require since I am not yet satisfied that any Settlement of an Usurper though it be in the highest Degree can confer any Authority upon him or cause any Obedience of the Subjects to become due to him merely upon that account But if any Man can prove That a thorough Settlement of an Usurper does of it self and upon its own Account before the Decease or Cession of the Rightful King and his Heirs entitle him to the Crown I will give him no Trouble to dispute with me about the Degrees of Settlement But since the Doctor supposes P. 17. That the Generality of the Nation have submitted to such a Prince and have placed him on the Throne and put the whole Power of the Kingdom into his hands and says expresly That he is indeed King while he administers the Regal Power And since he has told us before That it is impossible there should be a wrong King I cannot see why he should be so solicitous to define the Degrees of Submission and not think him throughly enough settled to have Right to an intire Allegiance while the dispossest Prince has such a formidable Power as makes the Event very doubtful For if God have once made him King as by the Doctor 's Supposition he has then by the same Supposition the Subjects owe him an intire Allegiance to day though they were sure that the dispossest Prince would recover his Kingdom of him to morrow For he that has once God's Authority has a Right to our Allegiance from the first to the last hours he has it why therefore may not Subjects obey him as their King now who perhaps may not be their King a while hence Nay though they were certain that his Royal Authority were to be taken from him in never so short a time yet this could make him have never the less Right to their Obedience while his Authority lasts If he be indeed King P. 8. he must be Rightful King with respect to God for all Kings are equally rightful with respect to him P. 14. and it is impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no. So that if he be King as the Doctor supposes he is Rightful King and may challenge the Allegiance of the Subjects by Vertue of God's Authority whatever Forces the dispossest Prince may yet have and therefore either he is now thoroughly settled or a thorough Settlement is not necessary to the obtaining God's Authority and when he is once King there can be no Reason why the Allegiance of the Subjects should in any measure be abated for any Apprehensions of Danger he may be in from the late Legal Possessors Arms. In the Fourth Section the Doctor proceeds to confirm his Doctrine by Arguments and to answer Objections His Arguments are 1. From Scripture 2. From Reason 1. From Scripture Pag. 19. His first Argument is from Rom. 13. 1 2. Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers for all Power is of God The Powers that be are ordained of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation He observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power or Authority which is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it signifies Force is sometimes used in the same sense with it and that these two words are sometimes used promiscuously in Scripture and that therefore unless there were some distinction set down by the Apostle in express words whereby we might know that by it in this place are to be understood only Rightful Powers we are to understand the word in its full Latitude so as to comprehend Usurpers likewise For the Scripture neither in this nor any other place distinguishing between Lawful Kings and Unlawful we are not to limit the signification of the words so as to exclude Usurpers from a Right to the Duties enjoyned in the Text or to say that they are not ordained of God 1. But if the various signification of words necessarily require that there be some express limitation added to determine them to one particular sense or if every word must be taken in the utmost Latitude of its signification unless it be so limitted we shall be at a great loss to know how to make sense of most Authors or to make them consistent with themselves For the same words often have opposite and quite contrary significations as they are differrently used and applied by the same Authors and yet they seldom give notice when they use them in one sense and when in another but think it sufficient that the senfe be limitted and determined by the subject to which they are applied or by the coherence and connexion which they have with the rest of the discourse And if the Acceptation of a word be still doubtful the most likely way to find it out is to examine in what sense the Author most commonly uses the same word But unless there be an evident Reason to the contrary every word is to be taken in its proper or in its usual sense for there needs no Reason to be given why a word should be understood properly or as it uses to be understood but he that will understand a word in an improper or unusual signification is obliged to produce his Reason for it because every word is supposed to retain its first and most genuine sense unless it be most frequently used Metaphorically and then it must be taken in its most usual signification unless it can be shewn that it is applied to another meaning than is commonly intended by it When we read in Scripture * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lak 22.53 of the Powers of darkness of the