to the duty of Obedience without the Peoples Consent and the Dr. does not deny but Cromwell had all this and whether he had the Peoples Consent we come now to examine Now what the Dr. means by the Peoples Consent we have in pag. 69. Vind. p. 69. Case of All. p. 47. for having in his Case of Alleg expressed this by National Consent National Act and the Representatives of the Nation it was answer'd As to the National Consent in Parliament that is part of the Constitution but what is that to Usurpation which may as well usurp upon all branches as upon one He replies I do not urge a National Consent in Parliame t consider'd as part of the Constitution but barely consider'd as a N●tional Consent for a National Consent and Submission is necessary to the Settlement of any new Government and this must be declared by one means or other And according to this account Cromwell had the Consent of the great body of the Nation to his Government by other Acts virtually declaring it and by a formal and express Consent so far as Representatives illegally