God of this World †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rev. 13.2 and of the Power and Seat or Throne and great Authority which the Dragon gave the Beast in the Revelations the words are intelligible though taken very improperly without any express limitation And when St. Paul says Let every soul be subject to the higher powers c. We are to understand only Rightful Powers unless it can be shewn that any other are ordained of God For in its primary and natural signification and in its common use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be acknowledged to mean only Just and Lawful Authority and this every Man must understand by it unless the context determin the contrary which it cannot do here for here is no mention of any Powers but those which are ordained of God In some other places of Scripture it plainly appears from the Text it self that the word is used improperly and contrary to its ordinary signification but here the Doctor seems not to pretend any such thing but only argues that because it is used in an uncommon sense in some other places of Scripture it must be taken so in this because St. Paul makes no exception against Kings who exercise Civil Government without a Legal Title to it Whereas we
ought to conclude on the other side that since the Apostle gives no intimation that he uses the word in an improper and unusual sense therefore we are to understand it only of those who have legal Titles and the rest are excepted against plainly enough because they are not mentioned nor is the least intimation given of them when in the other places of Scripture it is manifest at first sight that the word is applied to a different sense than that which it commonly has in Scripture or in any other Book 2. If the Sriptures make no distinction between Kings who have a Right Title and those that are Usurpers who have only the Name and Title of Kings it is because there needs no other distinction than the Reason of the thing which sufficiently declares the difference The Scripture had never declared any distinction of Husbands yet the Woman of Samaria well enough understood that there must be one and therefore replied that she had no Husband though she had one who was called so and our Saviour answers her Thou hast well said I have no husband for thou hast had five husbands and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband in that thou saidst truly John 4.17 18. And if it should now be asked any Man who is not prepossessed with the Notion of a thorough Settlement whether St. Paul by the higher Powers ordained of God meant Rightful Kings only or Usurpers likewise he would scarce be able for some time to imagine what reason there could be to doubt whether Rightful Kings only were meant by those expressions or to conceive what interest Usurpers could have in that Text. And this Dr. Sherlock seems to own Pref. when he says That the Apprehensions of novelty and singularity had cramped his freedom and liberty of thinking Pag. 3. and that his Scheme of Government may startle some Men at first before they have well consider'd it So that it is evident that this Interpretation is a Novelty and Singularity which will startle most Men and that this Text in its most plain and obvious sense is to be understood of Rightful Kings and if others are to be comprehended in it this must be proved not from the words themselves but from other Reasons for the words do not naturally include them the utmost that can be said is that they may possibly comprehend them because they are not always used in a strict sense but that they are not so used here is the thing to be proved if usurped Powers are ordained of God the Text plainly commands subjection to them but if they be not ordained of him it as plainly commands subjection to Rightful Kings in opposition to them And it cannot be concluded from the different sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon different occasions that Usurpers are ordained of God but it must be first proved that they are ordained of him and then and not before it must be allowed that the signification of that word i◠to be so extended in the Text as to be understood of them as well as of other Kings 3. Besides if this Argument from the Scriptures making no distinction between Kings who have a Legal Title and those who have none prove any thing it must prove too much to make at all to this purpose For the Scripture makes no distinction between Kings who have both a Legal and a Divine Right and those who have neither but are Usurpers both against God and Man Thus Abimelech is stiled King Judg 9. without any manner distinction or explication though he was set up not only by the most wicked and bloody means but in opposition to the Authority of God himself who then governed the People of Israel by raising them up Judges to Deliver and to Rule over them and for this Reason when they would have made Gideon King he rejected it as a thing which would be agreat offence against God and a notorious contempt of him Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon rule thou over us both thou and thy son and thy sons son also for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian And Gideon said unto them I will not rule over you the Lord shall rule over you Judg. 8.22 23. And since that God was afterwards so displeased with the Children of Israel for desiring a King and said that in asking a King they had rejected him that he should not reign over them 1 Sam. 8.7 The People of Shechem in setting up a King of their own chusing without leave from God or asking counsel of him must be guilty of a much greater affront against God for they rejected him in a more insolent and provoking manner not contenting themselves with those whom God used to raise up for them and not regarding his choice Convoc Ch. 13. Can. 1 or expecting his pleasure in it they presumed to chuse them a Prince of their own Abimelech therefore could be King by no Authority from God but by his Permission only and yet the Scripture gives the Title of King to him as well as to Saul and David because he was in full Power and exercised all outward Acts of Supreme Authority though he had really no Authority but by Force only and fuccess in his wickedness assumed to himself the name of King Isbbosheth likewise was set up by Abner against David whom God had nominated and caused to be anointed King to reign over all Sauls Dominions after his death yet the Scripture says in the same words in which it speaks of all other Kings that Ishbosheth was made King over all Israel and that he reigned two years 2 Sam. 2.9 10. And Athaliah is said to have reigned over the Land six years 2 Kings 11.1 tho she had no manner of Right either from God or Man as the Doctor himself confesses and maintains because Joash was alive on whom God had entailed the Crown as being descended from David She is notwithstanding said to have reigned over the land in the same terms that are used in Scripture concerning the most Rightful Kings nominated and appointed by God himself The examples then of Abimelech Ishbosheth and Athaliah abundantly shew that Usurpers tho' they exercise the Supreme Authority and are in full Possession of it are not therefore the ordinance of God and that it is not impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no for Abimelech and Ishbosheth were Kings and Athaliah was Queen without any Authority at all and yet not whether God would or no but by his Permission And from hence it is evident that the word King or Queen doth not always signifie in Scripture a Person invested with God's Authority though it be used without distinction and that the sense of the same words in particular places of Scripture must be known not always from any distinction annexed to them but from the Circumstances and Reasons of things
For tho they were at first introduced by very wicked Practices yet God having vouchsafed to establish them and to invest them with his own Authority they must be obeyed as his Ordinance These things thus stated and cleared the Convocation proceeds to the remaining course of the Jewish History Ch. 29. Can. 29. and shews that the Jews owed Allegiance to the Kings of Persia after their return from Babylon who still continued by God's Appointment a supreme Authority over them And accordingly Jaddus the High Priest when Alexander required him to assist him in his Wars and become Tributary to him returned this Answer Ch. 30. Can. 30. that he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to Darius which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius liv'd But when Alexander 's Authority was setled amongst them the Case was altered Ch. 31. Can. 31. and they then owed him the same Subjection that before they had owed Darius After Alexander's Death the Jews became again a free People he leaving behind him no Successor Ch. 31. but they were miserably oppressed by the bordering Kings of Egypt and Syria especially by Antiochus Epiphanes whose Invasion and Government was most unjust and Tyrannical until Mattathias moved with the monstrous Cruelty and Tyranny of the said Antiochus made open Resistance the Government of that Tyrant being not then either generally received by Submission or setled by Continuance The great disorders amongst the Priests brought many and grievous Afflictions upon the Jews both under the Government of the Grecians and of the Maccabees till at last Pompty took Jerusalem by the Assistance of Hircanus who had been displaced from the High Priesthood Ch. 32 33 34. Can. 32 33 34. his younger Brother Aristobulus getting into his room And tho Hircanus did very wickedly in taking this occasion to revenge himself of his Brother by enslaving his Country yet when the Jews had submitted to the Romans and had yielded themselves up to their Government they were utterly inexcusable in those Rebellions which they afterwards raised and which ended in their own Destruction Having thus far spoken of that mild and moderate Form of Civil Government which God at first establisht throughout the World Ch. 35. Can. 35. and afterwards preserved in some measure amongst the Jews till they by their perverseness and Rebellions brought utter ruin upon themselves they say lastly that Christ is the universal Lord and Governor of the whole Earth and the orders of the several particular Kingdoms and Governments of it as it may best conduce to the designs of his Wisdom and Goodness in the Government of the whole World which is but one universal Kingdom under him The Substance then of what the Convocation says is this First Christ as Creator and Governor of the World established a mild and temperate and fatherly Government which was to continue throughout all Ages in all Parts of the World but the Wickedness of men soon introduced other degenerate Forms either Tyrannical or Popular and these of several Sorts and Denominations Democratical Aristocratical c. 2. God calling Abraham out of Chaldea into Canaan and choosing his Posterity for his peculiar People continued this mild and Paternal Government amongst them and upon all Occasions did himself appoint their chief Governors till at last he ordained that the Government should be Hereditary and entailed it upon David's Posterity so that the Jews were governed all along after that original Form of Paternal Government which God instituted at the first Creation of Mankind and then again confirm'd after the Flood though this Form of Government was much defaced and diminished among the Jews in succeeding times by the great Abuses that crept in among them And in this Government First the Power was solely from God not depending upon the consent either of the Priests or People nor deriving any Authority from any Act of theirs Secondly their Kings had supreme Authority over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil Thirdly their Power was irresistable and they were accountable to God only for it But against this several things might be objected from Examples among the Jews which they answer by shewing that in those instances God's particular Warrant and Commission had been revealed as in the Case of Ahud and Jehu or that his Will and Command was fulfilled in their maintaining that Hereditary Succession which he had appointed by deposing an Usurper and setting up the Rightful Heir and this was what Jehoiada did 3. As for other degenerate sorts of Government though they ought not to have been introduced yet when by never so sinful Arts and Practices by Usurpations from abroad or by Factions and Rebellions at home they had any where been throughly setled as the Governments of Babylon and Egypt and Rome were they must be submitted to because where the Original Paternal Government was extinct the Authority thereby devolved upon the Possessors of the supreme Power in these degenerate Forms whether they were Tyrannical or Republican because the supreme Governour of the World would not suffer so great a Part of Mankind to be without any rightful Government for so long a time and yet so they must be unless he either authorize these degenerate Forms upon the Extinction of the Paternal Original Government or restore it by an over-ruling Providence 4. When the Jews themselves were by God's Judgment upon them for their Sins placed under such degenerate kinds of Government they were to pay the same Submission to those Governors that they did to their own Kings they might not depart out of Egypt without Pharaoh's leave first obtained unless God would have warranted them to do it by his express Direction and Command they must not submit to Alexander whilst Darius lived and no Oppression of the Romans was a sufficient excuse for their rebelling against them This being the Sense of the Convocation it will not be difficult to understand what they mean by a thorough Settlement Their Words are these And when Ch. 28. having attained their ungodly Desires whether ambitious Kings by bringing any Country into their Subjection or disloyal Subjects by their Rebellious rising against their natural Sovereigns they have established any of the said degenerate Forms of Government amongst their People the Authority either so unjustly gotten or wrung by Force from the True and Lawful Possessor being always God's Authority and therefore receiving no Impeachment by the Wickedness of those that have it is ever when any such Alterations are throughly setled to be reverenced and obeyed c. These Words being an inference from the Particulars before related in this Chapter we must judg of them from the occasion and design of the whole Chapter and from the particular instances alledged in it First the design of the Chapter is to shew what Obedience is due to Kings or other supreme Magistrates where that mild and temperate Government which had been the Subject of
gave him license and Authority to do it Opportunity we say makes a Thief and it makes a Rebel and it makes a Murtherer No men can do any Wickedness which he has no opportunity of doing and if the Providence of God which puts such opportunities into mens hands justifies the wickedness they commit no man can be chargeable with any guilt whatever he does and certainly opportunity will as soon justifie any other sin as Rebellion and the Murther of Princes We are to learn our Duty from the Law of God not from his Providence at least this must be a setled Principle that the Providence of God will never justifie any Action which his Law forbids There is another Objection against what the Apostle affirms p. 127. that there is no Power but of God the Powers that be are ordained of God For is the Power of Victorious Rebels and Usurpers from God Did Oliver Cromwel receive his Power from God then it seems it was unlawful to resist him too or to conspire against him Then all those Loyal Subjects who refused to submit when he had got the Power in his hand were Rebels and Traitors To this I answer that the most prosperous Rebel is not the Higher Powers while our Natural Prince to whom we owe Obedience and Subjection is in being And therefore though such men may get the Power into their hands by God's Permission yet not by God's Ordinance and he who resists them does not resist the Ordinance of God but the Usurpations of men In Hereditary Kingdoms the King never dies but the same Minute that the Natural Person of one King dies the Crown descends upon the next of Blood and therefore he who rebelleth against the Father and murthers him continues a Rebel in the Reign of the Son which commences with his Fathers Death It is otherwise indeed where none can pretend a greater Right to the Crown than the Usurper for there possession of Power seems to give a right Thus many of the Roman Emperors came to the Crown by very ill means but when they were possest of it they were the Higher Powers for the Crown did not descend by Inheritance for the possession of Supreme and Sovereign Power is Title enough where there is no better Title to oppose against it c. But it was otherwise in the Kingdom of Judah P. 131. which God himself had intailed on David's Family as appears from the Example of Joash who was concealed by his Aunt Jehosheba and hid in the House of the Lord for six years During this time Athaliah Reigned and had the whole power of Government in her hands but yet this did not make her a Sovereign and irresistable Prince because Joash the Son of Ahaziah the right Heir of the Crown was yet alive And therefore in the Seventh Year Jehoiada the Priest set Joash upon the Throne and slew Athaliah and was guilty of no Treason or Rebellion in doing so 2 Kings 11. Which shews That no Usurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of a Natural Prince Such Usurpers though they have the possession of the Supreme Power yet they have no Right to it and though God for wise Reasons may sometimes permit such Usurpations yet while his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from Violence he secures their Title too As it was in Nebuchadnezzar's Vision The Tree is cut down but the stump of the Roots is left in the Earth The Kingdom shall be sure to them after that they shall know that the Heavens do rule Dan. 4.26 Hitherto I had written before Dr. Sherlock's Book was published and upon the most impartial consideration of it can now find no cause to change my Opinion but having proceeded thus far I shall as exactly as I can examine all that relates to this matter in his Book which I could not foresee and have not already given an account of His Two first Sections I cannot think my self much concerned about having already given both the full State of the Case and the plain meaning of the Convocation One thing indeed I omitted which he remarks in the Second Section He observes That whereas in the 30th Chapter it is said P. 8. That Jaddus returned Answer to Alexander That he might not lawfully violate his Oath of true Allegiance to Darius whilst Darius lived the Convocation in the Canon following it takes no notice that he owed Allegiance to Darius during the Life of that King And it is plain says he that Jaddus himself could mean no more by it than that he could not make a voluntary Dedition to Alexander not that he never could submit to him till Darius was dead for when he was in Alexander 's power he made no scruple to submit to him But I think it is not much material whether they mention this in the Canon or no since they set it down in the foregoing Chapter and then approve of the Behaviour and Conduct of Jaddus in the Canon For if this part of Jaddus's Answer which was the most considerable thing in it had been disliked by them it must have been excepted but when they give a general Approbation of what Jaddus did and except against no Particulars they must be supposed to approve of it in all its Circumstances before set down in the Chapter at least they must approve of that which was the principal thing in Jaddus's Answer for when the thing that Alexander required of him was to bear Arms himself against Darius or to solicite others thereunto and Jaddus answered That he might not do it because he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to Darius which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius lived and the Convocation in their Canon determine That if any man affirm that having so sworn he might have done it he doth greatly err they can mean no less in the Canon than they expressed in the Chapter That he might not lawfully violate his Oath of true Allegiance to Darius whilst Darius lived And the Doctor doth not deny that they approved of these words in the sense in which Jaddus meant them and that Jaddus meant them in the strictest sense is evident for the words will admit of no Latitude and what Jaddus afterwards did was by an immediate Direction from Heaven and therefore it can be no Argument that Jaddus had any thoughts of submitting to Alexander whilst Darius lived when he sent that Message but on the contrary That he was resolved not to have submitted and ought not to have done it unless a Revelation had warranted him to do it and thereby absolved him from his Oath to Darius In his Third Section the Doctor lays down some Propositions upon which his whole Discourse depends and indeed to grant him these Propositions is to give up the Cause to him for they plainly imply and suppose the whole Question without any more to do His First Proposition is That all Civil Power and Authority